IN the Australian Senate the vote of one senator, Steve Fielding, may be important for the passage of the government’s cap and trade legislation, also known as the emission trading scheme.
On Monday Senator Fielding had a meeting with the Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, and asked the following questions so he can make an informed decision on whether or not an emissions trading scheme is the best course of action for Australia to take to deal with climate change and global warming.
QUESTION 1.
Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period (see Fig. 1)?
If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
QUESTION 2.
Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) was not unusual in either rate or magnitude as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history (Fig. 2a, 2b)?
If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
QUESTION 3.
Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were followed by 10 years of stasis and cooling. (Fig. 3)?
If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy making?
The figures can be viewed here: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/what_steve_asked_penny/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Now that I’ve read Fielding’s “real” questions, I realize that Luke’s answers in the previous thread were just answers to his own pseudo questions. I can at least give him partial credit for attempting to answer, even though they were meaningless to the original set. Just more smoke and mirrors from Lil Luke.
Just answer the questions as presented. Impress us! The comedy relief gets tiresome.
Hardly CoRev – Jen had written the questions before but like all denialist scum you only read what you wanted. As I said – what a trivial set of non-questions – the Feds should have smote the enemy sceptic borg a mighty blow. Should have brought the CSIRO boys into finish them off instead of deploying science manager types.
Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period (see Fig. 1)?
please go back to school and ask your nmath teacher about starting a trendline with an outlier, Mr Fielding
If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions;
you might want to talk to your old physics teacher as well. he can explain to you that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
apart from that, this question is seriously lacking logic. (why if A can be caused by B can it this time not be caused by C?
ps: fig 2a and 2b are NOT global proxies… those teachers will despair, Mr Fielding.
Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008,
please point out, which of those computer models projected a STEADY temperature increase over 18 years:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/trends2000_2020.jpg
whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were followed by 10 years of stasis and cooling. (Fig. 3)?
the 10 years 1999 to 2008 show WARMING. not cooling. are you cherry picking 1998 again? then please keep your numbers straight and up to date!
Q1.
Global temperature has not “cooled” since 1998.
That’s a piece of denialist stupidity that been’s patiently explained a 1000 times.
It takes deliberate obtuseness to re-state this.
Q2.
Complete mis-representation. As usual.
These papers stress the highly important point that these previous changes occured before the emergence of modern human agriculture. It’s these very changes noted in the paleo-climatic record that make the climate scientists extremley worried about climate change – small changes (oh, say, like pouring large quantities of CO2 into the air) can lead to strong positive feedbacks with resultant sudden shifts in climatic patterns.
The denialist idiots try to argue precisely the reverse.
Q3.
A rehash of Q1, with the addition of that other piece of deliberate (I hope) obtuseness, that a prediction of increasing temperaures means that each year must be warmer than the previous year. Criminal stupidity. (to cap it off, the source of the graphs – Andrew Bolts blog).
Trends. Climate.
To think, Jennifer keeps banging on about Huxley and scepticism, but keeps on dishing out the most cringe-worthy credulity imaginable (eg. the ‘new law of physics’).
Simple and correct answers all, Sod, and I’m sure they gave him that and more. He wasn’t convinced, as we all knew he wouldn’t be before he even entered that room. This ensured he gets more of the exposure he craves so he can actually get elected next time instead of being the recipient of a lucky flow of senate votes that had nothing to do with him or his policies.
CoRev,
I think the late Victor Borge would have concluded that Luke is “just plain stoopid”.
However the game in play has nothing to do with protecting humanity from it’s own breath, but an artfully contrived misuse of science for political ends.
A similar movement occurred during the 19th century when the English Whigs used the nascent science of geology to discredit their political opponents, the Tories, who based their political authority on the Bible. Geology is only now extricating itself, and very slowly, from the obfuscation Charles Lyell created in his Principles of Geology.
His political successors have grabbed the idea of CO2 warming to implement their latter day ideology.
You will notice that without exception promoters of AGW are Fabians,socialists, Greens, liberals, in sum the political left which has never given up its goal of a socialist utopia. This group control all the western democracies, universities and schools, and of course the UN.
The Global Financial Crisis of last year caught everyone by surprise, (not the Austrian School economists) and we in the mining industry remain a little perplexed. I not. As far as I am concerned, once the ALP was elected a well orchestrated plan was hatched to debase the world’s money system. This they have achieved with the GFC. It seemed too conincidental that it also occurred just before the US Presidential election. George Soros has a previous track record of affecting a country’s financial system – ask the Malaysians.
With the election of Obama, the Fabians are now close to their goal – but the persistent opposition from the climate sceptics seems to have them wrong footed.
Senator Fielding’s questions remain unanswered, as noted in Jen’s post.
The game plan is to make national sovereignty subservient to the UN.
I have first experience with this from my association with ALP people in Australia.
Many years ago when Native Title legislation was introduced into Australia, I made the politically incorrect observation that Native Title was nothing other than a sneaky UN ploy of diminishing private property rights. My lefty friends were left mute, thereby confirming my interpretation.
But given the opposition to the election of Iran’s dictator, it would be remiss of our traffic lights to assume that it’s a done deal.
We have quite a few traffic lighters here – they are Green but present themselves as Yellow to avoid being identified as Red.
AGW is simply the latest ploy the Marxists/Collectivists have adopted to force us to adopt socialism.
The fear is that this time they might succeed.
I hope not.
Yes Louis, it’s all just a paranoid, lunatic conspiracy theory.
In addition, the thought occurred to me that while nominally socialist economies, such as India and China, do well, this must be due to prescient planning.
No.
It’s because of corruption. To get anything done in a socialist system requires the payment of bribes to government officials.
We do it now in Australia – Aboriginal Heritage Surveys as thinly veiled instances of extortion, or how the unemployable exist without working.
SJT,
As an anonymous commentator here, your comments could be dismissed as yellows – but note that you never contradict the assertions, but deflect criticism by strawpeople.
Q2 is especially funny when you take a good look at the source of those graphs. Plucked out of context, sure, but they just don’t do their homework these ‘sceptics’.
The graph purporting to show that recent climate change is no big deal because it’s happened before, came mostly from Richard Alley’s work on Greenland ice-cores.
Here’s Richard Alley on AGW,
SJT
Ian Plimer will be in Perth 9-12 July 2009 and the AIG are organising a public debate at the time, subject to venue arrangements.
I thought you would make an excellent debater to contradict Plimer’s address.
AIG would pay for your accomodation and travel expenses.
Interested?
Very good questions. And the supporting figures/graphs most appropriate. So answers? I am a bit sceptical of both sides.
Michael
“The graph purporting to show that recent climate change is no big deal because it’s happened before, came mostly from Richard Alley’s work on Greenland ice-cores.”
Climate change is an abstraction, not a physical phenomena capable of being quantified.
Your post seems, therefore, hmm, problematical?
Climate Change
This might be defined as a novel process which changed a desert climate to a tropical one.
Now how to quantify this idea so that you could computer model it.
OCH, what to Dewwwww!
Nothing lunatic about it.The actions are very clever.Governments cash in,Obama gets some of his health care plan paid for by the American tax payers. The UN gets billions from the supposedly rich countries,to hold their travelling cocktail parties,while throwing some money at under developed nations,Rudd gets to stay in bed with the greens,while collecting more tax from Aussie tax payers.The scientists(I use the term loosely) get to keep on making any claim about catastrophes because they have a 100 year time limit to fool around with.It depends on how many years the public keeps believing THE WARMING is coming.Meanwhile China(who isn’t buying any of it,but will accept any money thrown at them)buy up minerals around the world,become the biggest auto-manufacturer,build nuclear power stations,open as many factories as they want(and they’ll be opening a lot)build coal-fired power stations(while throwing some money at carbon capture(to silence critics)build a few windmills(to silence critics)allowing 1500 cars on their roads every week.Out of that maybe their people will have a better living standard,which in turn will raise their population,but it will be balanced out because people in so-called developed countries will probably settle on one child.Forests will be cleared to supply bio-fuels,more species will die,but that’s ok,global warming was going to kill them anyway.People will starve in Africa,but that’s alright,it’s always been that way,the toll may be higher but that can’t be helped,we must save the planet for China’s children and grandchildren.China is getting so much handed to it on a plate,the leader must be disbelieving what he is seeing,but he’ll take it,who wouldn’t?
Noeline
Finally,,,Good post!
now step back and cop the crap
….and the wacky conspiracy theorists are off and running,
Louie Louie makes the early running from the inside stall with the standard UN opening, but No No Noelene comes back from a late start with an un-formatted wide-ranging rant that includes starving africans and rapacious chinese, Louie Louie will have his work cut out for him here, and as they round the first bend they are neck and neck………..
Michael’s post about CO2 movements causing strong positive feedbacks is an all too familiar mantra; give us one Michael.
Louie, Louie
Dear Michael,
It’s Louis, Louis
So you are, what, dyslectic as well as stupid?
Read it again cohers. This time with understanding.
And we’re still waiting with baited breath at Deltoid for your statistics master-class. Or are you still waiting for your wife to come home and do the sums for you?
Michael,
Deltoid may as well wait for hell to freeze – but then maybe it has – in their case
Louis, could you please provide another rant so that I may continue my race-call of the 2009 Conspiracy Handicap.
“Deltoid may as well wait for hell to freeze” – Louis
Agreed Louis, cohers will be staying away after finding that his hot air doesn’t cut it against people who know what they are talking about. It was the collision of fantasy against reality.
cohenite “Michael’s post about CO2 movements causing strong positive feedbacks is an all too familiar mantra; give us one Michael.”
Am I reading this right? Michael has a way to get amplification in a dissipative system?
WOW this I have to see. How about Michael?
Go away for a coupla hours and what do I find? Still no answers to Fielding’s questions. Luke plays himself again. SOD pulls a Luke and answers his own question, NOT FIELDING’S. SJT just does his usual rants and the rest of the rabble go ad hom and ranty on us.
Answer his questions, point by point.
CoRev has gone blind.
SOD pulls a Luke and answers his own question, NOT FIELDING’S.
you might want to study some logic.
when you ask a question of the form
“if it is the case that A is true, then why ….?”
and i demonstrate that A is NOT true, then your question is answered.
why not accompany Fielding on the way back to his old school? the two of you have a lot to learn…
“and i demonstrate that A is NOT true, then your question is answered.”
a bald assertion to contrary is no demonstration of a contrary fact.
Try again.
Stop the bluster team-AGW! Either answer the questions point by point or go home hanging your head in shame. Yes, in shame. These are the core questions for OZ-land and passing ETS. If they are unanswerable then the ETS should be dead on arrival. Same for our Cap & Trade(C&T) Bill here.
Dunno about over there, but my calculation for total maximum impact of our C&T Bill is .165F reduction by 2050. That’s not a true reduction but a slowing of the increase by that amount. The costs are estimated by our Congressional Budget office is approximately US$400 – $2,100 per family of four per annum. For the US then the avg. US family of four will pay US$16,000 – $84,000 for its 1/78,000,000 share (yes, I said one 78 millionth share) of that potential savings to reach the goal by 2050. So the answers to these questions might have some importance.
Don’t make me bring up the other fictions that must be believed to achieve this minimal .165F.
SOD’s first post, yesterday, suggests that the senator should go back to school, & talk to his maths & physics teachers. He assures they will confirm the IPCC twaddle.
The real worry is that he is probably right. The twits we have teaching in our high schools these days would have no chance of passing the exams we did back in the 50s. That is why we have “assessments” rather than exams today. Most of our teachers could not write an exam, let alone pass one.
It is no surprise to me, having had kids studding recently, that our unis have to spend a year or more, getting the basics of maths, let alone physics into their new students. In some science courses, environmental science for example, one can become a BSc, with out having enough maths, or physics to teach either, even in junior high school.
Our unis now excel in brain washing, & not too much else today, I’m afraid.
As am after thought, I wonder what Penny studied.
CoRev,
Why don’t we wait and see what answers people at the meeting with Senator Wong gave to Senator Fielding’s questions. Then you can see if they stack up.
However, I don’t believe Fielding was being honest when he said he wanted to look at both ‘sides’ because:
1. He suddenly jumps up and starts saying this is a big issue and hasn’t been debated in Australia (to be charitable you could say he has been asleep or you cold say he has been derelict as a representative) but I mean where has the guy been?
2. He travels to the US to go and hear people speak at a conference organised by a right wing think tank without finding his way to the CSIRO and other scientific institutions
3. He repeatedly emphasises in the media that he takes this so seriously that he travelled to the US on his own dollar when being a member of parliament he had access to expert knowledge but seems to have totally ignored it
4. Uses denialist language at all stages
5. Turns up at a meeting with the minister with four denialists in tow whom he presumably had discussed his questions with before hand so why bring them in (were they there to ‘steady’ him against the big bad lady-chief-government scientist and physicist?)?
6. Uses denialist language at all stages
7. Talks about job losses from an ETS but how can he claim this when he has only suddenly jumped up about an ETS so how would he know or where is his evidence
8. Claims he went into the parliamentary library to look for publications setting out ‘both sides’ of the ‘debate’ and that he could only find a hefty document that he said only spoke of AGW giving the impression he had analysed it
9. Uses denialist language at all stages
Methinks the guy is a denialist and all this is just a fig leaf so he can say he looked at both sides of the question and came to an ‘honest’ answer. He managed to extract some stuff out of Howard when Howard wanted his vote. Has Fielding miscalculated on this i.e. say his vote carrys the no vote against the ETS and this eventually leads to a DD and in the ensuing election Fielding is voted out.
i.e. Is Fielding performing before our very eyes the grandest own goal in recent Australian political history and all down to his dishonesty?
JeremyC, I could answer your response with something like “evidence please”, like someone here does or go ballistic and call you names like someone else does here, but frankly it isn’t worth the effort.
Why are we waiting again? I thought the answers had already been repeated, and that the wait was for the Wong’s formal response. A failure to respond will be telling.
As to my arithmetic, do you agree that the impact on temperature of the ETS (and our C&T) on a per family basis is infinitesimal? How about the costs over there? Are you willing to pay for that potentially meaningless change in reduction in INCREASE of the temp? Answering these core questions is important to make this decision.
A radiative barrier that consists of radiative absorbers is a contradiction in terms. By heating up in response to IR, the absorbers will of course EMIT IR. Greenhouse theorists claim, however, that the difference between this and a direct loss of heat rays is that “back-radiation” occurs, which somehow raises the temperature of the earth’s surface.
Yet other atmospheric molecules (such as nitrogen, oxygen and argon — which far outnumber so-called greenhouse gases) also get heated by the surface’s loss of thermal energy. These heated gases necessarily radiate IR in response. But does anyone claim that back-radiation from nitrogen, oxygen and argon raises the earth’s temperature, let alone that this “forcing” effect far exceeds what a trace gas like carbon dioxide contributes? No, because in this case people are rational; they tacitly understand that the Second Law of Thermodynamics rules and that these gases merely relay their acquired heat to cooler and cooler zones. Mention an IR-absorber, though, and people’s brains fall out.
Radiative forcing via back-radiation is a wholly imaginary phenomenon, a symptom of magical thinking. As Gerlich and Tscheuschner observe, equations for radiative forcing are not to be found in any textbook of physics. For indeed, you cannot quantify what doesn’t exist. But if she could, what would the hostess of this blog site eagerly explain to Fielding, a man with an engineering degree? Not some basic physics but a new conjecture that the greenhouse effect may (quite conveniently) be self-limiting.
Skeptics and believers alike keep trying to prop up this incoherent and antiquated theory.
1. Given that the sun’s heat heats the earth, does the greenhouse effect TRAP the earth’s heat and prevent it from exiting to space? Yes, the experts say. It’s this trapping that raises the temperature higher than what solar radiation can achieve.
2. Does the greenhouse effect also RELEASE the same amount of heat as the earth receives from the sun? Yes, the experts say. That’s confirmed by satellites.
Yet these two propositions together don’t make any sense. A body cannot both release all the thermal energy it gets from a heat source AND prevent it from leaving. Which is why no equations exist for such a thing.
Confusing radiation to space with convective heat-loss at its inception, the “settled science” of the greenhouse effect is and has long been self-contradictory. For this very reason, apparently, its proponents will never accept any evidence or argument that falsifies it. To them, logical non-contradiction is passé as a scientific instrument. Modeling has replaced the mind.
Yet other atmospheric molecules (such as nitrogen, oxygen and argon — which far outnumber so-called greenhouse gases) also get heated by the surface’s loss of thermal energy. These heated gases necessarily radiate IR in response. But does anyone claim that back-radiation from nitrogen, oxygen and argon raises the earth’s temperature, let alone that this “forcing” effect far exceeds what a trace gas like carbon dioxide contributes? No, because in this case people are rational; they tacitly understand that the Second Law of Thermodynamics rules and that these gases merely relay their acquired heat to cooler and cooler zones. Mention an IR-absorber, though, and people’s brains fall out.
Alan, your lack of basic knowledge about the subject you are discussing (and with use of fancy “scientific” claims and words!)
the CO2 molecule will react completely different to infrared radiation, than the other molecules in the atmosphere that you mentioned.
http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
arbon dioxide, water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), nitorus oxide (N2O), and a few other gases are greenhouse gases. They all are molecules composed of more than two component atoms, bound loosely enough together to be able to vibrate with the absorption of heat. The major components of the atmosphere ( O2 and N2) are two-atom molecules too tightly bound together to vibrate and thus they do not absorb heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect.
real scientist are measuring this effect accurately.
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm
just don t let such facts interfere with your beliefs….
1. Given that the sun’s heat heats the earth, does the greenhouse effect TRAP the earth’s heat and prevent it from exiting to space? Yes, the experts say. It’s this trapping that raises the temperature higher than what solar radiation can achieve.
2. Does the greenhouse effect also RELEASE the same amount of heat as the earth receives from the sun? Yes, the experts say. That’s confirmed by satellites.
in contrast to what you claim, there is no contradiction between those two points.
i ll give you an example: (disclaimer: my knowledge of atmospheric physics and chemistry is somewhat limited. the example wont be a perfect analogy.)
imagine a beach bar. guys come in, buy some drinks and leave. every single guy coming in will leave at some time!
now we add some girls. either just hanging around looking pretty or giving out free drinks or vouchers. suddenly those guys will hang around inside longer. perhaps bounce back to another one of the girls or even towards the bar.
according to you, those promotion parties are NOT filling pubs. for sure.
http://www.oconners.de/galerie/150208/index.html
CoRev,
I’m waiting for answers to Fielding’s questions that he put to the meeting with the minister. If someone can point me to the answers I would be grateful.
As to the effect of an ETS. Weeeelllllll the Australian ETS has been so corrupted by special interests that all it is going to do is create a corporate welfare culture amongst the coal fired generators and energy intensive users in Australia. You will find that environmentalists in Australia (known as greenies in God’zone) agree with you abut the ETS, they saw its problems long before Jennifer.
it would be interesting to see your assumptions that led to your arithmetic.
Meanwhile Fielding’s fig leaf hangs precariously susceptible to a mild breeze.
Alan is indeed wrong about the N2 and O2 molecules emitting IR, but the rest seems correct to me. I think Alan (and G&T) are correct that the “backradiation” schemes are not found in any physics text books (to my knowledge). And a demonstration of proof of Alan’s conjecture lies in the fact that the areas with the LEAST amount of “greenhouse gases” (i.e., deserts) have the highest temperatures. Temperatures are nowhere near as high in areas with very high levels of GHGs. A greenhouse at 90% relative humidity gets no hotter than one at 50% R.H. Etc. etc. etc. The atmospheric greenhouse effect is a joke.
SJT, Luke, sod, and other AGW cheerleaders: You need to stop being smart-asses and attempt to ANSWER Fielding’s questions and support your answers with something rational (show your work, kids). You can argue about “starting points” and when temperatures STOPPED INCREASING all you want, but you will have to admit that global average temperatures have DECREASED rather precipitously for the past 8-9 years. How can this happen, according to your understanding of the effects of CO2? Are you not concerned at all about the record low temperatures this summer in England, Canada and Central USA? Ice-wine in Brazil for the first time ever? About lower crop yields due to the cold? Do you totally discount the FACT that the Sun is exibiting an almost all-time record low point in activity? Talk about “deniers!”
Talk about stupid.
Weather will continue, AGW or not.
Winter will continue.
It will contiunue to snow and be cold, all over the place.
When denialists stop pretending that AGW means that there is no normal climatic variability and that temperatures are higher every year, we’ll stop treating them like ignoramuses.
The SMH letters had a couple of letters this morning worthy of note:
Good to see the Joseph Bast of Heartland defend the Institute in this morning SMH.
The scientific debate over the causes and effects of global warming is far from over. Matthew England (“How noisy naysayers led Fielding on to false path”, June 17) is either ignorant of the extensive peer-reviewed literature on the subject – somewhat odd, given his post with the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW – or he is concealing it from readers.
Senator Stephen Fielding paid his own way to Washington DC to listen to such experts as Dr Richard Lindzen (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Dr Patrick Michaels (University of Virginia), Dr Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics), and Dr Roy Spencer (NASA and University of Alabama-Huntsville) who dispute claims that the “debate is over” or that global warming is a crisis. These scientists are not “noisy naysayers”. Every one of them has appeared in the peer-reviewed literature on climate more frequently than has Professor England.
The Heartland Institute was not “made famous for its view that smoking is not a health hazard”. It is famous for its 25-year record of producing credible research on a wide range of public policy issues, for the 120 distinguished academics and 150 elected officials who serve on its advisory boards, and for its reputation for independence and high-quality research.
Joseph Bast president, The Heartland Institute, Chicago
also another letter puts the record straight.
The Heartland Institute accepts no government funds and has no tobacco or oil company representatives on its board. ExxonMobil gave $560,000 to the institute between 1998 and 2005 but it has 1600 other sources of funding. No single body donates more than 5 per cent to its upkeep.
Its arrangement compares favourably with the $6 million UNSW’s Climate Change Research Centre which Professor England directs; Queensland’s $9 million Climate Centre of Excellence; the ANU’s new Fenner School for Environment and Society for research into areas including climate change and water; Adelaide University’s Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability; Griffith University’s agreement with the Indonesian Government to study the regional impact of climate change; and the University of Ballarat’s project on community-owned renewable energy.
Senator Fielding is one brief halt on the line slowing Professor England’s vast global warmist gravy train. If he can show why public money should only fund an unbiased climate change research centre, he is doing his job.
Paul Roberts Lake Cathie
Sod,
Point 1: All heated bodies radiate IR. So does back-radiation from atmospheric nitrogen raise the earth’s temperature, yes or no?
Point 2: Fine, an object is radiating as much energy as the light that’s impinging on it. And, by somehow radiating less than the light source impinging on it, it is also more energetic than the light source. Simply show me. Do a demo. Or even just point to the equation.
Note to Jae: A salt crystal is transparent to IR, which is why polished salt is used as a window for IR spectroscopy. But when salt is heated it radiates IR. All things do.
JeremyC asked: “it would be interesting to see your assumptions that led to your arithmetic.”
The only interesting number is .165F. I calculated this way:
1.1F rise in avg temp for past 100 years
100% of rise due to CO2/GHGs (totally unlikely but insignificant as an issue)
US provides 30% of ACO2
C&T goal to reduce US ACO2 emissions by 50%
(1.1F*.3)/2= .165F Total Maximum Possible Reduction in 40 years if C&T is passed to meet the original goals. It won’t be because it is already gutted.
The $ cost estimates are from the congressional Budget Office, a bi-partisan estimating office. 78 million families is just US population divided by 4 to get to the number of average sized US families. Regardless it is a divisor and accuracy within even +/-10% still results in a teeny tiny number for each family’s share of the reduction.
If you think that is wrong, provide different numbers or approach. I would be happy to listen.
Oh Michael, you and sod are not so different from Mr ‘Surname’ and ‘confessions’ from this happy bunch of morally fortified, ethically enhanced, save the world at all costs bunch here;
http://www.grods.com:80/post/7052/
As to ‘my’ statistical reanalysis of the McLean and Quirk treatise about PDO temperature trends I generally try and honour my word; and yes, I have called in some statistical assistance; the best in fact because I don’t mind admitting, as I said, that once past OLS and simple linear regressions, I get a head-ache; fortunately the temperature trend caused by PDO and not ACO2, is not a linear trend; and that is unfortunate for this patronising, angry, Orwellian group-think AGW junk.
Now, I have reread your post and I still can’t find an example of a +ve feedback to CO2 increases; please provide one; after all, what is good for the goose [you] is good for the gander [me].
jae “Alan is indeed wrong about the N2 and O2 molecules emitting IR,”
He isn’t wrong. In the HITRAN2000 database we see absorption and therefor emission for N2 2125 – 2600 /cm and for O2 1385 -1800/cm. I haven’t looked at the HITRAN2008 yet to see what it has to say about it.
Separately from the ETS/C&T how does your calculation deal with atmospheric lifetime of CO2 and its accumulation – could that even lead to a figure smaller than .165F. What might be the effect of a temperature rise of .165F, if it is that amount, on agriculture, or other things? What if the rising temp is not contained in a nice smooth rise but comes as changing extremes in weather and other related effects that are not predictable for the purposes of activities such as agriculture or e.g. the operation of the electricity grid on very hot days when the higher ambient increases the resistance of the cabling carrying current, the cost of air con on hot days, a 1001 little things that all add up across an economy? What might the extra costs be from dealing with those possible changes, does the CB office figures account for such things? What is the office’s assumptions in arriving at their range of $100 to $525 per person per annum (BTW how do those ‘costs’ per person/family stack up against US health care insurance charges)? I.e. could the CB’s figures turn out less than the cost of dealing with the effects of warming?
Here in Australia we have the another problem, the ETS being used to get the government to pay over lots of money to corporates.
Its funny that Jennifer finds herself on the same side as the greens wrt to the ETS.
The greens put up these issues long before Jennifer et al which is why I am more interested in whether Fielding is being dishonest.
Someone asked in one of the threads who accompanied Senator Fielding to the Wong meeting I don’t recall where but according to SMH:
Alan:
“Note to Jae: A salt crystal is transparent to IR, which is why polished salt is used as a window for IR spectroscopy. But when salt is heated it radiates IR. All things do.”
I don’t think ALL things do, Alan. You just mentioned one that doesn’t (NaCl)! (But I don’t know what you mean when you say “heated” salt radiates IR, because if it’s above 0 K it is “heated.”)
O2 and N2 do not absorb or emit significantly in the IR region of the electromagnetic spectrum, because there can be no changes in dipole moments for such molecules. (N2 absorbs/emits a tiny bit for some reason, as I recall from some of Tom Vonk’s comments).
As I understand things, the GHGs absorb the far-IR from the surface and also the near-IR directly from the Sun (half of the solar energy is in the near-IR, remember), giving these GHG molecules kinetic energy (translational, stretching, bending, etc.) and potential energy (resisting gravity). The O2 and N2 get their kinetic energy from collisions with these excited molecules, as well as collisions with each other (this is called thermalization). Thus, some of the energy from sunlight is “soaked up” (stored) each day in the form of the kinetic energy and potential energy of all the air molecules. The vast majority of the kinetic energy is stored in water.
LTE requires that ALL the molecules in the air are energized, not just the GHG molecules. The kinetic and potential energy of these molecules is what produces the “greenhouse effect” (i.e., the reason the planet is warmer than BB calculations would indicate). And remember that the air molecules are continually warmed at night by the energy stored in water.
Energy is emitted in the IRto space constantly, both through the “IR window” (those wavelengths that ghgs don’t absorb) and by the GHGs, mostly high in the atmosphere. N2 and O2 cannot emit the energy directly to space, in my understanding, so that the GHGs are important for this function, also.
I really doubt that the GHE has anything to do with radiation. I think it can all be attributed to simple heat storage But I am definitely not a “member of the skeptic consensus” from this standpoint. Ha, have you ever heard of a “consensus skeptic?” 🙂
JC, a reasonant invocation; “a 1001 little things” ; by that I gather you mean that AGW can’t be measured or its effect is too subtle to be accurately quantified? Isn’t this just the precautionary principle repackaged? That is, we cannot support the notion of AGW scientifically but we believe, or know, that humanity and its emissions must be affecting nature so we should do something about it.
I get this alot; most of my extended family are mathematicians or engineers but one or 2 of them say something similar; only last night at a family do I struck up a converstaion with one of the maths guys, a really nice bloke, and I gave him a rundown of the complete absence of supporting evidence for AGW; and I mentioned the statistical analysis of PDO I had farmed out to an expert, and he nodded and agreed; but then he said; “I just believe that what we [sic I guess he meant humanity] are doing to nature, pumping out all the poison, that it must be affecting the climate.”
There you have it; it’s pointless arguing with you guys because in your hearts you believe that humanity is despoiling nature and the bottom line is humanity should be punished and taken to task for this.
And this is what the AGW measures like the ETS are; punishment.
The question Sen Fielding should be asking is not No 1 (as it can be shown that the mean average temps for the past ten years are higher than the previous ten years), but reframing, or adding to, Question 2. That is;
‘Why was there an increase of 0.5C from 1911-1940, with only 10ppm increase in CO2, and a similar 0.5C increase from 1979-2008 period despite a 50ppm increase in CO2?’
By the way, the top ten hottest years in Australia have been (in order 1-10);
2005, 1998, 1988, 1980, 1991, 2007, 2003, 2002, 1996 and 1974
(source BOM http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20090105.shtml)
2000 and 2001 were 2nd and 3rd coldest years respectively since 1978.
That’s the trick, Jae, an instance of this theory’s hypnotic effect. We’re led to believe that non-greenhouse gases do not radiate IR because they can’t absorb IR. But there’s more than one way to skin a cat and conductive/convective transfer will heat them. At which point they’ll radiate.
It’d be quite remarkable if nitrogen and oxygen, like all other gases, DIDN’T emit IR when heated. Since radiation is the earth’s only means of losing heat, we’d have an atmosphere that’s thermally sealed shut.
Good grief, these are year 10 debating tactics. I bet the rebuttal by the 3rd speaker for the affimative gutted the poor fellow. Looking at the questions themselves they appear to have been written by someone who has a strong interest in denying AGW. They remind me of the type of cliched attempts to trip up a witness that are common to US court room dramas. I don’t think that they are to be taken as serious attempts at enquiry. They are merely designed to score a point or two. At least we can see the calibre of Senator Fielding’s research team. Move along nothing to see here.
Jae – you’ve now eclipsed the other morons on here for stupid levels of denialist behaviour.
The way you guys like to isolate aspects of a complex system and demand uniformitarisnism just makes me want to puke. How dumb are you lot really.
As for your desert example – gee willies – think of any other changes that might separate these areas from elsewhere. We’ll leave that as some homework.
AGW types denying a quiet Sun has some impact – NUH ! Don’t verbal us you little grub.
As for “global average temperatures have DECREASED rather precipitously for the past 8-9 years. ” – well piss off you statistical shonk. Oh look – your beloved ocean heat – it’s still going up. What part of up do you dopey pricks not understand … http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
As for some record cold snaps – truck me – we’ve discussed record breaking behaviour and I even did a guest post here on cold air outbreaks in a greenhouse world. http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2006/12/is-global-warming-cool-a-note-from-luke/
Get off the blog you clown.
Luke “As for your desert example – gee willies – think of any other changes that might separate these areas from elsewhere. We’ll leave that as some homework.”
There might be a number of differences even some that prevent moisture that gets to other places from getting to the deserts, but if they had that moisture they wouldn’t be deserts.
“Now, I have reread your post and I still can’t find an example of a +ve feedback to CO2 increases;” – cohers
Oh I see, it’s a reading comprehension problem as well as innumeracy.
No wonder you’re perpetually confused.
“Get off the blog you clown.” – Luke
Luke, now you’re confused.
This is the blog for clowns. It’s you who is out of place.
Where else can the utterly credulous go and prance around likening themselves to Huxley?
Why, Skeptics of course!
luke
“your beloved ocean heat – it’s still going up. What part of up do you dopey pricks not understand ”
The longer I read and study these issues the more confused I become.
A few weeks ago I saw an article with graphs an all, that showed that the probes proved the Oceans were cooling, and only the comp. models were showing warming.
Well which is it?
No need to get aggro with me Luke, but I rather believe actual measurements than models.
Ian George; those BoM stats are to be treated with doubt; they are National annualised anomalies; if you look at this BoM site you will see that the majority of the long term regional data stations do not have temperature trends which are consistent with the national trend;
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
luke; you are still using that NOAA/Levitus ocean temperature graph; noone is denying that from ~1976 [the beginning of the +ve PDO] that ocean heat increased; it is now decreasing since ~2003 [the beginning of the -ve PDO]; the fact that it is now decreasing [and also decreased during the -ve PDO in the middle of the 20thC] tends to disprove the AGW connection between AGW and ocean heat which Will Steffen alluded to in the Fielding/Wong smackdown.
Michael; I have acted reasonably at all times to your, and I have to say this, peurile taunting; you have not responded to my reasonable requests for clarification of your absurd claim of +ve feedbacks but merely continued with your infantile glee-making; sadly I can come to only one conclusion;
You are a troll.
The side losing the debate always loses their manners first.
Luke:
WOW! I’m shocked that I actually got a link to an actual graph from you. Other than that, I see nothing back but empty, immature, churlish, comments.
The problem with your graph is that it doesn’t support what you said about it. Where is the warming? How funny! BTW, Here’s a more recent graph that does a better job of showing what’s going on: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/
Since you obviously cannot really address the points with facts or prove any of your “beliefs,” you just increase the volume of your vitriolic and childish rants. Just like the mainstream AGW folks are doing. It speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge and confidence. LOL.
Cohenite,
I recently looked at over 40 sites in NSW from coastal to western plains and compared the average temps from 1911-1940 to 1971-2000 and found that in more than 70% of the locations, the maximum temps were higher in the 1911-1940 period. However, average minimum temps were higher overall in the 1971-2000 period. Averaged out the sites chosen showed a mean temp rise of about 0.05C over the 70 odd years. You can see some correlation with NSW historical temp data but no correlation with the Australian anomaly graphs. So other states must have been cooler in 11-40 and hotter now to achieve that effect.
I just read that Australia’s average temps have risen 0.9C since the 1950’s (cherry picking a cool decade?) but if you choose the 1930’s as a start date, I bet it would be less.
Penny is always quoting that the 12 hottest years on record have occurred in the last 13 years. I am not sure she is referring to Aust or the world. Does anyone know to which data she is referring – surely it can’t be here, can it?
Alan and Jan:
“For a molecule to absorb IR, the vibrations or rotations within a molecule must cause a net change in the dipole moment of the molecule. The alternating electrical field of the radiation (remember that electromagnetic radation consists of an oscillating electrical field and an oscillating magnetic field, perpendicular to each other) interacts with fluctuations in the dipole moment of the molecule. If the frequency of the radiation matches the vibrational frequency of the molecule then radiation will be absorbed, causing a change in the amplitude of molecular vibration.”
N2 AND O2 HAVE NO DIPOLE MOMENT!
http://teaching.shu.ac.uk/hwb/chemistry/tutorials/molspec/irspec1.htm
Some words of wisdom for Luke and Ilk:
“When someone starts a personal attack on you, it’s because they have run out of rational arguments and they are afraid that maybe you are right. So by painting the picture that you are stupid or somehow evil, they hope to turn opinion against you. If you were a person who had swallowed the hyperbole about warming, then you would be particularly anxious to roast those who might be about to prove you wrong.
http://cobourgskeptic.com/archives/195
JeremyC, your just kidding again. .165F is spread over 40 years. It’s not even within the statistical variability. So, if we had that total increase all on one day, and the rest of the 4 decades were unchanged, how do you think the crops, weather, humankind, etc, etc would be effected?
Don’t answer that it was totally rhetorical.
“…my reasonable requests for clarification of your absurd claim of +ve feedbacks…” – cohers
But you seem so happy with your absurd miscomprehension.
From reading sod’s, Luke’s, Michael’s and SJT’s answers, I can only hope that the esteemed Minister was as derogatory, demeaning and evasive to the Senator as these true believers were in their answers here. I am certain the Senator would walk away knowing which way to vote.
Nothing says ‘credibility’ like caustic, vague, self-referential insults.
“Michael; I have acted reasonably at all times to your, and I have to say this, peurile taunting; you have not responded to my reasonable requests for clarification of your absurd claim of +ve feedbacks but merely continued with your infantile glee-making; sadly I can come to only one conclusion;
“You are a troll.”
That’s a bit rough cohers, the +ve feedback was Richard Alley falling out of his canoe.
The world climate does it all the time.
Bloody expensive hobby this blogging – I’ve smashed another keyboard – lucky it missed the TV, punched another hole in the wall (hands hurting a bit now so I regret that) and the missus isn’t making me dinner. And it’s your fault dudes ! Hope you’re satisfied.
And this is it – if I meet any denialists down the pub – smack! – no more debating – Coho will you represent me ?
Now come on denialist creepies – the latest heat content is from Levitus et al (2009) – we’re not going take some Loehle crap published in E&E which is little better than Zoo magazine – and at least that has some good recipes. So it’s still going up !
Coho I’ll give you something for the quiet Sun and the PDO – but I’m getting angry about this PDO shit really. Your mate Stewie has got 400 years of PDO paleo – show me how it correlates with temperature. Don’t just give me a one off cherry pluck.
And in any case you have a centennial temperature trend that solar doesn’t explain.
I reckon with Hadley’s new decadal stuff we’re right on course myself.
And if my Expert Science Panel – aka Short-stuff doesn’t back Mizowhatsy – I’m not even looking at it. Even it Jan (who might know a few things but who could be really sure ) reckons he’s a dill.
“Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period (see Fig. 1)?
If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?”
First sin in that question, cherry picking. The natural background variations are larger in a short period of time than the background CO2 signal. Why didn’t he ask “How did we get that massive spike in 1998”?
Luke,
You demonstrate the similarities between eugneics and AGW so well.
We subhuman scum are not only the rightful targets of your fists of fury, we should be taken out and shot.
Especially since you are missing your din-din.
Please do post your pay pal account. I will personally buy you a keyboard in penance for disturbing your equanimity.
Yes, of course ignore the data that conflicts. it is from hillbilly oil company puppets. Why, the definition of corruptions is “disagree with AGW”.
BTW, Levitus, et al, does falsify Hansen. The heat content ain’t there, even according to their strong efforts to prop up the corpse of AGW.
So please, all true believers: be yourselves. be rude, reactionary, trollish, churlish, vague, defensive, arrogant and evasive.
It is typical of what we have come to expect from the few, the proud, the AGW true believer.
What was that about going for the man and not the ball, jae?
Here we have Singer going straight for the groin in the first two pages of the NIPCC report.
“The history of the IPCC has been described in
several publications. What is not emphasized,
however, is the fact that it was an activist enterprise
from the very beginning. Its agenda was to justify
control of the emission of greenhouse gases,
especially carbon dioxide. Consequently, its scientific
reports have focused solely on evidence that might
point toward human-induced climate change.”
Acitivist!!!!! Agenda!!!!! UN!!!! Control!!!! No need to say any more.
I think this debate about CC call it whatever, has become an exercise in futility.
If you don’t like the numbers, denigrate the author or the paper or big oil.
When there was real warming, and the sensors indicated such, there was no criticism, as soon the climate is cooling and the sensors prove it, all hell breaks loose, “Oh no the sensors must be wrong!”
I think I’ll find myself an other hobby, bungee jumping sounds safe and innocent!
SJT,
The whole ‘cherry picking’ dodge is old.
Answer the question.
If you can.
The sin is not in the question. The sin is in the poser who blames the questioner for their inability to answer it.
To those who try and debate with the denialists: don’t worry about the data, they stand for themselves and the debate has long moved on despite what Senator Fielding thinks. I find it much more interesting to treat the denialists as an anthropological or cultural phenomenon and as such it is their mode of argument that becomes interesting. John Quiggen has developed a taxonomy to assist with this project. I believe all this call response stuff about graphs is a waste of everyones time and in the end the denialist project is a are waste of time.
We could get something useful out of the process if we gain an understanding of what motivates them, what is it culturally or psychologically that causes a person to become sociopathic over what is plainly a lost cause. I believe it has something to with an alternative construction of the world in which they (the aberrant minority) are right and thus they interpret facts in such a way to suit their construction. By continually arguing with them over figures, graphs, theories etc we simply provide opportunities for them to reinforce or modify the construction to suit their altered state of consciousness.
Of course there is also some fun to be had by poking the ants nest.
Comment from: Michael June 18th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Talk about stupid.
Weather will continue, AGW or not.
Winter will continue.
It will contiunue to snow and be cold, all over the place.
Excellent! No problem then. We can all go home and forget about ETS.
Jeez fellas, I leave the party for a day and you blow up with a third Fielding thread.
That guy is obviously asking the right questions judging by traffic. He has all the usual suspects in a tizzy, and a few more jumping in.
Fielding is that rare sort. A public servant who is worthy of the name.
“Now come on denialist creepies – the latest heat content is from Levitus et al (2009) – we’re not going take some Loehle crap published in E&E which is little better than Zoo magazine -”
Loehle’s paper ties in with the fact that there has been no sea level rise for the past 3 years.
Hurricane, typhoon and TC activity are at 30yr lows.
Sat. temp data about the same as 1979.
Mean global sea ice at 1979 level.
Your turn alarmist creep.
Ah, the traffic lights faction spitting the dummy now are they? They tend to do that when the game is lost. Unfortunately the usual protocol is take up their playthings and leave – which won’t happen in this case.
spangled drongo,
You don’t understand. Denialist scum are not worthy to ask any questions at all of the enlightened ones. And AGW true believers are much to delicate in their high worthiness to bothered with actually explaining anything at all.
By the way, Levitus, et al, does no favors to AGW at all.
And, by the way, is it not odd that each and every time data is found that conflicts with AGW the data is always wrong?
And is it not odd that claims about AGW only get orse and worse?
Spangly Drongoid Bum
No sea level rise – bunk -in any case – 3 years (hahahahahahahaha -wiggle watcher – you would have also said the same at other times in history too)
Yes – less hurriances actually = AGW – it’s about peak speed and duration
Sat temp 1979 – what a “month” – hahahahahahahaha – read my excellent guest post here – http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2006/12/is-global-warming-cool-a-note-from-luke/
Sea ice – nuh – now heading south ! check the latest
Drongsy – did you have some trouble with Grade 8 maths?
Luke,
You do better when you just stick with being rude and implying you are clever. YOu don’t do so well if someone actually knows the definitions of what you are claiming expertise on.
Sort of like your faux outrage over climate vs. weather.
“Accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) is a measure used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to express the activity of individual tropical cyclones and entire tropical cyclone seasons, particularly the Atlantic hurricane seasons. It uses an approximation of the energy used by a tropical system over its lifetime and is calculated every six-hour period. The ACE of a season is the sum of the ACEs for each storm and takes into account the number, strength, and duration of all the tropical storms in the season. [1]”
From “Definition of ACE”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_Cyclone_Energy
And your guest posts- so what?
You are just another true believer in this latest pop cult: What you actually know is inversely related to the immaturity of your attitude.
Like I noticed the other day- you are predictable in a boring sort of way.
SD; I don’t think I was too hard on Michael; you see he came straight back with more insolence; it’s another example of spare the rod, spoil the child.
luke; as I said to Michael, who doesn’t listen and who is here to vandalise, I have given my thoughts on the PDO and the McLean and Quirk Great pacific Climate Shift concept to a first rate statistican who has come up with some veddy interesting graphs; so you’ll have to wait.
As to Levitus, for gawd’s sake look at Fig S9 of his paper where studies on ocean heat other than Loehle [nothing wrong with him though] show declining ocean heat; and not only declining ocean heat and declining sea level rise trends but also CO2; what is going on?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/recent-ocean-heat-and-mlo-co2-trends/#more-6378
So, after having read all 77 responses here, together with references, am I to conclude that nobody can satisfactorally answer Senator Fielding’s questions – scientifically?
If that is the case, the conspiracy theorists are looking pretty strong.
Rick Beikoff
Luke “I’ve smashed another keyboard – lucky it missed the TV, punched another hole in the wall (hands hurting a bit now ”
sounds like you are having some impulse control problems , I also notice that you are dribbling. That is a common side effect of Clozapine unfortunately. While neither the Clozapine nor I can help with the impulse control might I suggest you ask your doctor for some Atropine that can help dry up the secretions and stop your dribbling. On the other hand chewing gum which stimulates the swallow reflex can sometimes help too.
Regarding Short you say “Even it Jan (who might know a few things but who could be really sure ) reckons he’s a dill.”
I never said he was a dill in fact I think he’s far from it but from what I’ve seen he doesn’t quite get Miskolczi’s paper. I don’t see this as a problem for the paper as you might because the paper is radiation physics and Short’s area of expertise is geochemistry they don’t really overlap.
The paper has been out for two years the paper covering the underlying data co published with Martin Mlynzack has bee published in peer reviewed litereature 5 years now and more works covering the validity of the instruments have been out for nealy 20 years and noe of it has been refuted in peer reviewed literature.
None of it.
If you think you are up to doing so then go for it.
“I find it much more interesting to treat the denialists as an anthropological or cultural phenomenon..”
Well Patrick how about some history? Why don’t you make up a list of environmental scares over the last forty years? Everything from the Club of Rome stuff to Rachel Carson to brain cancer from mobile phones. Pretty long list and almost all shown to be totally wrong. Clearly driven by an extremist left wing political agenda. Climate change is just the latest ridiculous exaggeration.
I see that Skeptical Science has had some recent updates. It remains, in my view, the single best source for easy to comprehend rebuttal of all the popular skeptic’s arguments. Of course, Real Climate has its moments too.
There is no sign that Fielding (or Bolt for that matter) has ever bothered spending a few hours on Skeptical Science. (Fielding with his posse of skeptics for his chit chat with Wong is a pretty good indication of that.)
Still, you can lead a horse to water, as they say…
Those here who are saying “so, what’s the answer to those questions, global believers,” go do your own reading and stop asking people to endlessly repeat themselves.
Jen,
Here’s an idea. Why not run a competition with a prize for whoever can come closest to Wong’s answers to Fielding? Who can best get inside Wong’s brain?
Here’s my entry:
“While it may appear that global temperatures are falling, they are in fact rising within a trend range consistent with natural variation demonstrated in modelling of a CO2 positive-forced atmosphere.”
Rick Beikoff
“No sea level rise – bunk -in any case – 3 years (hahahahahahahaha -wiggle watcher – you would have also said the same at other times in history too)”
With all this never ending sea level rise I wonder why the landing site of the Roman Fleet of Claudius’ of 43 AD was found the other day 2 miles inland, up the River Stour?
I didn’t need to pass grade 8 to get by on common sense.
CoRev,
I suppose the issue is how any temperature rise plays out. Is it going to be smooth or is it going have other effects on weather and regional temp? Another thing is your figure of .165F may not be the rise over the next forty years just because its a historical figure. You say .165F is very small but even if it is just a smooth rise what effect might that have on eco systems……. that we all depend on.
Don’t forget the thing about people who accept the science on AGW don’t want AGW to be happening, though CoRev you will find people here will reject that statement.
Noticed that the AGW or ACC or Denialists are now denying that pretty much everything above 0k emits IR.
Let me see, astronomers, night vision manufacturers, and IR Spectroanalysis types are going to be severely disappointed that they have been working with a non-existant natural feature.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14278832/Infrared-Spectroscopy
Page 248
“Almost any solid, liquid or gas sample can be analyzed.”
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/ir_tutorial/irspec.html
Blurb on Infrared Spectroscopy in Astronomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_vision
Info on infrared vision
So, real scientists and technicians use real instruments to identify “Almost any solid, liquid or gas” by their IR emission characteristics. Is this good enough to make the point for your pointy heads??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“Excellent! No problem then. We can all go home and forget about ETS. ” – James B
If we where heading towards an ice age, we’d still be having summers.
It’s the first sign of denialist stupidity – pretend that AGW means that the weather has disappeared.
“Luke; as I said to Michael, who doesn’t listen and who is here to vandalise…” – cohers
Hey, cohers, just pop back to Deltoid and show that’s there even a shred of substance to your endless hot air.
Feilding could have saved all his trouble on Q.2 by going to the source of the data, rather than relying on the interpretations of the muddle-headed.
I’m sure Richard Alley would have been happy to brief him over the phone.
JeremyC, Huh? you said: “I suppose the issue is how any temperature rise plays out. Is it going to be smooth or is it going have other effects on weather and regional temp? Another thing is your figure of .165F may not be the rise over the next forty years just because its a historical figure.”
What’s that supposed to mean? We can not fore tell the future? Remember to admit that .165F is possible effected by ETS/C&T is to admit that all the temp increase is from CO2/GHGs. It’s not! Even the AGW-team here will admit that.
You also said: “You say .165F is very small but even if it is just a smooth rise what effect might that have on eco systems……. that we all depend on.”
Probably none. If any are effected then they were already on the edge and we probably don’t rely on them in any big way.
As pointed out earlier you are just playing the precautionary principle to the max. Or more likely just playing another childish mind/word game again. If you actually believe what you are saying, then you need some basic logic skills.
Lukewarmer,
This casts a little doubt on some of your rantings, including that “excellent guest post”.
http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/10/uk-beach-2-miles-inland-in-43-ad/
CoRev,
I thought you were actually interested in a discussion on this. I was wrong.
Hunter – you’re so tedious – yawn – ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf
Gee Spanglers – a fascinating factoid. I guess one point beats the entire GSL analysis by John Church – we surrender – hahahahahaha – NEXT !
Speaking of Paul, here’s another relevant bit of climate news .
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/06/ice-shelves-stable-over-six-years/
Antarctic ice shelves stable ove the last six years which happens to be the entire record from this type of measurement.
Not really surprising when you have had a decade of stasis or dropping temperatures.
BTW he got the information from the Australian. (which one? Maybe one of you?)
Interesting side note, over the duration of this study the alarmist press has reported the demise of the Wilkins Ice Shelf six times. Whats up with that?
What a pity there were not three answers from Ms Wong to accompany this post ! You know, “as a basis for public policy making”.
Instead, we hear her today rattling on about ‘climate change’ on the radio, as if all is decided, yet she unable to give supporting evidence for the most fundamental premises of her AGW claims.
yeah – listening from the top end of the Indian Ocean to the antarctic, rolleyes, – all this shows is how far you can stretch to AGW funding bow.
stretch the – meant.
Pseudoscience is one in which truths or facts are established by discussion (and peer reviewed papers are simply discussions that are deemed politically correct in terms of the ruling academic mafia) by experts.
Science establishes facts or truths by rigorous empirical testing of hypotheses. Science is also concerned with explaining observations of physical phenomena.
AGW has one fatal flaw in its intellectual structure – an empirical basis for the belief that increased CO2 in air will cause that air to rise in temperature, or energy state, by absorbing IR emitted from the solid earth itself.
This hasn’t been observed and I suspect has not been rigorously tested either. One reason that it hasn’t might be because climate science is an offspring from the post-modernists who now run all the main universities. This group does not believe in empiricism or in the existence of objective facts and the science is so structured to reflect that.
Hence the inability here for any of the climate traffic light faction to be persuaded by the dictatorship of empirical fact, such as physical measurements.
Computer modeling is really nothing more sophisticated than an interpretation of data, and thus falls into the PM – dialectic. It’s another tool in the discussion armory.
It’s also quite interesting that on a climate scale period, we are not able, at this stage, to conclude whether climatically the earth’s atmospheric temperature (and which part of that atmosphere as well) is warming or cooling.
So all the pitter patter here between the Traffic Lights and sceptics is, well, somewhat pointless.
Rather we should concentrate on the main game in play – the political motives of those who advocate implementing a totalitarian eco-state to solve, what is essentially, a non problem.
I fear that the Fabians might have realised their long term goal by default.
Barf !
Chief Traffic Light: “Barf !”
Point proven.
Thanks Luke.
“I guess one point beats the entire GSL analysis by John Church – hahaha etc.”
If you looked John Church in the eye and asked for a straight answer on GSL, he couldn’t tell you.
The truth in GSL is not in MSUs and statistics.
People who go outside and look, like Nils Axel, have a far better handle on it.
Many people have been theorising on the site for Claudius’ invasion fleet for a long time so it has been well checked out.
It may be a “factoid” to you but it is another nail in your drooling effigy and a tick to the sceptics.
I reckon Luke could meld into the Military like a sweet pear into a Creme Caramel. They think for you, they house you, they feed and educate you, they even have their police to protect you. Eventually they retire you, if you are still alive. Socialism. yo’d luv it, wouldn’t need the wife to cook for you and your man servant would clean up the broken keyboards and patch the walls.
janama,
Maybe it is a little bit strong
But ice shelves are noisier than a humpback’s song.
Spangles
I am very interested in the oral histories of the various aboriginal peoples the Anglo Saxons invaded in a geological sense. Those peoples stressed the importance of “oral” history, as opposed to “written”.
Given the historic sackings of the libraries at Alexandria by the Muslims, and more recently by the Post Modernists ruling us, (and Luke is a plant, in more ways than one, since he seems to have less cognitive powers than a cauliflower), it seems that a people’s collective memory, as repeated in ritual, etc, might be more accurate than the Emperially censored accounts we are forced to take.
“Barf !”
Metoclopramide can help but in your case Haloperidol with it’s strong anxiolytic effect might provide additional benefit.
Louis,
I could help you with it a little bit. I certainly didn’t pay attention enough when I had the chance but I remember a few things. I used to write letters for one of the chiefs to his surrounding chiefs eg.
“I fear that the Fabians might have realised their long term goal by default.”
ROFLMAO.
Yes, it’s all scepticism here folks. Roll up and see the show.
Louis & Drongo
Seems to me the Muslims had a written language all through their history. That would be worth mining if you could get someone in the Arab world interested.
Come to think of it, that shouldn’t be too much problem. Vested interest and all that.
Well it’s barf as the involuntary bullshit gag reflex trips over Sinkers dishonest little essay.
Jan – strange you suggested Haloperidol – they’d been telling me here at the home that it was Vitamin H all along.
“Jan – strange you suggested Haloperidol – they’d been telling me here at the home that it was Vitamin H all along.”
In that case I’m glad you are getting the help you need I hate seeing people suffer unnecessarily.
James Mayeau
arabic is not the oldest written language, neither is the Muslim religion the oldest religion.
And why would they know more about the climate than any other people?
JeremyC, discussion??? Sigh.
Comment from: kuhnkat June 18th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
“So, real scientists and technicians use real instruments to identify “Almost any solid, liquid or gas” by their IR emission characteristics. Is this good enough to make the point for your pointy heads??”
Perhaps this is a wonderful example of a very common logical falacy that goes somethig like this:
Aspirin can cure headaches.
Therefore, aspirin cures all problems.
If you don’t understand what a dipole is, don’t try to discuss IR spectroscopy, OK?
“If you don’t understand what a dipole is,”
I know it’s a double ended one those things Gondoliers use.
“Clearly driven by an extremist left wing political agenda.”
Oh yes clearly. I will still persist with my investigations of the denialist mindset. I think the following is interesting
“Rachel Carson to brain cancer from mobile phones”.
The poster appears to think that none of the text of Silent Spring had any veracity whatsoever. And yet we have seen major regulation of what were very dangerous methods of application of highly toxic chemicals. Many of these chemical are no longer allowed to be sold. Operators are required to where protective clothing. Rigorous testing is required before a pesticide or insecticide can be used in the wider environment. To say that all of this change is down to a “left wing conspiracy” is self evidently ridiculous.
As to mobile phones, as far as I know the evidence is weak but then perhaps changes have been made based on the despised “precautionary principle” that have diminished possible detrimental effects. But again I would assert that the explanation of any extra features that make mobile phones safer are the result of left wing conspiracy is self evidently deluded and the product of a worlds view premised on a persecution complex.
BTW as far as history goes, have a look at the wave of environmental protection legislation introduced during the late 60s and 70s and tell me there be no problem if it hadn’t been enacted, moron.
“The poster appears to think that none of the text of Silent Spring had any veracity whatsoever. And yet we have seen major regulation of what were very dangerous methods of application of highly toxic chemicals. Many of these chemical are no longer allowed to be sold. Operators are required to where protective clothing. Rigorous testing is required before a pesticide or insecticide can be used in the wider environment. To say that all of this change is down to a “left wing conspiracy” is self evidently ridiculous.”
LOL. The primary chemicals that was adversely affected by “Silent Spring” was DDT, which you can literally eat by the spoonful without any adverse effects. And the thinning eggshell theory has also been proven to be pseudoscience. And banning it has led to over 40 million unnecessary deaths of children in the third-world countries. Of course, those that are a part of the current “environmental movement” (a big portion of the left-wing conspiracy) don’t give a damn about people, contrary to their constant plea that they are “doing this for our children.”
Actually, I should not be using the term “conspiracy,” since that connotes secrecy, intrigue, etc. It is no secret that the socialistic leftist scumbags are pushing for a “New World Order,” with Global Governance. And I am sure we would live happily ever after..
Luke,
so an AGW true beliver can distort the data to keep avoiding what is acknowledged by the facts.
And just who is tedious, my green slobbering friend?
ACE is reduced. You do not even know the definition of ACE.
Deal with it by way of denial, all you care to.
The climate does not care a wit for your deep faith, at all.
Luke,
I guess mere definitions are things you cannot agree with anymore, either.
SJT,
Here is how your non-conspiracy people behave jsut out of sheer rude incivillity:
http://noteviljustwrong.com/blog/9-general/104-republicans-and-their-st-films-must-be-stopped.html
You AGW true belivers are going to do at least as much damage to the world and to civilization as the eugneics crowd did. Eugneics were simply racists trying to ‘purify the race’ by way of pseudoscience.
AGW true belivers fantasize they are actually saving the world.
Jae’s objection to my claim that heated air radiates infrared raises an interesting point. Almost every molecule in our atmosphere — i.e., nitrogen, oxygen and argon — gets heated by surface contact. This is how a fireplace heats a room. The flame directly heats the circulating air in contact with it, as do the irradiated walls, until the entire room heats up, air and walls together. Conduction and convection are the atmosphere’s PRINCIPAL means of acquiring heat. But if it turns out that nitrogen, oxygen and argon radiate very little IR compared to CO2, then CO2 is truly an atmospheric COOLANT. For ultimately the atmosphere can only lose heat in one way, by radiating to space.
“Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period (see Fig. 1)?”
No. 1998-present is the warmest 10 year period in the instrumental record.
“Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) was not unusual in either rate or magnitude as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history (Fig. 2a, 2b)?”
No. The rate and magnitude were unusual.
“Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were followed by 10 years of stasis and cooling. (Fig. 3)?”
No. No computer model predicts higher temperatures every single year. In fact, there have not been “10 years of stasis and cooling”. 1990-1998 was warmer than any period of similar length in the instrumental record preceding it; 1998-2008 has been warmer than any period of similar length preceding it.
Looks like this Senator Fielding has been reading anti-science blogs like this one, instead of consulting scientists.
RW
Hooray! Back on topic. Agree with you on Q! and Q3. But Question 2 is valid.
From 1911-1940, temperatures showed a similar rise in temperature (0.5C) as the past 30 years. There was only a 10ppm rise in CO2 then compared with a 50ppm rise since 1978. This rise last century show up in both hemispheres.
As the last ice age finished, sea levels rose some 40m in 50 years which seems to suggest a very quick rise in temperature so this rise is not unusual compared to the past.
Alan:
” But if it turns out that nitrogen, oxygen and argon radiate very little IR compared to CO2, then CO2 is truly an atmospheric COOLANT. For ultimately the atmosphere can only lose heat in one way, by radiating to space.”
Some folks have wondered about that. I suspect, however, that the amount of increase in GHGs due to increased CO2 has very little effect. The INCREASE in CO2 is less than (0.03)(.375) = 0.01% of the atmosphere; whereas water vapor is about 1.5%–or 150 times that much.
RW: LOL, like all AGW-freaks, you eschew the “starting date” game, until it suits you to play the game yourself. Try looking at the trend for 2003-2009. Show me any PUBLISHED model run that shows such a drop in temperature for 6 years. I emphasize “published,” because I’m fairly sure there are hundreds of model runs that show a cooling for the entire period; but they are not included in the “ensemble.” Anyone with any faith in those computer models either does not understand the models very well or is being dishonest.
Jae, but you understand the main idea, right? Say you have a gas at 300K that (impossibly) doesn’t radiate IR at all. And say you have another gas at 300K that radiates IR vigorously. If both gases have only one avenue of heat transfer, i.e., by radiation, which gas will lose heat to space and which will not?
Folks, its nearly a week and Ms Wong has eschewed an answer, and the attempts here have been weak, weak, weak. I am forever amazed at the various answers that are based on the anomaly trends. Not only are they ALL cherry picked in both start/end times for the anomaly periods as well as the studied period, but meaningless in any rational sense since they do not point by point answer the questions. More importantly they just reinforce the arrogance of their thinking by limiting the time frames.
The answers are really important for setting policy. Moreover, the real question is what will happen if the temp does continue to rise at its current rate/century? Can mankind withstand another .6-.8C increase? I think most definitely, yes!
Alan Siddons
“Conduction and convection are the atmosphere’s PRINCIPAL means of acquiring heat. But if it turns out that nitrogen, oxygen and argon radiate very little IR compared to CO2, then CO2 is truly an atmospheric COOLANT. For ultimately the atmosphere can only lose heat in one way, by radiating to space.”
I think Bill Kininmonth has said some thing like that.
However the main greenhouse gas remains water vapor which is lifted to great altitudes by convection. In the tropics the tops of thunderstorms have less than 20% of total atmospheric mass above them.
RW June 19th, 2009 at 5:23 am
Thanks RW for getting back to the real questions…
“No. 1998-present is the warmest 10 year period in the instrumental record.”
That is not the right answer to Q1 or Q3… The question is that CO2 increased by 5% and that temperatures cooled. The latter heavily depends on what start and enddates you use. But one can’t say that the temperatures increased substantially in the past 10 years, these leveled off anyway, no matter what happened before, with increasing CO2 levels.
That simply means that in the past 10 years, natural variations (whatever the cause) did offset the extra warming caused by the 5% increase of CO2, including a lot of heat embedded in the oceans which were in the pipeline for an extra increase in temperature (according to James Hansen).
Models don’t catch any internal natural variability like ENSO, PDO, etc… No problem in its own, if you look at very long periods. But the problem is in the validation of the models: one has to wait at least another 20 years to be sure that any of the models have any validity in “predicting the future”.
As the current leveling in warming looks very similar to the previous one (1945-1975) even with 60% more CO2 in the atmosphere than in 1960, it looks like that CO2 has not a high influence on temperature.
And if some natural cause can offset the warming, the same (or another) natural cause can have helped the warming in the previous period. Thus of the total warming e.g. 50% might have been from natural causes and 50% from CO2, which means that the effect of 2xCO2 is at the lowest end of the IPCC range…
That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be prudent with energy use or shoudn’t do research for alternatives (and energy storage), but cap and trade is just good to feed the Russian maffia (as happens in Europe nowadays) and doesn’t bring any change in CO2 levels or temperature…
CoRev,
The most interesting thing is how the AGW community ahs responded. Instead of using this public questioning as a teachable moment, they instead made it more of an opportunity for covering themselves in their own vomitus and trying to wipe it on the person asking questions.
The true belivers have posted nearly no links, have flubbed basic aspects of climate definitions, and have in nearly every post resorted to behavior that only makes AGW look even less credible.
This seems to be the pattern at all levels of the AGW community. From apocalypse salesman Holdren deliberatley lying about papers he uses in his Presidential report, to Gore’s caricature of an oracle, to Hansen’s calls for police state thuggery, it is all fear mongering and intimidation and misleading.
well the scientists have finally put the answers they received to print
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25656849-7583,00.html
Alan:
” If both gases have only one avenue of heat transfer, i.e., by radiation, which gas will lose heat to space and which will not?”
The only gases that lose heat to space are those that can absorb/emit IR (mainly OCO and HOH). Once one of these GHGs absorbs radiation, it can either emit it again, or it can impart energy to a neighboring molecule via a collision or near collision (thermalization). This method of energy propagation is much more intense and important than radiation. But remember, this works both ways; once a O2 molecule becomes energized via collisions, it can transfer this energy BACK to a GHG molecule via another collision (or near collision). The GHG molecule can then emit that energy as IR to space–or to another GHG molecule. In any local region, all the molecules are in “Local Thermal Equilibrium,” and this is maintained through this combination of IR photon emission/absorption and collisions.
As I remember, electromagnetic radiation (emr), such as IR, is produced when there is a change in the relative motions of charged particles. That is why a molecule must have a dipole (i.e., a positive portion and a negative portion) in order to absorb or emit emr. When a photon at the right frequency (IR in this case) is absorbed by the molecule, these charged portions (atoms in this case) move relative to each other in one way or another (bending motions, stretching motions, etc.). On the other hand, when a photon of the same energy is emitted, this movement stops. HOH is a triangular molecule, wherein the O has a slightly negative charge, and the Hs have a slightly positive charge. OCO is a linear molecule, but the Oxygen atoms have a negative charge, relative to the carbon atom. Thus, in the case of OCO, when a photon with about a 15 micron wavelength stikes the molecule, it causes asymetric stretching of the bonds between the carbon and the oxygen molecules. The molecule is thus energized. It can then re-emit the photon and become de-energized or it can collide with an O2 molecule and give that molecule the energy, whereupon the motion quits again. The molecule can accept more than one photon so that the bonds stretch and bend, the molecule rotates, bounces around, etc.
Hope that helps (there may be some minor errors, since it’s been a long time since I’ve reviewed this stuff).
Game. set, and match to Fielding.
If these expert advisors can’t answer Q1 with the facts, dismiss Q2 out-of-hand (because it is a valid question they can’t disprove) and had to admit to some validity regarding Q3, they are hardly advisors that Penny should be listening to. She has made some inaccurate comments during this debate, probably because of this poor advice. Maybe she should be asking the type of questions Fielding has been posing before presenting this ETS bill.
Dammit, I already see one mistake: I said, “That is why a molecule must have a dipole (i.e., a positive portion and a negative portion) in order to absorb or emit emr.”
I should have said, “That is why a molecule must have a dipole (…) in order to absorb or emit IR.”
The dipole has nothing to do with absorption/emissions of emr in the UV and visible regions; there the energy can be absorbed and emitted because of changes in ELECTRONIC configurations.
RW; I assume you are of reasonable intelligence and reasonably informed; that being the case you are a liar based on your comment at 5.23am. In no particular order;
the rate and magnitude of increase in the latter 1/2 of the 20thC is unusual; this is a lie;
http://i35.tinypic.com/286wppc.jpg
Even AR4 graphs put the lie to this statement as a cursory view of p684, fig 9.5 will demonstrate that the rate of increase at the begining of the 20thC EXCEEDS the rate of increase at the end of the 20thC.
I’ll look at your other lies in another post.
Prof Steffen continues on AM this morning.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/am/200906/20090619-am01-climate-warning.mp3
sea level rise is actually slowing and the oceans are cooling – how can he get away with these lies unchallenged?
RW’s 2nd lie is that the temperature record from 1998 – present is the highest in the instrumental record; this alarmist crap came from Dr Andrew Watkins [amongst others] in headline news on the 17 December 2008; first the honesty of official temperature sources;
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif
Which of course was changed to;
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig4_correction.gif
Now, of course, this is the point that Tony ‘earless’ Jones thought he had Plimer done for in his famous fair and reasonable interview; ie the 30’s were only warmer in the US. Well, no, they weren’t; they were warmer in the Arctic, Greenland, Iceland, Canada, Russia and as I pointed out earlier to Ian George, they were warmer in most of the RCS BoM sites in Australia, certainly in the Hunter Valley, which begs the question, how does BoM get a national upward trend when a large number of regional sites show the opposite? And how is GMST showing an upward trend given the above and the fact most of the African record is estimated by the same GISS chaps who are close relatives to RW in the lying stakes?
RW’s final worthless point is a squalid attempt to vindicate the model predictions; which is just dog’s vomit and nicely described as such by the letter to the Australian linked above by janama.
The deceit is more than this though with the use of the “instrumental record” qualification. What is this, a sly admisssion that the MWP was warmer? Previously some idiot suggested that the MWP was only regional and overall temperatures were globally cooler!
“the rate and magnitude of increase in the latter 1/2 of the 20thC is unusual; this is a lie;”
He didn’t say unprecedented, he said unusual. You don’t see this often in the temperature record. In geological terms, this is rapid warming, and rapid climate change is associated with such events as mass extinctions.
Cohenite
I agree with you entirely as I replied to you at Comment from: Ian George June 18th, 2009 at 12:23 pm.
I too have found the records of 1911-1940 don’t correlate with the long-term graphs, etc. For instance, Murrurundi is a whole degree above in 1911-1940 to 1970-2000.
Also if you look at the GISS maps, most of the this century’s extreme warming is happening mainly in northern Asia and the Arctic and it has warmed far more in the North than the Southern Hemisphere.
Ian, there is a lot of emerging eveidence about the Arctic at the beginning of the 20thC; a new paper by Petr Chylek et al which has been accepted by Geophysical Research Letters offers the most thorough analysis of the comparative temperature regimes of the 20thC; the abstract says;
“Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 seperate two Arctic warming periods (1910-1940 and 1970-2008) by a significant 1940-1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910-1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970-2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean Thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.”
“RW’s final worthless point is a squalid attempt to vindicate the model predictions; which is just dog’s vomit and nicely described as such by the letter to the Australian linked above by janama.”
Always good for a laugh, Cohenite. The issue of the USA temperature record in the ’30s was due to the lie that the it represented the global temperature. It didn’t. The global temperature does include other countries that would have all had their own individual variations, but these were never referred to specifically. I must say, you make a good lawyer.
janama,
Perhaps because they are not lies?
Comment from: SJT June 19th, 2009 at 9:29 am
“In geological terms, this is rapid warming, and rapid climate change is associated with such events as mass extinctions.”
Thanks SJT. That gave me my first belly laugh for the day.
Would you care to let us know of what mass extinctions occured in the latter half of the 20th century and its associated rapid warning?
(Louis, can you please let me know if SJT takes you up on your offer to go debating in Perth. It would be worth the plane ticket to Perth to see him/her in action!).
Little Luke say,
“Gee Spanglers – a fascinating factoid. I guess one point beats the entire GSL analysis by John Church – we surrender – hahahahahaha – NEXT !”
Forget your Science process again Little one???? To “prove” your theory you have to have no errors. To DISPROVE it only requires ONE INCONVENIENT FACT!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“Hooray! Back on topic. Agree with you on Q! and Q3. But Question 2 is valid.
From 1911-1940, temperatures showed a similar rise in temperature (0.5C) as the past 30 years. There was only a 10ppm rise in CO2 then compared with a 50ppm rise since 1978. This rise last century show up in both hemispheres.” – Ian George
Ian, global temp’s in that period didn’t show an equivalent rise to that which has been seen over the last 30 years.
And Feilding’s Q2 was backed by ice-core data looking much further back. And those ‘advising’ Feilding give the exact opposite interpretation to the data than given by the scientist who produced it. But hey, what would the guy actually doing the research know.
Sure the question is valid, but the answer is already known. Pretending it isn’t, is not.
It all smacks of pretty blatant political grandstanding. Feilding could have picked up the phone anytime and spoken to climate scientists. Flying off to the US and then demanding a meeting with the minister was all a bit self-important. But, great advertising for a guy with 1.5% of the vote.
Louis, I agree with your assertions.
I think the warming hysterics have bet the whole house on pushing this panic through and ushering in with it a new world order…and some of them are panicking. Witness the language they are using above.
Even politicians of the left are recognising the hypocrisy of their green left bedmates… as Tom Harris, UK Labour MP puts it…”for some environmentalists the fight against global warming has another aim: the defeat of capitalism, of economic growth, of prosperity.Which is why I find their arguments so nauseating…”
jae and Alan
You might be interested in Collision Induced Absorption by oxygen and nitrogen. HARCODE does take this into account and I have computed the HUGE amount absorbed in an Antarctic atmospheric profile for surface temp of 236.4K in the region they are active and it amounts to 3W/m^2 the downward emission is the same the emission to space without calculating will be about 2/3 of that. I’m pretty sure the contact heating (without any GHG will be larger than that so what do we suppose the warming effect (storage mostly) of an O2 CO2 atmosphere is likely to be.
Any ideas on how to work this out??
“Ian, global temp’s in that period didn’t show an equivalent rise to that which has been seen over the last 30 years.”
No Michael, they show show a GREATER rise; you guys are hopeless;
http://i35.tinypic.com/531t2u.jpg
correction HARCODE -> HARTCODE
Cohenite
Thanks for that. There was a lot of anecdotal evidence of warming in the Arctic prior to 1940s from US weather records and Scandinavian/Canadian Arctic explorers. I have come across far northern weather stations data that show the temps were just as high in the 1930s as being recorded now. This new paper by Petr Chylek et al appears to add weight to the idea that this warming is not unprecedented.
I guess we’re talking at cross-purposes, Jae. At issue isn’t absorptivity and emissivity, dipole moments or other such details of radiative transfer but something closer to kinetics. Infrared is electromagnetic radiation — light. But rub your palms together and they emit IR, having not absorbed IR. Electrically heat some polished aluminum and it emits IR, having not absorbed IR. Convectively heat a volume of nitrogen gas and it emits IR, having not absorbed IR. Any substance that’s above absolute zero emits IR — whether it has absorbed infrared or not. I take that as a given.
Sounds like Jan is catching on.
Alan, JAE, and SOD,
apologies for muddying the discussion.
As Alan stated, and I tried to support with my poor previous contribution, virtually EVERYTHING emits IR when heated. This is non-controversial in Astronomy, Spectroscopy, Laser research and application, Night Vision industry…
The FACT that the global warming industry has concentrated so much attention on the higher MOLECULAR response to IR by a few gasses does nothing to disprove or bring this into question.
The real question is whether the MASS of the earth and atmosphere emits enough IR to approach or surpass the levels emitted by the tiny amount of CO2 in it s tiny absorptive/emissive molecular based band.
I can’t do the math. Anone else interested in determining whether the whole earth and atmosphere overwhelms the amount of energy put out by CO2 and other GG’s???
Another point was the mechanism and whether GG’s could be considered as cooling. I would remind you that CO2 alledgedly absorbs IR and loses part of the the energy to the atmosphere through collision. This is the basis of the non-existant hot spot. The physical mechanism is not controversial. The OPPOSITE is also true. That is, gasses in the atmosphere can collide with CO2 transferring energy and triggering emission of IR (don’t argue without looking up how high power CO2 lasers work).
So, the basic physics says that energy goes both ways. Convection carries the energy to the upper trop where CO2 radiates it. CO2 loses energy through collision and emission AND gains energy from absorption and collision. Now, who can tell me whether one way is more efficient than the other or is happening more than the other?????
Another confusion with the concentration on CO2 and GG’s is that Microwaves are perfectly capable of moving ENERGY off the planet and onto the planet. In fact, ALL electromagnetic radiation is energy. An example of this is satellite measurement of the temperature with MSU’s. So, similar to the question above, who is willing to determine just how much ENERGY is being radiated from the earth that ISN’T part of the narrow IR band that the IPCC gang has tried to convince us is the ONLY way the earth cools!!!!!!
Speaking of narrow IR bands, y’all DO remember that most of the 340W/m2 being radiated is NOT being radiated in the CO2 absorption bands???? The theory is that with only 280PPM we have an energy balance that is sustainable. Over 350 or 400, or 500ppm or whatever magic number, the tiny addition of extra energy being slowed by GG’s builds up over time to dangerous levels causing feedback to cause extreme problems.
Now, is there no hot spot cause the MASS of the earth and atmosphere emitting small amounts of IR and other wavelengths keeps us within the energy balance, or, is the flow poorly understood and ill posed even without these losses??
I read a lot about whether the earth system acts like a thermostat. I believe that the hotter something is the more energy it radiates/conducts. The cooler it is the less it radiates/conducts. HMMMM, another obvious mechanism for stability that appears to be ignored.
While I am making a fool of myself, could someone tell me why the IR from the sun doesn’t downwell through the atmosphere just like the IR from the surface upwells??? We are told we can ignore solar IR. WHY?!?!?!?! Even a little UV makes it to the ground!!! Y’all might want to check the black body spectrum of the sun again. It radiates at over 5000K which puts its PEAK in the visible. That DOESN’T mean there is NO IR hitting TOA and down. There is a load of IR heating the upper atmosphere and joining in the chemical stew from the sun!!
Same question again. Anyone want to quantify this for me???
And we haven’t even gotten to plasmas and electrical/magnetic fields yet!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
More alarmist and unsubstantiated bilge from an academic nit on Radio National this morning.
These people have no shame.
What the bet he is a Gore acolyte and thinks that everything the Nobull Prize winner has said is true.
“While I am making a fool of myself, could someone tell me why the IR from the sun doesn’t downwell through the atmosphere just like the IR from the surface upwells???”
Most of the radiation from the sun is shortwave, IR is long wave.
“No Michael, they show show a GREATER rise; you guys are hopeless;
http://i35.tinypic.com/531t2u.jpg” – cohenite
Oh dear, cohers.
That’s not the northern hemisphere rather than the global sst anomaly, is it??
Looks like it, but it’s unsourced, so who knows. But isn’t that a funny little contraction in the horizontal scale betwen 1870 and 1950? Does great things to the apparant rate of warming which is, on real graphs, is less than the current warming.
Alan: “Sounds like Jan is catching on.”
I actually caught on some time ago (about 3 years when Tom Vonk, a pseudonym jae is familiar with, pointed out some papers on collision induced absorption) but putting numbers to it was something I could not do until Ferenc gave me HARTCODE (+ HITRAN2k database) to play with. Your conversation with jae actually inspired me to make a start.
One wonders though what sort of quantitative effects higher temperatures and pressures will have. One thing we can be sure of though is that if there is heat accumulated somewhere nature has a way of spreading it out even radiation from “non radiating” gases.
Muddying? Not at all, Kuhnkat. Yours was a simultaneous post, I see, and it kind of echoes what I was saying.
If for practical purposes solar irradiance is regarded as a constant, it opens the question as to whether anything put into this thermal scenario can make it hotter. Add an atmosphere and you introduce cooling, for instance: the surface will now function like an air-cooled heat engine. Adding a cloud means adding albedo and a shadow, although water in the cloud will later radiate the heat it has absorbed. The lesson is soon learned that one thing gains only at another’s loss. Nitrogen, oxygen and argon acquire heat by prompting the surface to release it. And it’s no different with CO2. If the surface wasn’t tossing IR, CO2 couldn’t catch it.
This is basic thermodynamics: The first law says that energy can’t be created; it just gets moved around. And the second law won’t let it get moved around to anything that’s warmer. With a fixed heat source, then, there’s not a hell of a lot you can do, just allocate more heat here and less heat there. But in respect to the 2nd law, “back-radiation” has no place. I’m not suggesting, then, that radiation from heated nitrogen, oxygen and argon far exceed CO2 as radiative forcing agents, merely that if “forcing” did exist, then they would! So quantifying this is pointless, in my view.
Bottom line: Using blackbody equations to determine the temperature of a real body is a mistake from the start. A blackbody instantly absorbs and radiates 100% of the energy that impinges on it. A real body cannot do the same because it has DEPTH and is constantly transferring heat into itself, releasing it later. One will never get a real body’s temperature right by ignoring this, yet ignoring this is the first step that greenhouse physics takes.
The US have probably the best weather recording of any country in the world and, despite UHI, only one year, 2006, is in the top ten. Four of their warmest years were in the 1930s. One wonders how valid present graphs of the temperature history are. I know NASA dropped off many stations around 1990, which may have been a legitimate exercise, but did they drop off the old recordings as well. Some say if you overlay the temp graphs presented in the IPCC report in 2001 with the temp graph in the 2007 report there is a fall in temps prior to 1980 and a rise in temps after 1980 in the later one. Why?
If one looks at the NSW graph of temp history, there were a number of warm years prior to 1945 rivalling some of those in the past ten years. However, the national temp graphs don’t show the same correlation – there must have been some very cool temps in other states to skew the averages down. When you consider that Marble Bar holds the record for the longest heat wave (160 consecutive days of 100F+) in 1923/24, one wonders what is going on.
khunkat: “While I am making a fool of myself, could someone tell me why the IR from the sun doesn’t downwell through the atmosphere just like the IR from the surface upwells??? We are told we can ignore solar IR.”
I did notice little wills most erudite exposition. The question does require a little more effort to answer than is sensible in a blog like this so here is a lecture with some pictures and absorption charts and you will see water vapour is quite active at near IR wavelengths even though the lecture does not cover it the collision induced absorption I mentioned earlier also plays a role in near IR. The short answer is some does get down quite low in the troposphere then water vapour at near saturation levels gobbles the remainder up. At least so the story goes but I don’t know about low humidity deserts though. Maybe jae has some data.
Hunter – fine – care to direct me to the empirical evidence that sea level rise in increasing and that ocean temperatures are increasing?
I interpreted Kuhnkat to mean that if the sunlit earth is radiating up while the sun is radiating down, isn’t this equivalent to a downwelling back-flow? Thus shouldn’t the “net” radiation be about double and raise the temperature far higher? But no, it’s downwelling IR from the EARTH’S own radiation that makes it hotter. If the same amount comes from the sun, it doesn’t!
Michael; you’re embarrassing yourself; the heading of the graph says GLOBAL SST temperatures and it shows the source and the methodology; and what “funny little contraction in the horizontal scale”? There is no contraction; anyway, here is the global atmospheric temperature history from the same source, not that it will make any difference to you; your mind is closed and you’ll still be yelling AGW as ice forms around you;
http://i32.tinypic.com/2s01m5y.jpg
Alan:
“But rub your palms together and they emit IR, having not absorbed IR. Electrically heat some polished aluminum and it emits IR, having not absorbed IR. Convectively heat a volume of nitrogen gas and it emits IR, having not absorbed IR. Any substance that’s above absolute zero emits IR — whether it has absorbed infrared or not. I take that as a given. ”
You do need to study some basic physics.
If you do WORK on a system, you generate HEAT. If you rub your hands together, you do work, and that work puts energy into the molecules in the skin on your hands. You are forcing COLLISIONS of molecules, big time (that is called FRICTION in this case). The wind does the same thing in the atmosphere. This type of “weak energy” is emitted in the IR spectrum, which is what our bodies’ nerves sense as “heat.” (As opposed to the intense energy in the visible spectrum that you get from an incandescent light bulb). If you add electricity to something with resistance (which is everything), you again add energy (it is really still friction!) to the molecules, which gives you the same thing (if you add enough electricity, of course, you can go into the intense visible spectrum–the light bulb, plasma, etc.).
Bottom line: I’m sorry, but diatomic molecules, such as N2, O2, H2, and noble elements such as He, Ar, Ne do not absorb or emit appreciable amounts of IR. IR is generally associated with the relative movement of atoms in a molecule which has a dipole element (as I tried to explain earlier). As Jan points out, there can be special cases of such phenomena as “collision-induced IR,” but that is a very minor contribution and is not worth the time to discuss in this context.
janama,
I do not think sea levels are rising significantly or dangerously at all.
And I do not think the oceans are warming up in anything like a worrisome fashion.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f1f2f75f-802a-23ad-4701-a92b4ebbccbf
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Now the true believers will shriek about it, but that is to be expected.
It is about time that the “true believers” put some empirical data out here to prove at least one of their points. I won’t hold my breath, since such data do not exist.
Michael “Q1. Global temperature has not “cooled” since 1998. That’s a piece of denialist stupidity that been’s patiently explained a 1000 times”.
Who explained that, Hansen, Schmidt, or an IPCC-based fetishist? The decadal analysis by UAH last year was that ‘average’ global temperatures had ‘increased’ by 0.04 C over the decade, an increase not worth the mention. However, Spencer has pointed out that average global temperatures have decreased the past 3 years.
Before you rave further about your explanations, why don’t you try spelling out exactly what ‘global’ warming means? It is a mathematical average, not a reality. The entire globe, nor anywhere near it, has not warmed. Much of it has remained in a temperature range of +0.1 C to -0.1 C, according to UAH. A good portion has cooled. The part that has warmed is limited mainly to the northern portion of the northern hemisphere.
Why do you suppose one localized portion has been so affected, particularly in winter? Does the CO2 pile up over that section? I don’t think so. The explanation that the ocean is involved rings more truthfully than any virtualized computer model allegation.
You sound particularly desperate with your ad homs, but that is typical. When your evidence slips away you reach for the closest slur.
“Why do you suppose one localized portion has been so affected, particularly in winter? Does the CO2 pile up over that section? I don’t think so. The explanation that the ocean is involved rings more truthfully than any virtualized computer model allegation.”
The models incorporate the oceans.
SJT
“The models incorporate the oceans” – but not the clouds and hence are incomplete.
The belief in models over physical reality is really quite bizarre. But then Keynesian economists do as well, so given that fact, perhaps its not so much bizarre as incompetence.
SJT “Most of the radiation from the sun is shortwave, IR is long wave”.
More crap from SJT and the Great Uninformed. There is slightly more energy from longwave IR in the Sun’s spectrum than visible and ultraviolet energy combined. That comes from the Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation by Bohren and Clothiaux who state:
“About 51% of the solar irradiance lies in the infrared, 42% in the visible, and 7% in the ultraviolet”.
So, try explaining to the guy who posed the question why the 50% IR energy from solar radiation is downplayed by the AGW supporters.
Gordon,
I think you just tied SJT into a Gordian knot. 🙂 He made another non sequituir on a community post on a Fat Report of Fear. Seems our little wil the Traffic light has credibility problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
the report about the 2weak replies” in the australian are from fielding s own DENIALIST advisors.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25656849-5013480,00.html
so they are unconvinced by the replies? i am shocked, truly shocked!
“Michael; you’re embarrassing yourself; the heading of the graph says GLOBAL SST temperatures and it shows the source and the methodology; and what “funny little contraction in the horizontal scale” – cohenite
Oh dear oh dear, cohers.
Try reading write I write.
I know what the unsourced, free-floating graph says it is, but as I said, “it looks like” the n/h graph, not the global one (and the horizontal axis is definitely fudged – where on earth did you did this thing up from??).
Yes, the second one is a bit more like it. See now how that gradient flattens out quite a bit compared to that first thing you linked to, making the gradient for the recent warming steeper than the ealier one.
Of course, if you’d link to these graphs at their source rather than just the graphic, these guessing games wouldn’t be required.
Better late than never aye Will but I notice your wikipedia chart has kind of misslocated the CO2 4 micron band and it still does not say why solar near IR energy at the surface is down played. In fact it gives us reason not to downplay it.
I take from that remark that you are satisfied with the replies. this one?
so you accept that the models are faulty – at last a respectable statement from you.
Now the temp v CO2 – you either accept that CO2 is not related to temperature or you use they reply that The Chief Scientist used – namely – there has been an increase in temp over the past decade. That rise, if accepted, is only .04C/decade or .4C/century i.e. not worth worrying about and still at odds with the IPCC computer projections of 3 – 5C over the century.
Either way, you lose.
I don’t see anything in little will’s spectrum graph to query what Gordon has said about the total IR insolation energy; perhaps little will can interpret it for us?
Jan I have linked to this paper by Nahle [originally from Alan Siddons] before;
http://biocab.org/Induced_Emissions.html
Nahle discounts night-time back-radiation which is the mainstay of Philipona; so fair enough but there are still 2 issues;
1 measurement of night-time downward IR which seems to contradict Nahle’s idea of directional Induced emission
2 Nahle’s idea of the night-time surface emission of heat stored from the day seems to overlap with Miskolczi’s Po and K fluxes.
Any thoughts?
Cohenite,
The measured IR could also come from electric currents in the atmosphere- these operate in dark plasma mode and are thus invisible. Electric currents are leaving the earth’s surface continually to maintain the Plasma DL which envelops the Earth.
It’s about time we got into the 21 st century and leave the stanley steamer physics behind.
SJT “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png”
So what are you trying to say with the graph? Look at how it is skewed. There are dotted lines running up the peak of the graph to indicate the visible wavelengths. Draw a line across the top of the peak to form a rectangle inside the peak. Now go to the IR side and see how many same-width rectangles you can stack on one another to equal the visible rectangle. There is more than enough area under the IR portion of the spectral curve, even visibly, to see that the IR radiance is more than the visible radiance by quite a bit.
It’s the area under the curve that matters and the area under the IR portion is skewed well to the right. We feel that portion as heat, and that alone should tell you how much we are affected by solar IR. As Bohrem claims, IR accounts for 51% of solar radiation.
jae “I’m sorry, but diatomic molecules, such as N2, O2, H2, and noble elements such as He, Ar, Ne do not absorb or emit appreciable amounts of IR. IR is generally associated with the relative movement of atoms in a molecule which has a dipole element (as I tried to explain earlier)”.
I’m not presenting myself as an expert here but molecules like N2 and O2 will emit IR if they are warmed by other means. The argument with regard to the Sun emitting 51% IR is that CO2 amd H20 ‘should’ absorb this radiation from incoming solar radiation better than they do from surface radiation. That doesn’t seem to be accounted for in the AGW theory. If gases like CO2 and water vapour are warmed by solar radiation, and they emit that energy toward the surface, that’s not the same thing as the surface warming them.
There’s also the problem of how rare ACO2 is in the atmosphere. People talk about a blanket but a gas that’s a few percent of the natural CO2, which is only 0.04% of atmospheric gases, is hardly going to make much of a difference when it comes to absorbing solar or surface radiation and re-emitting it.
Water vapour and clouds are entirely different matters. Water vapour may only be 1% to 3% of the atmosphere but it’s replensihed on an ongoing basis. It warms and rises and it’s replaced by cooler water vapour. It’s also moved by convection and replaced. Clouds, as Craig Bohren explains, can be emulated as a layer of water in the atmosphere and treated as such. They too move on and are replaced.
In the same manner, O2 and N2 can pick up heat through convection and like water vapour, should rise when warmed, or when blown by wind or air currents. Whereas O2 and N2 do not absorb photons emitted by a warm body, they are affected through convection when in contact with a warmer body. After all, temperature is a measure of atomic vibration. What’s to stop O2 and N2 from being warmed near the surface and transporting that heat elsewhere for release?
Think about it this way. If a room is at 15 C, and you turn on the heat, what is the warm air you experience? It’s mainly N2 and O2 because water vapour is only about 1% of that mix. The heat source causes the N2 and O2 to vibrate harder and they emit energy in the IR spectrum.
The question arises as to how much of an influence O2 and N2 have in the atmosphere as far as temperature is concerned. Together, they make up 97% of the atmosphere. Wouldn’t you think they would play a significant role? The satellites pick up IR emissions from O2 in the microwave range.
cohenite: I get “page not found” for that link.
I shouldn’t really comment unless I’ve read it
Gordon,
“The satellites pick up IR emissions from O2 in the microwave range.”
On the assumption of the standard model which assumes an inert Earthian Sphere suspended in a vacuum.
That’s correct, Gordon. Heat-induced vibrations within the MASS of a substance is what causes it to radiate IR; the particular architecture of its individual molecules is irrelevant.
In a solid, liquid, or gas, heat causes atoms and molecules to move around. This movement disturbs the electromagnetic fields of these bodies — the more heat, the more movement, the more disturbance — which stimulates them to emit photons, i.e., propagate electromagnetic energy. Thus any solid, liquid, or gas at a temperature above absolute zero radiates light, starting at low frequencies (radio and infrared) and proceeding higher as the thermal excitement increases.
Incidentally, only in an IR-responsive gas that is rarified, so that its buzzing molecules minimally interact with each other, will you see a neat spectral profile of the frequencies it radiates. In greater concentration its spectrum will look like any other heated gas, a boring band of IR noise. I suppose that’s why the IR spectra of heated nitrogen and oxygen are ignored. They’re just not very interesting.
Alan:
“That’s correct, Gordon. Heat-induced vibrations within the MASS of a substance is what causes it to radiate IR; the particular architecture of its individual molecules is irrelevant. ”
Damn, you spout this nonsense after I spent so much time trying to explain the interaction between IR and matter! How sad and disappointing… If the “arcitecture of the molecules is irrelevant,” then explain to us how spectroscopy (which you mentioned previously) works.
Go back to school.
And Gordon, please do google “microwave” and “infra-red” to see why you cannot talk about “IR emissions in the microwave range.” For crying out loud!
JAE,
“As Jan points out, there can be special cases of such phenomena as “collision-induced IR,” but that is a very minor contribution and is not worth the time to discuss in this context.”
You do realise that collision induced IR is the same as “Rubbing two things together??”
You should also realise that this causes the electrons in the atom to increase their quantum state. Their relaxing is when the IR is emitted.
Finally, you should know that SW heating the surface ALSO INCREASES THE QUANTUM STATE OF THE ELECTRONS OF THE MATERIAL…
In fact, any method you use to heat an atom does pretty much the same thing.
In other words, the mechanical and radiation effect is similar and has the same result. IR emitted which MAY be the right wavelength to be absorbed by CO2, depending on the actual electron state transition. The more heating, the more IR to the point you get SW. Anyone know if you get UV if you continue heating??
While I agree that this is a very small effect per unit under “normal” conditions, the number of units, every atom exposed to, and in the atmosphere, and how often it occurs, is rather larger than the number of GHG molecules. I want it quantified before I will let go of my fetish!! ;>)
Here is a link to an explanation of how a He-Ne laser works. It includes the words dipole and collision just to pique your interest.
http://www.technology.niagarac.on.ca/people/mcsele/lasers/Quantum.htm
kuhnkat:
Sheesh! There are a lot of folks here that need to go back to school.
The electromagnetic radiation associated with ELECTRONS is NOT in the IR region, but in the much shorter, more powerful, wavelength regions–visible and uv. Look up atomic emissin spectroscopy, e.g. I’ve explained and provided a link to the excitations caused by far-IR. They are associated with atoms and molecules, not electrons.
Dr ‘Jaekel’ has revealed his Mr Hyde side on this thread. I don’t know how to deal with him. Any physics text will explain that heated matter radiates IR because of field oscillation but here’s a good summary:
When electrons move, they create a magnetic field. When electrons move back and forth or oscillate, their electric and magnetic fields change together, forming an electromagnetic wave. This oscillation can come from atoms being HEATED and thus moving about rapidly or from alternating current (AC) electricity.
The opposite effect occurs when an electromagnetic wave hits matter. In such a case, it COULD cause atoms to vibrate, creating heat, or it can cause electrons to oscillate, depending on the wavelength of the radiation.
Electromagnetic radiation is emitted from all matter with a temperature above absolute zero. Temperature is the measure of the average energy of vibrating atoms and that vibration causes them to give off electromagnetic radiation. As the temperature increases, more radiation and shorter wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are emitted.
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/emwaves.htm
(My emphases)
Heat >> Motion >> Electric/Magnetic field disturbance >> Propagation of light. Once any body is heated, then, it radiates. It makes no difference to me, though. I was pointing to something more germane.
1. If the earth’s diatomic and inert gases absorb heat directly from the surface yet are unable to radiate, then they’re the real greenhouse gases. For most of our atmosphere cannot radiate its heat to space. Since CO2 does radiate heat to space, on the other hand, this makes it a coolant.
2. If the earth’s diatomic and inert gases absorb heat directly from the surface and do radiate, yet this major source of radiation doesn’t heat the earth, then the miniscule radiation that CO2 emits doesn’t heat it either.
Either way, the current paradigm is wrong.
jae, Alan and kuhnkat
I have plotted the absorption band of O2 and N2 and you can see the two absorption spectra here as you can see it’s of low significance even though it exist.
I put it up for interest value.
But absorption is not the issue, Jan. Who contests that N2 and O2 are largely transparent to infrared? The issue is that heated gases like N2 and O2 RADIATE. They acquire heat directly from the surface rather than by radiative transfer, but this doesn’t mean that they don’t radiate — most certainly they can and do, because any heated body does.
A microwave oven can only heat polarized molecules like water. Copper doesn’t consist of polarized molecules. But heated or AC-excited copper will emit microwaves. There is not an exact balance between the heat and light. Heat can cause just about anything to happen. Light has more limits. Heat will always induce a field oscillation. Light may or may not. Because nothing is transparent to heat.
Alan are you suggesting that gases radiated like a black body?
I thought as you do 3 years ago then I learnt something you can’t compare the radiation from gases with that of solids. When you are talking about radian heat you are talking about light.
I’ve updated this to show also a comparison between what is absorbed and what is emitted. You’ll notice it’s very near the same.
It’s not at the same location and the temperature is different but you can compare the computed flux with the interferometer measured spectral flux density here
“Alan are you suggesting that gases radiate like a black body?”
No, not the earth’s tenuous gases at least. But the sun’s gases do. Are you suggesting, however, that most of our 5.2 million gigaton atmosphere doesn’t radiate heat?
Don’t make the mistake of applying Kirchhoff’s principles outside of their context. Yes, a substance that absorbs a wavelength poorly will also tend to emit that wavelength poorly. Full transparency means no response and no emission. But this rule presupposes a single process, that of radiative interaction… light in and light out. By contrast, when HEAT (or electricity) is the source of excitement instead of light, all bets are off. For nothing is transparent to heat. In short, substances do not respond to light and heat the same, as I’ve tried to explain.
Nitrogen and oxygen don’t absorb infrared. But heated by the earth’s surface, they certainly radiate IR, as any heated material must.
Alan Siddons
“…light in and light out. By contrast, when HEAT (or electricity) is the source of excitement instead of light, all bets are off.”
We have a rule of thumb in geophysical exploration – when the measurements become non-linear, all bets are off.
Herein we have a possible explanation – heat sources – Alan you are on the right track with this line of reasoning.
If the atmosphere is host to electric currents operating in dark plasma mode, and there is abundant evidence for this, then those currents will heat (raise the temperature) of the matter through which they are flowing, which then emits IR.
We only become aware of atmospheric electricity when it jumps to arc mode (lightning), a short circuit in other words, otherwise we seem to be unaware of it, despite the fact that the atmosphere has a quiescent electric field of 100v/vertical meter. Try playing around with one of those air ionisers – they create wind! Same thing with electric arc-welding machines – they too can generate wind. And the those times when the air is dry and static electricity becomes a nuisance or problem.
The AGW theorists assume that only radiative gases (ie greenhouse ones) radiate the IR. And electricity has no role to play in weather?
This is the heat source everyone is looking for – atmospheric electricity that is replenished by the electric currents coming from the Sun, who fluctuating radiance is giving us only a hint of the underlying fluctuations in energy.
Alan “No, not the earth’s tenuous gases at least. But the sun’s gases do. Are you suggesting, however, that most of our 5.2 million gigaton atmosphere doesn’t radiate heat?”
How can you ask that? See here where I actually quantify it for you.
But we’re still talking apples and oranges, Jan. Let’s cut to the chase: Of the HEAT that the earth transfers to the atmosphere (the minor radiative component plus the major conductive/convective component), how much does the atmosphere emit to space? My answer: All of it.
With 239 W/m² entering the system and 239 exiting, there is no sign of a radiative “constriction” that would bring about a higher temperature via an unknown law of physics. The temperature of a real body that stores heat due to its physical depth and plentiful water cannot be derived by referencing a blackbody, which instantly radiates all of the energy that impinges on it. At root, the theory of a greenhouse effect, which seeks to explain the disparity between real and predicted temperatures, is an artifact of a math error.
Alan ” My answer: All of it.”
That is not the issue. What bands does it radiate in? The atmosphere does not radiate as a blackbody it’s simply not thick and hot enough. This is measurable with interferometers, and we can also compute this by a convolution of the Planck function with known absorption and emission coefficients derived from laboratory experiment. You can see how well the code that I used agrees with measured spectrum here in this blow up of a portion of the spectrum.
The third chart here shows that the atmosphere returns to the surface whatever it absorbs so in effect the atmosphere is not warmed by radiation at all.
Here you have a scatter plot of 228 selected from around the world at different seasons of the the third plot results. This shows that it’s basically the same wherever and whenever it is measured and we can conclude that the surface is not warmed by the atmospheric radiation and the atmosphere is not warmed by surface radiation. What is absorbed is returned and what passes through does not warm the atmosphere. The heat from the surface that the atmosphere radiates to space must therefore all be derived from latent and sensible heat.
This does not mean that the atmosphere will radiate as a black body The energy will still be distributed in the atmosphere according to maxwell-Boltzmann’s distribution and equipartition those gases will only radiate at their “resonant” frequencies when induced to do so hence you’ll only see emission at the same wavelengths they absorb at. Aren’t we glad of that or we wouldn’t have gas lasers?
That gases radiate at the wavelengths they absorb at is not new Einstein worked it out for us nearly a century ago and it has been verified in the laboratory time and again to the point we can by asking nicely download a database of such absorption and emission spectra from Harvard web site to the computations that i have shown you.
Okay, Jan, you’ve given me a lot to think about and I promise you I will. Thanks for being civil. As I see the problem currently, atmospheric gases acquire thermal energy by radiative transfer and by direct conductive/convective transfer. Direct heating is effectively the only option available to most of the atmosphere, about 99%. I agree that this component won’t radiate exactly like a blackbody. Nor will it radiate like an IR-selective gas, however. But I have little to go on beyond this. My assumption is that its radiation would be diffuse, with no particular emission band displayed, but would roughly conform to a Planck profile. If the same heated mix of gases had a greater concentration, of course, the more its profile would mimic a blackbody’s.
“My assumption is that its radiation would be diffuse, with no particular emission band displayed, but would roughly conform to a Planck profile.”
Your assumption is not entirely wrong O2, N2 are call “continuum” absorbers because the bands are broad and not sharply defined water vapour has continuum bands as well. They don’t behave like black body or conform to Planck function until the pressure is much higher. No point being uncivil I only learnt about this a few weeks ago myself whilst learning to use HARTCODE that in itself is not a trivial exercise. Over the past few years I’ve learnt a fair bit and that task goes on.
“Direct heating is effectively the only option available to most of the atmosphere, about 99%.”
That is in fact what this shows the atmosphere is actually losing 2.7 W/m^2 to the surface as opposed to figure 1 here which shows atmosphere gaining 23 W/m^2 from the surface. Is it a mathematical or physical problem? I think the math are fine the equations just don’t represent the physical behaviour of the system so I’d sheet it to the physics rather than the math. An assumption is used that the atmosphere is infinitely thick at the surface (infinite optical depth) to simplify the radiation transport integral then use that result with a finite optical depth 1<tau<3. It has been done this way in the text books since the 1920s.
jan:
“The heat from the surface that the atmosphere radiates to space must therefore all be derived from latent and sensible heat”
Hmmm. Yes, but?? As opposed to what else?? Just what are you defining as “sensible heat?”
Comment from: Alan Siddons June 21st, 2009 at 11:27 am
“Nitrogen and oxygen don’t absorb infrared. But heated by the earth’s surface, they certainly radiate IR, as any heated material must”
You are ignoring my attempts to help you understand this stuff. So, I am sorry. No more free tutoring for you. 🙂
jae “Just what are you defining as “sensible heat?””
the heat you feel when you touch something. The heat the atmosphere “feels” when it touches the surface and takes it away as it rises to the TOA having been warmed by a loving touch, this AKA “thermals”. As opposed to from radiation.
If whatever surface radiation that is absorbed by that atmosphere is returned to the surface then that absorbed energy cannot be said to have warmed the atmosphere. (Miskolczi 2007 eqn 4) The result is that all the heat from that surface that is radiated to space from the TOA (as opposed to radiated directly through the windows) is transferred to the atmosphere via latent and sensible heat.
Added to this heat is the SW absorbed directly by the atmosphere that must also be radiated to space from the TOA (Miskolczi 2007 eqn 5).
http://hpsregi.elte.hu/zagoni/NEW/2007.pdf
Bloody freezing down here in NZ if thats any help.
Jan:
Agreed!
JAE,
How can you pretend to be tutoring someone on IR emission when you DENY physics???
Please go and read some books on Infrared. As I keep pointing out to you, we have technologies that DEPEND on everything emitting IR based on their TEMPERATURE, NOT on their absorption of IR. This is through atomic not molecular physics.
Come on man, get a CLUE!!!!
Jan Pompe,
“The third chart here shows that the atmosphere returns to the surface whatever it absorbs so in effect the atmosphere is not warmed by radiation at all. ”
Interesting that the heading at this link is:
“Do oxygen and nitrogen radiate Infra-Red?”
It ends with this sentence:
“I’m inclined to answer the question in the heading in the affirmative.”
So, what are you trying to tell us about the emission of IR based on the temperature of an object again??
kuhnkitty:
“How can you pretend to be tutoring someone on IR emission when you DENY physics???”
Well, does physics no longer include quantum mechanics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
“As I keep pointing out to you, we have technologies that DEPEND on everything emitting IR based on their TEMPERATURE,”
Can you find a “technology” that allows me to detect N2 and O2, using emitted IR? No, you cannot!
kuhnkat: “So, what are you trying to tell us about the emission of IR based on the temperature of an object again??”
Everything that is warmer than 0K radiates but but thin gasses do not radiate like a black body or even a grey body only very dense gases (Like on the sun), solids and liquids do.. There are people about, scientists even, who will maintain that O2 and N2 do not radiate at all and that is just as wrong as assuming they will radiate as black/grey bodies.
“There are people about, scientists even, who will maintain that O2 and N2 do not radiate at all and that is just as wrong as assuming they will radiate as black/grey bodies.”
Not quite as wrong, since such radiation is very minor and is only a result of intra-molecular interactions (as opposed to inter-molecular interactions). It is not an important, defining characteristic of the substance, in the sense that the 15 micron band is for OCO. It is also not an important way that the atmosphere loses heat to space.
“It is not an important, defining characteristic of the substance, in the sense that the 15 micron band is for OCO. It is also not an important way that the atmosphere loses heat to space.”
That’s why we don’t see much of it in the chemistry texts :- it’s not useful to the analytical chemist. However to the atmospheric physicist looking for an energy imbalance in the order of tenths to ones of a watt/m^2 as we see in in tables and cartoons here it starts to become significant we can’t afford to leave it out of the spectral database that LBL codes use.
Even so I still wonder if it’s good enough to jump up and down over an imbalance of .9W as shown in the new FK&T cartoon and go on to hang a very costly public policy on it.