Climate II

[Schneibster]

First, "global warming" has several meanings. The first and foremost is shown by the difference in the average surface temperatures of the Earth and the Moon. Both are at the same distance from the Sun; therefore both get the same amount of energy per unit area. So why is Earth 33°C warmer? Answer: global warming.

I'll jump in here, just for fun.

I don't think this is what anybody means when using the common term "global warming." The Earth's steady-state temperature is higher than the Moon because it has an atmosphere, and this has been true essentially forever. "Global warming" refers to a change in that steady-state in recent years, as caused by changes in the concentration of various greenhouse gases (especially CO2).

So, yeah, our globe is warmer than the neighboring one, but that's not what "global warming" generally means. I think it confuses the issue to redefine it as that (even if you say it's just one of several meanings).

I remembered this when I saw someone post this piece of propaganda: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/070 ... 1161v4.pdf

Note that it denies not only the greenhouse effect, but my first definition of "global warming." I certainly have to say that now I have seen arguments on both sides that oppose yours.

The simple message is they oppose science. What names you put on it are irrelevant. And it's obvious that global warming deniers also deny greenhouse warming. That's the point of the link.

[Schneibster]

Sometimes I think it's that people don't get numbers.

1% per year is 100% per century.

[choff]

Shniebster, I was thinking of doing some additional bashing but then inspiration struck. Obviously, you're a man of not inconsiderably talent when it comes to astronomy and computer science. Some would think the contrary, personally I consider you a prodigy/savant mind, great talent, a few gaps in between. Considering your conviction that the global climate can be successfully modeled, why not turn your attention to the simulation of the Polywell, which, while complex, is nothing compared to earth's climate. Some talented people have succeeded in 2D, but 3D has been the real challenge startup to steady state. I think that at the very least you have the pride/ego of a Steve Jobs/Bill Gates, that in itself might be enough to see it through. You don't have to answer right away, maybe have a look at what's been done now and before in design and theory sections, kick the tires on some of the work, who knows, maybe you'll see something others missed.

[Teahive]

And you're dissing the people whose simulations do, and whose weather models support 10 day forecasts.

You're changing the subject. 10 day forecasts are not climate.

[Schneibster]

And you're dissing the people whose simulations do, and whose weather models support 10 day forecasts.

You're changing the subject. 10 day forecasts are not climate.

But the models that make them are derived from the climate models.

a) No I'm not.
b) This goes to the accuracy of the underlying, i.e. climate, models. Since their products are more accurate they themselves must be too. It's simple mathematics. Accuracy and precision.

[Schneibster]

Shniebster, I was thinking of doing some additional bashing but then inspiration struck. Obviously, you're a man of not inconsiderably talent when it comes to astronomy and computer science. Some would think the contrary, personally I consider you a prodigy/savant mind, great talent, a few gaps in between. Considering your conviction that the global climate can be successfully modeled, why not turn your attention to the simulation of the Polywell, which, while complex, is nothing compared to earth's climate. Some talented people have succeeded in 2D, but 3D has been the real challenge startup to steady state. I think that at the very least you have the pride/ego of a Steve Jobs/Bill Gates, that in itself might be enough to see it through. You don't have to answer right away, maybe have a look at what's been done now and before in design and theory sections, kick the tires on some of the work, who knows, maybe you'll see something others missed.

Not my discipline. I could do it but show me the money.

[choff]

I don't think anybody makes money posting on T-P, it's more a shared interest in science. Myself, while turned off by a '60's grade school principal who insisted we were all going to be dead in 20 years from air pollution, by the time I arrived here I believed in global warming, reading the other guys posts made me a skeptic.

You don't have to look at the models so much as a job, try it for fun, this is how I learn stuff.

[Schneibster]

I don't think anybody makes money posting on T-P, it's more a shared interest in science. Myself, while turned off by a '60's grade school principal who insisted we were all going to be dead in 20 years from air pollution, by the time I arrived here I believed in global warming, reading the other guys posts made me a skeptic.

You don't have to look at the models so much as a job, try it for fun, this is how I learn stuff.

That's a little involved for "just fun."

[Schneibster]

So we've shown the first reason methane and carbon dioxide are warming gases: because they are among the very few gases in the atmosphere that have an infrared spectrum.

And we've shown the second: because they stay in the atmosphere a long time, unlike water vapor. In fact the ratio is days to centuries or even millenia.

Now the third is where this gets, to my mind, interesting. They have to do with the spectra of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane, and with the color temperature (more commonly known as blackbody temperature radiation peak) of the Earth. The spectrum of water vapor, as I have already said, is quite broad. However, it is not solid across the entire near infrared. In fact, it has a defect, a gap, a hole, very near the peak of the Earth's radiation at 288K. The relation that determines the peak frequency, or color temperature, of an object is called Planck's Law, because this behavior is of course governed by Planck's Constant, determining the frequency from the adsorbing surface energy, and the photon energy from the frequency. Wien's law is a pretty good approximation of that peak temperature, provided you pick a coefficient that fits the Planck's Law values near the frequency of interest. (The coefficient will be fairly constant for UVb to microwave, for example, but that coefficient is slightly wrong for UVc and soft X-rays, and somewhat more wrong for shortwave radio, and disastrously wrong for, say, AM commercial radio waves. The figures given, however, are more accurate for visible light and infrared than the inputs we'll be using, so that's sufficient.)

Wien's Law approximates Planck's law at visible and infrared frequencies as:

λMAX = a/T,
where
λMAX is in μm,
T is in K, and
a = 2897 μm·K

So,

λMAX = 2897 μm·K/288K
= 2897 μm/288
= 10.06 μm

ETA: And of course, given the graph below (which uses some other average of unknown source, 255K):

λMAX = 2897 μm·K/255K
= 2897 μm/255
= 11.36 μm

This is a low temperature, and I include it to show that the variance is not great. The curves of reality vary little from those represented below; this lower bound shows the maximum that variance could be. And in fact this variance would be to my benefit, because it includes more total water blockage, and less CO2 transmission. /ETA

This is in the long infrared. The significant parts of the spectrum in terms of Earth's heat emission range to about 30% and 600% of this figure; some heat is also emitted above 3μm, and below 60μm, but not much. So we're basically interested in spectral lines between 3μm and 60μm when we talk about global warming.

This diagram shows the situation:



So you can see the 20μm CO2 line and the water spectrum's climb up to its low energy modes are the most important bands, in terms of total heat blocked or transmitted. Now, do not ignore the lower bands; CO2 has a 4μm band that's within the region of interest, just where water goes IR transparent below its 6um band and above its 3μm band. So you can see that even with water vapor acting as a warming gas, there simply are IR bands where it is transparent, where CO2 and methane are not. So water vapor or no water vapor, CO2 and methane (CH4) will absorb some heat, and since they're near to the Earth's spectral peak, they have an inordinately large effect.

This, then, is the third reason these gases are important in Earth's climate.

I'll write the fourth reason soon.

ETA: Cool, I found how to do subscripts. We should be able to use proper math symbology here.

[choff]

Been digging up info on CO2 myself, checking on Sourcewatch and DeSmogBlog just to make sure they're there and any and all complaints about them, thankyou.



Since 1958 real-time measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels have been consistently recorded at a facility on Mauna Loa, Hawaii. To estimate pre-1958 CO2 concentrations, IPCC scientists rely heavily on ice-core proxies. Zbigniew Jaworowski contends “ice is not a closed system suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere.” (41) He has written 300 scientific papers and four books. He is past chair of the Warsaw-based Laboratory for Radiation Protection’s scientific committee and has been a participant (often chair) in over 20 groups set up by the International Atomic Energy Agency, UNEP, and the US EPA. He has been Poland’s rep on the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) since 1973 (chair from 1980-2). (42) For UNSCEAR he monitors fallout from nuclear-weapons tests and reactor accidents, work requiring ice-sampling trips to glaciers on six continents. He deems glaciers unreliable CO2 archives:
“...because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice which could dramatically change the chemical composition of the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals...the coldest Antarctic ice contains liquid water...More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice...In the highly compressed deep ice, all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of the pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates which are tiny crystals...Drilling decompresses cores excavated from deep ice and contaminates them with the drilling fluid filling the borehole. Decompression leads to dense horizontal cracking of the cores, by a well known sheeting process. After decompression of the ice cores, the solid clathrates decompose into a gas form, exploding as if they were microscopic grenades...the explosions form new cavities and new cracks. Through these cracks, and cracks formed by the sheeting, a part of the gas escapes. (43)

As well: “in cold water, CO2 is 70 times more soluble than nitrogen and 30 times more soluble than oxygen, guaranteeing that the proportions of the various gases that remain in the trapped, ancient air will change.” (44)

Ice-core and other CO2 proxy readings vary erratically. IPCCers proclaim CO2 was a stable 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution, then spiked upwards. Ice cores taken at Siple, Antarctica gave a reading of 328 ppm for 1890. According to IPCC Thought, the 1890 level should be 290 ppm. 328 ppm was not recorded at the Mauna Loa facility until 1973. (45) To fudge over this discrepancy, scientists assumed air must be 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The “corrected ice data” then agreed with the Mauna Loa record. The “Siple Curve assumption” appears in countless publications. (46) Jaworowski claims “glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the ‘age assumption’” but failed. He further alleges: “Improper manipulations of data and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on manmade global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases.” (47) Ice cores from Antarctica’s Taylor Dome show CO2 levels over the last several thousand years varied merely from 260 to 264 ppm while “fossil leaf stomata show that CO2 levels over the past 7,000 to 8,000 years varied by 50 ppm between 270 and 326 ppm.” (48)

Jaworowski has other criticisms. The Little Ice Age occurred 750 to 130 years ago; hence, he queries: “If the ice-core record was reliable, and CO2 levels reflected temperatures, why wouldn’t the ice-core data have shown CO2 levels to fall during the Little Ice Age?” (49) Particularly galling Jaworowski is we don’t need ice proxies because scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, measuring CO2 since 1800 “have left behind a record of tens of thousands of direct real-time measurements.” Thesemeasurementsshow: “CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have fluctuated greatly and that several times in the past 200 years CO2 concentrations have exceeded today’s levels...the IPCC rejects these direct measurements... They prefer the view of CO2 as seen through ice.” (50) He summarizes: “ice cores are a foundation of the global warming hypothesis, but the foundation is groundless – the IPCC has based its global warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions it is now clear, are false.” (51)

These views are shared by Oslo U’s Geological Museum director Tom Segalstad. This reviewer for the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report calls “global warming” propaganda “a fiction.” (52) The idea that CO2 levels increased in the 20th century because of human activity is a “false dogma” because CO2 levels fluctuate naturally and current levels were common in the 1800s. (53) His main concern is CO2’s “residence time” in the atmosphere. The IPCC claims CO2 emissions hang in the atmosphere for 50 to 200 years before absorption by oceans or plants. Prior to the “global warming” campaign it was believed CO2 couldn’t last in the atmosphere for more than ten years. This was the mainstream view. Concerning this shorter CO2 residence time, Segalstad states:
“This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing. It has been established by radon-222 measurements. It has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans. It has been established by comparing the isotope mass balance. It has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades. And by many scientists in many disciplines.” (54)

Thirty-six studies contradict the IPCC’s claim of lengthy CO2 residence time. If they are correct, hydrocarbon fuel burning does not account for recent CO2 increases. Those claiming CO2 resides in the atmosphere for decades or centuries, lacking physical evidence, use models to trump real-world measurements. As for IPCC efforts to overturn established views of CO2 residence time, Segalstad pines: “They don’t even try. They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process.” Segalstad also explains oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and these two CO2 reservoirs operate in equilibrium. Doubling atmospheric CO2 (an IPCC bogeyman) requires increasing ocean CO2 by a factor of 50. This would require a bonfire of all known hydrocarbon deposits and then some.

[Teahive]

Segalstad also explains oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and these two CO2 reservoirs operate in equilibrium. Doubling atmospheric CO2 (an IPCC bogeyman) requires increasing ocean CO2 by a factor of 50.

Huh?
So 1:50 and 2:2500 are the same?

[Schneibster]

IPCC scientists

What are "IPCC scientists?" The IPCC is not a science organization. It does not engage in or pay for original research.

The science the IPCC puts in their reports is original research done by independent scientists worldwide. What they have in common is they are climate scientists, and almost all of them are geophysicists specializing in atmospheric and oceanic physics.

There is no giant world-wide nefarious conspiracy to pretend there's global warming.

[Schneibster]

“...because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice which could dramatically change the chemical composition of the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals...the coldest Antarctic ice contains liquid water...

Your guy is a radiologist, not a climate physicist. And he just contradicted himself. Either liquid water is good or it's bad, make up your mind.

I went a little further and the same brand of BS kept showing up so I'm not going to bother.

ETA: last but not least, your guy doesn't seem to get that ice is a solid. As in not liquid. Duh.

[GIThruster]

Segalstad also explains oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and these two CO2 reservoirs operate in equilibrium. Doubling atmospheric CO2 (an IPCC bogeyman) requires increasing ocean CO2 by a factor of 50.

Huh?
So 1:50 and 2:2500 are the same?

When you read "equalibrium" that does not mean the volumes or masses are equal. It means there is a state reached where the average percent of gas (measure in parts per million--PPM) so suspended is not actively changing. Gas is still moving in and out of the water, but the rate of suspension is at constant. Gas suspension in liquid is a function of both temperature and turbulence. If either one of these changes, then the PPM will shift until it again finds equilibrium and stops changing. It is only not at equilibrium just after a change in one of these factors (or others like pressure).

If you've ever seen water frozen through inside a cave that has no active water movement, you'll note the water ice is perfectly clear. It looks like glass because with no turbulence to support a higher suspension rate, there is almost no dissolved nonpolar gas in the water, despite the fact that the water was very cold right before it froze. If the temperature of the water were the primary factor in its ability to suspend CO2 (inverse function--water suspends more nonpolar gas the colder it is), then we would never see clear ice. Never.

One of the great farces proposed by "climate scientists" back in the early 90's was that because the ability of seawater to suspend CO2 is temperature dependent, a single degree increase in ocean temperature would release a fantastical amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, causing an escalating problem.

The error here is that although the ability of seawater to suspend a dissolved gas is temperature dependent, it is only weakly so compared to the other factors involved. This is because for CO2 to become dissolved in sea water, it needs to cross the air/water interface which is a slow process, but that is a function of both temperature, and much more strongly the kinetic action at the air/water interface. Basically, because the oceans are turbulent at the surface, that turbulence action determines the dissolving rate several orders of magnitude above the temperature function.

So, just as with the fact that water vapor traps heat much more effectively than CO2, makes CO2 rates in the atmosphere irrelevant, so too the turbulence of the ocean/air interface makes the precise temperature of the ocean irrelevant. And if these things were not so, the planet would show evidence of huge temperature swings on a regular, rather than a geological age history scale.

Just poking around for evidence of this I studied so long ago I found:

"The wind tunnel experiments demonstrate that the exchange constants for both oxygen and carbon dioxide increase approximately as the square of the wind velocity, whereas the exchange constant for water vapour increases linearly with wind velocity." This exchange is quadratic with regards to turbulence.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7173900132

However, CO2's solubility in water as a function of temperature is linear as is seen in the sixth chart down found here:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases ... _1148.html

And though I don't have the time to check for the interested person, I would like to note to you too, that this farce goes even further. Numbers I looked at 15 years ago indicated to me that If you look at the rate of CO2 suspension as affected by water temperature and compare that to changes from barometric pressure, what you find is again, that temperature is irrelevant. The swings in barometric pressure that we have day to day, far outweigh any difference we would have if the temperature of the ocean were to go up a full degree. Look at the slope of the graph above at normal temperatures and you'll see, there is no spike going to happen with a 1 degree change. It's all hype and nonsense.

This is why you can ignore the alarmists, most "climate scientists" (which is really an oxymoron when you think of what we know about climate) and anyone using the AGW scam to redistribute the wealth of the planet.

[Schneibster]

Segalstad also explains oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and these two CO2 reservoirs operate in equilibrium. Doubling atmospheric CO2 (an IPCC bogeyman) requires increasing ocean CO2 by a factor of 50.

Huh?
So 1:50 and 2:2500 are the same?

When you read "equalibrium" that does not mean the volumes or masses are equal. It means there is a state reached where the gas is not actively moving into or out of suspension as a dissolved gas.

BS.

Segalstad can't count. (I'm assuming choff didn't make a mistake in quoting.)

In fact, if he were correct (which seems unlikely since there are many factors governing CO2 absorption not least plankton which use it to make shells) doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere would require doubling the CO2 in the oceans, if they were in equilibrium. Claiming it would require multiplying it by fifty times is an obvious mathematical gaffe.

His argument also ignores that CO2 was 7000 ppm, about twenty times what it is today, immediately before the Ordovician and Carboniferous; during the Ordovician, the newly-evolved trees invaded the land, and during the Carboniferous they sucked all the CO2 out of the air and laid it down as coal. This reduced the CO2 to 260 ppm and caused a hundred million year ice age called the Karoo Ice Age. (For comparison our current ice age is only projected to last another few million years, until the Milankovic cycle turns, and has lasted a couple million so far.)

There's a lot of carbon in all that coal.