Federal Judge: White House "Bad Faith" on Climate Data

Jack Hays · May 16, 2016

jpn said:
And so there are two. Awesome.

Many more than that. You should read more. Of course, as Einstein said, when you're right one is enough.

Threegoofs · May 17, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

That is something I've been saying for years, and most AWG followers say I'm wrong. They say it's all from greenhouse gasses.

It's science.

Your interpretation is more akin to wishful thinking.

Russell797 · May 17, 2016

longview said:
The point is that if both elements of the quantum interaction exists everywhere,(15 um photons, and ground state CO2)
the energy imbalance supposedly caused from that interaction should exist everywhere.
The asymmetry show this not to be the case, both in the daily cycle, and seasonally.

Again, then energy imbalance is the average for the whole Earth over time. As an analogy the average temperature for the whole Earth is 15C or 59F, yet in very few places is the temp actually 15C.

longview · May 17, 2016

Russell797 said:
Again, then energy imbalance is the average for the whole Earth over time. As an analogy the average temperature for the whole Earth is 15C or 59F, yet in very few places is the temp actually 15C.

Actually the energy imbalance would be occurring everywhere the quantum interaction is occurring,
which as you pointed out in post #44,

The effect is occurring constantly. Day and night, 365. Why would you think otherwise? The Earth's surface is radiating a thermal spectrum constantly, some of which will involve the 15 um wavelength.

.

Russell797 · May 17, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
You don't have a clue about the truth. All papers that use it are just regurgitate old studies. The new studies have the sensitivity of CO2 far lower.

I challenge you to follow the papers using that number, and see the studies referenced for that number. About 4-5 studies later, you will find the root study, which is a total joke by today's understanding.

Argue all you want using the pundits lies. It just proves you to have zero credibility.

Of course all you have is the conspiracy theorist claim of lies. A significant shift in such a fundamental number would be big news.

You seem to think any new studies invalidate earlier studies. It doesn't work that way.

Here is the boiled down equation for CO2 radiative forcing: CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2

Has the coefficient 5.35 changed? I don't think so.

longview · May 17, 2016

Threegoofs said:
It's science.

Your interpretation is more akin to wishful thinking.

Every time I see that old chart, something seemed off, I now know what it is.
Within the IPCC's Key concepts in climate science paper, they state,

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature
of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C
(with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes.
In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate
system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase
to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises
from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.

Now the energy imbalance from doubling CO2 has been revised down to 3.71 Wm−2,
but the direct response temperature change has remained at 1.2°C.
So according to the IPCC an energy imbalance of 3.71 Wm−2 will cause a temperature change of 1.2°C.
This means the ratio of energy imbalance to temperature is 3.091 Wm-2 to degree C.
This also means the uncertainty range of 3 °C, which they acknowledge is mostly from clouds,
would be equal to an energy imbalance of 3 °C X (3.091 Wm-2 to degree C)= 9.275 Wm-2.

The first problem is that there is nothing even approaching a 9.275 Wm-2 variable on the graph.
the second problem is they only assign a -1.8 to -.3 Wm-2 to the effects from clouds.

Threegoofs · May 17, 2016

longview said:
Every time I see that old chart, something seemed off, I now know what it is.
Within the IPCC's Key concepts in climate science paper, they state,

Now the energy imbalance from doubling CO2 has been revised down to 3.71 Wm−2,
but the direct response temperature change has remained at 1.2°C.
So according to the IPCC an energy imbalance of 3.71 Wm−2 will cause a temperature change of 1.2°C.
This means the ratio of energy imbalance to temperature is 3.091 Wm-2 to degree C.
This also means the uncertainty range of 3 °C, which they acknowledge is mostly from clouds,
would be equal to an energy imbalance of 3 °C X (3.091 Wm-2 to degree C)= 9.275 Wm-2.

The first problem is that there is nothing even approaching a 9.275 Wm-2 variable on the graph.
the second problem is they only assign a -1.8 to -.3 Wm-2 to the effects from clouds.

You might want to let the experts who study this know of your thoughts. I'm sure they'll take them into account the next time.

Alternatively, you might agree with this chart:

longview · May 17, 2016

Threegoofs said:
You might want to let the experts who study this know of your thoughts. I'm sure they'll take them into account the next time.

Alternatively, you might agree with this chart:

Do you ever actually address the data? The chart disagrees with their own reports,
Unless you think an energy imbalance from clouds somehow has a different effect than an energy
imbalance from CO2.

Russell797 · May 17, 2016

longview said:
Actually the energy imbalance would be occurring everywhere the quantum interaction is occurring,
which as you pointed out in post #44,
.

Yes, but the energy imbalance will vary greatly from place to place and over time in any given place. The RF is measured at the tropopause so as to limit diurnal effects and get above most clouds.

The Earth's surface is constantly radiating Infrared as is the atmosphere, but the Sun shines only during local daylight therefore alternating between positive and negative imbalances locally.

longview · May 17, 2016

Russell797 said:
Yes, but the energy imbalance will vary greatly from place to place and over time in any given place. The RF is measured at the tropopause so as to limit diurnal effects and get above most clouds.

The Earth's surface is constantly radiating Infrared as is the atmosphere, but the Sun shines only during local daylight therefore alternating between positive and negative imbalances locally.

One CO2 molecule at ground state,
One 15 um photon.
CO2 gets excited to a low order spin state.
which within a few milliseconds, the spin state spontaneously decays, emitting some combination
of photons and RF equal to the energy in a 15 um photon.
The emissions are in random directions, but some (less than half) go back towards earth.
The majority continue to space.
This is the process, and it happens if the CO2 molecule is 1 meter or up to anywhere the photon may
encounter a CO2 molecule.
The energy imbalance may be measured at the tropopause,(not sure), but the imbalance is the aggregate
of this process at all levels of the atmosphere.

Russell797 · May 17, 2016

longview said:
Every time I see that old chart, something seemed off, I now know what it is.
Within the IPCC's Key concepts in climate science paper, they state,

Now the energy imbalance from doubling CO2 has been revised down to 3.71 Wm−2,
but the direct response temperature change has remained at 1.2°C.
So according to the IPCC an energy imbalance of 3.71 Wm−2 will cause a temperature change of 1.2°C.
This means the ratio of energy imbalance to temperature is 3.091 Wm-2 to degree C.
This also means the uncertainty range of 3 °C, which they acknowledge is mostly from clouds,
would be equal to an energy imbalance of 3 °C X (3.091 Wm-2 to degree C)= 9.275 Wm-2.

The first problem is that there is nothing even approaching a 9.275 Wm-2 variable on the graph.
the second problem is they only assign a -1.8 to -.3 Wm-2 to the effects from clouds.

The temperature difference is a linear function of the radiative forcing. So, for each 1W of forcing we get a Planck (black body) temperature response of ~0.3C. Therefore 4W/m^2 produces 0.3X4=1.2C. Now, lowering RF to 3.7W/m^2 produces 0.3 X 3.7=1.1C which is within the stated 10% margin for error.

jimbo · May 17, 2016

MrT said:
So the judge is requiring the White House to conduct a more thorough search in regards to the FOIA request. Not much else going on here. If you're interested to review some of the peer-reviewed papers supporting the claim that extreme cold weather events could be influenced by global warming (since these articles reference, but do not cite, "several" that disagree), then I would suggest starting here:

Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes - Francis - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal2009.pdf
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_All.pdf

It should be noted (and Dr. Holdren would agree) that this field of study (extreme cold weather events due to global warming) is still quite in its infancy because scientists simply do not have a lengthy record of such extreme periods of arctic ice as that which has been experienced recently and is projected to get worse in the near future.

I'm not interested in the papers readily available. I'm interested in the ones the alarmists including the WH are trying to hide.

So, apparently, are a lot of other people, including the Competitive Enterprise group.

Threegoofs · May 17, 2016

jimbo said:
I'm not interested in the papers readily available. I'm interested in the ones the alarmists including the WH are trying to hide.

So, apparently, are a lot of other people, including the Competitive Enterprise group.

LOL.

Spectacular demonstration of a total ignorance of how science works.

Sekrit alarmist papers!! LOL!

longview · May 17, 2016

Russell797 said:
The temperature difference is a linear function of the radiative forcing. So, for each 1W of forcing we get a Planck (black body) temperature response of ~0.3C. Therefore 4W/m^2 produces 0.3X4=1.2C. Now, lowering RF to 3.7W/m^2 produces 0.3 X 3.7=1.1C which is within the stated 10% margin for error.

Ok, so how many W/m^2 do you assign to the stated uncertainty range of 3 °C (1.5 to 4.5°C)?
You are saying for each 1W of forcing we get ~0.3C of temperature response,
so a 3 C uncertainty could only be caused by a 3C/.3=10W/m^2 of radiative forcing.

Russell797 · May 17, 2016

longview said:
One CO2 molecule at ground state,
One 15 um photon.
CO2 gets excited to a low order spin state.
which within a few milliseconds, the spin state spontaneously decays, emitting some combination
of photons and RF equal to the energy in a 15 um photon.
The emissions are in random directions, but some (less than half) go back towards earth.
The majority continue to space.
This is the process, and it happens if the CO2 molecule is 1 meter or up to anywhere the photon may
encounter a CO2 molecule.
The energy imbalance may be measured at the tropopause,(not sure), but the imbalance is the aggregate
of this process at all levels of the atmosphere.

The radiative forcing is the radiation imbalance which is the difference between incoming a outgoing radiative energy as measured from the tropopause. All you say is basically true, except you seem to believe the RF is a function of the energy emitted by the CO2 molecule. ("emitting some combination
of photons and RF equal to the energy in a 15 um photon.") It is not.

The only factor which matters is at what altitude in the atmosphere the mean free path of a photon allows for escapes to space. This happens at about 16,000 feet above the surface in the global mean. As seen from space that's where the thermal energy emitted to space at Earth's effective temperature of 255K takes place. The more greenhouse gases within the atmosphere the higher that level of emissivity reaches and the higher the resulting surface temperature.

In short the imbalance occurs where the incoming and outgoing radiation will be the same at equilibrium and that level resides high up in the troposphere at 255K.

longview · May 17, 2016

Russell797 said:
The radiative forcing is the radiation imbalance which is the difference between incoming a outgoing radiative energy as measured from the tropopause. All you say is basically true, except you seem to believe the RF is a function of the energy emitted by the CO2 molecule. ("emitting some combination
of photons and RF equal to the energy in a 15 um photon.") It is not.

The only factor which matters is at what altitude in the atmosphere the mean free path of a photon allows for escapes to space. This happens at about 16,000 feet above the surface in the global mean. As seen from space that's where the thermal energy emitted to space at Earth's effective temperature of 255K takes place. The more greenhouse gases within the atmosphere the higher that level of emissivity reaches and the higher the resulting surface temperature.

In short the imbalance occurs where the incoming and outgoing radiation will be the same at equilibrium and that level resides high up in the troposphere at 255K.

If the CO2 molecule were behaving like say a nitrogen atom and not absorbing IR, it would not be a greenhouse gas.
Back to the IPCC reference,

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature
of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C
(with an accuracy of ±10%),

They are saying the added CO2 is reducing the outgoing radiation, causing an imbalance.
the process of absorption and re emission is occurring everywhere the interaction happens.
From a purely mathematical approach, the higher in altitude, the more likely the re-emission will
head to space.(there is just a higher percentage of space to ground).

MrT · May 17, 2016

jimbo said:
I'm not interested in the papers readily available. I'm interested in the ones the alarmists including the WH are trying to hide.

So, apparently, are a lot of other people, including the Competitive Enterprise group.

Come on man. That is just sad.

The Competitive Enterprise Group cites, in vague terms, to several papers that supposedly disagrees. They do not cite to the specific research that they claim disagrees. I merely cited to some research that does support their claim and would justify their statements.

But if you really want to say, "yes, I see your research, but I know that there must be some other research out there that disproves you," then you're free to keep your head in that sand.

Russell797 · May 17, 2016

longview said:
If the CO2 molecule were behaving like say a nitrogen atom and not absorbing IR, it would not be a greenhouse gas.
Back to the IPCC reference,

They are saying the added CO2 is reducing the outgoing radiation, causing an imbalance.
the process of absorption and re emission is occurring everywhere the interaction happens.
From a purely mathematical approach, the higher in altitude, the more likely the re-emission will
head to space.(there is just a higher percentage of space to ground).

Sure, no issue with that. The atmosphere is also thinner at 16,000 feet. More than 1/2 the atmospheric mass resides below that level. The mean free path for an IR photon is sufficient for them to escape to space. Below that level the atmosphere is essentially opaque in the infrared except for a a few narrow spectral windows where greenhouse gases do not absorb.

longview · May 17, 2016

Russell797 said:
Sure, no issue with that. The atmosphere is also thinner at 16,000 feet. More than 1/2 the atmospheric mass resides below that level. The mean free path for an IR photon is sufficient for them to escape to space. Below that level the atmosphere is essentially opaque in the infrared except for a a few narrow spectral windows where greenhouse gases do not absorb.

Except you are not taking into account that while 15 um is an absorption band, the decay bands
may or may not be.
We know that the 15 um represents only about .08265 ev.
Like a spinning top slowing down as it comes to a stop, each incremental step down in energy,
would be a different emission, with the total adding up to the energy in the 15 um photon.
Some of those bands are ones that can be absorbed, others are not.
I think I read somewhere, the most likely output would be a 16 um photon, and a microwave emission
of about .25 mm.

Lord of Planar · May 17, 2016

Russell797 said:
Has the coefficient 5.35 changed? I don't think so.

Actually, the coefficient has changed in the FAR. It was 6.3 in the SAR, but is still to high now.

Find the study that came up with that number and the original, and explain what their methodology is sound.

See table 2.2 on page 52 of the SAR. Start with Wigley, 1987, Hansen et al 1988.

Russell797 · May 17, 2016

longview said:
Except you are not taking into account that while 15 um is an absorption band, the decay bands
may or may not be.
We know that the 15 um represents only about .08265 ev.
Like a spinning top slowing down as it comes to a stop, each incremental step down in energy,
would be a different emission, with the total adding up to the energy in the 15 um photon.
Some of those bands are ones that can be absorbed, others are not.
I think I read somewhere, the most likely output would be a 16 um photon, and a microwave emission
of about .25 mm.

Ok, that may be true. We are also not accounting for energy transfer by collision between CO2 molecules and other gaseous species. Lots of events are taking place and they all serve to slow the loss of IR to space. Of course it all escapes with time thank goodness, but the important things is that the greenhouse effect slows down that loss.

longview · May 18, 2016

Russell797 said:
Ok, that may be true. We are also not accounting for energy transfer by collision between CO2 molecules and other gaseous species. Lots of events are taking place and they all serve to slow the loss of IR to space. Of course it all escapes with time thank goodness, but the important things is that the greenhouse effect slows down that loss.

Except that the energy state is only a spin state, generally collision transfers are vibration transfer,
like how excited nitrogen passes energy to CO2.
.08265 eV, is just about the bottom wrong of the CO2 energy ladder.

Think about where .0825 eV is in this energy state table.

Russell797 · May 19, 2016

longview said:
Except that the energy state is only a spin state, generally collision transfers are vibration transfer,
like how excited nitrogen passes energy to CO2.
.08265 eV, is just about the bottom wrong of the CO2 energy ladder.

Think about where .0825 eV is in this energy state table.

In the quantum world, an event which can occur in one direction is allowed to occur in the opposite direction. Notice in your chart that the energy of collision can excite the bending mode of the CO2 molecule to the allowed energy level. In fact about 7% of all CO2 molecules are in this state at any one time even in the absence of an IR source.

Because the quantum process is reversible, during collision a CO2 molecule can transfer it's exited quantised energy to the collisional partner in the form of kinetic energy. The rotational and vibrational exited states can be thermalised in this way.

longview · May 19, 2016

Russell797 said:
In the quantum world, an event which can occur in one direction is allowed to occur in the opposite direction. Notice in your chart that the energy of collision can excite the bending mode of the CO2 molecule to the allowed energy level. In fact about 7% of all CO2 molecules are in this state at any one time even in the absence of an IR source.

Because the quantum process is reversible, during collision a CO2 molecule can transfer it's exited quantised energy to the collisional partner in the form of kinetic energy. The rotational and vibrational exited states can be thermalised in this way.

They are reversible, but they cannot create energy, it must come from somewhere.
Also we are not talking about any bending or vibration states, the .08265 eV is way below that.
As to your 7% are always in an excited state, (I have to take your word for this), that would exclude
them from absorbing any 15 um photons, they would effectively be in a state of population inversion.

Jack Hays · May 19, 2016

Bad science
[h=1]A rough guide to spotting bad climate science[/h] Guest essay by John Davies * Being able to evaluate the evidence behind any scientific claim is important. Being able to recognize bad science reporting or faults in scientific studies is equally important. These following points may help you separate the real science from the pseudo science. Speculative Language Speculations from any research are just that –…

Federal Judge: White House "Bad Faith" on Climate Data

Jack Hays

Traveler

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

Russell797

longview

Russell797

longview

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

longview

Russell797

longview

Russell797

jimbo

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

longview

Russell797

longview

MrT

Russell797

longview

Lord of Planar

Russell797

longview

Russell797

longview

Jack Hays

Traveler