Global warming challenge/question

longview said:

Lets start with the mean free path of a photon with a 400 ppm gas, I think it is only about 1 inch.
This would mean that no 15 um photon would ever make it to altitude.
In addition the energy level of that 15 um photon, is well below the vibration state of CO2,
all that is left are spin states that emit long wavelength IR and radio waves.

Click to expand...

The 15 um radiation is present in the atmosphere simply because of the atmosphere’s temperature. The averaged global surface radiates most strongly at 10 um. To the right on the Planck curve is the 15 um band. CO2 in the first inch above the surface absorbs that 15 um, rather than allowing it to pass on out to space. Some thermal radiation does pass on directly to space. That portion of the spectrum is called the atmospheric window.

The first inch of atmosphere radiates in all direction thermally. The second inch of CO2 absorbs all the 15 um. This happens all the way up to about 16,000 feet where the optical thickness of CO2 is reduced such that more 15 um escapes to space than is retained within the atmospheric column.

At a temperature of about -50C most of the atmosphere is radiating thermally with a peak near 15 um. Most of the photons are 15 um at altitude where that temperature prevails..

Russell797 said:

The 15 um radiation is present in the atmosphere simply because of the atmosphere’s temperature. The averaged global surface radiates most strongly at 10 um. To the right on the Planck curve is the 15 um band. CO2 in the first inch above the surface absorbs that 15 um, rather than allowing it to pass on out to space. Some thermal radiation does pass on directly to space. That portion of the spectrum is called the atmospheric window.

The first inch of atmosphere radiates in all direction thermally. The second inch of CO2 absorbs all the 15 um. This happens all the way up to about 16,000 feet where the optical thickness of CO2 is reduced such that more 15 um escapes to space than is retained within the atmospheric column.

At a temperature of about -50C most of the atmosphere is radiating thermally with a peak near 15 um. Most of the photons are 15 um at altitude where that temperature prevails..

Click to expand...

Your scenario assumes that the 15 um absorbed by the first CO2 molecule, re emits another 15 um photon, it may not!
Since CO2 emits many wavelengths longer than 15 um, each of those represent different possible energy steps back to ground state.
The only requirement is that the total energy of the steps equal the .082 ev added from the 15 um photon.
Someone has likely done a study on the probabilities of which path is taken, but the 15 um path is not the only one.
The other emissions are likely not in CO2 absorption band, which drops off after 15 um.

longview said:

Your scenario assumes that the 15 um absorbed by the first CO2 molecule, re emits another 15 um photon, it may not!
Since CO2 emits many wavelengths longer than 15 um, each of those represent different possible energy steps back to ground state.
The only requirement is that the total energy of the steps equal the .082 ev added from the 15 um photon.
Someone has likely done a study on the probabilities of which path is taken, but the 15 um path is not the only one.
The other emissions are likely not in CO2 absorption band, which drops off after 15 um.

Click to expand...

That is not the assumption, although it does happen of course. The atmosphere radiates because of it's temperature, not because of the constituent gases it contains. How many CO2 molecules are spontaneously returning to the ground state after having absorbed a 15 um photon is irrelevant. The discreet wavelength at which they do so is irrelevant.

The air at each arbitrarily chosen level of atmosphere is bathed in thermal radiation, the peak wavelength of which is dependent only upon the temperature of the gaseous mixuture. There are plenty of 15 um photons to be absorbed by CO2 even if CO2 did not emit any at all.

Russell797 said:

That is not the assumption, although it does happen of course. The atmosphere radiates because of it's temperature, not because of the constituent gases it contains. How many CO2 molecules are spontaneously returning to the ground state after having absorbed a 15 um photon is irrelevant. The discreet wavelength at which they do so is irrelevant.

The air at each arbitrarily chosen level of atmosphere is bathed in thermal radiation, the peak wavelength of which is dependent only upon the temperature of the gaseous mixuture. There are plenty of 15 um photons to be absorbed by CO2 even if CO2 did not emit any at all.

Click to expand...

Think about this, the entire concept of AGW is based on the idea that CO2 absorbs in that narrow 15 um window,
and re emits another 15 um photon, and it may not.
If the 15 um photon is absorbed and remits as a collection of radio waves, then the energy is no longer slowed from leaving.
In addition CO2 cannot absorb the energy from the photon if it is already in an excited state.
Again we know that added CO2 causes some warming, but the actual mechanism is poorly understood,
least the models would be more accurate!

longview said:

If you had read the literature (and some of the side notes) the diurnal asymmetry continues to this day, . . . .


Some of the footnotes From Davies chart of several diurnal asymmetry papers.
Vose et al. (2005)

DTR change is smaller after 1979 but strong increase in Tmin in wintertime continues

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

"Smaller" is putting it mildly: It shows zero (less than 0.005K/dec) change in DTR over the period 1979-2004 globally. That directly contradicts your contention that the asymmetry continues to this day.

longview said:

Tuomenvirta et al. (2000)

Practically all warming must be attributed to Tmin increase

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That study covers Greenland, Nordic Seas, Scandinavia for the period 1910-1995. Big thumbs up on your reading comprehension and honesty there! eace

longview said:

Karl et al. (1993)

DTR is significantly reduced largely because of strong increase in Tmin in wintertime (December through May) and in high latitudes

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Another big thumbs up there; it's pointed out to you that the DTR reduction halted around 1980-1990, so you cite a 1993 study to 'prove' that the asymmetry "continues to this day."

longview said:

If you had read the literature (and some of the side notes) the diurnal asymmetry continues to this day,
and it is not just myself who does not understand the reasons.
There was a good paper referenced by Davies,
Evaluation of historical diurnal temperature range trends in CMIP5 models
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00032.1

These are poorly understood processes that are still not well represented in models and hence model
data inconsistencies in DTR changes remain within these analyzed models.

Click to expand...

Since the Technical papers by experts in the field, feel the processes are poorly understood,
I tend to agree. If they knew the processes, they would be included in the models!

Click to expand...

Scientists say that the DTR trends are caused by X, Y and Z, but the specifics of these processes are poorly understood in terms of modelling ability.

You asserted that "we do not know why we had over 50 years of T-min increasing faster."

There is a slight difference between those two, if you look closely enough Contrary to what I've suggested, that paper does seem to downplay (albeit with low confidence) the role of anthropogenic aerosols in the DTR trends in the regions examined. But contrary to what you've suggested, it too shows DTR substantially decreasing from the 1950s to the 80s, then remaining essentially trendless up to at least 2005 (Figure 4). It also suggests that modeling of natural variability shows no DTR trend at all, while modeling of anthropogenic influences does show a DTR trend of the correct sign, even if too small (-0.02K/dec over the whole period compared to -0.07 observed). I wonder if the effects of nuclear testing, which I believe peaked in that 50s to 80s period, has been ruled out? I wouldn't be surprised if that's not currently included in climate models.

Mithrae said:

"Smaller" is putting it mildly: It shows zero (less than 0.005K/dec) change in DTR over the period 1979-2004 globally. That directly contradicts your contention that the asymmetry continues to this day.


That study covers Greenland, Nordic Seas, Scandinavia for the period 1910-1995. Big thumbs up on your reading comprehension and honesty there! eace


Another big thumbs up there; it's pointed out to you that the DTR reduction halted around 1980-1990, so you cite a 1993 study to 'prove' that the asymmetry "continues to this day."




Scientists say that the DTR trends are caused by X, Y and Z, but the specifics of these processes are poorly understood in terms of modelling ability.

You asserted that "we do not know why we had over 50 years of T-min increasing faster."

There is a slight difference between those two, if you look closely enough Contrary to what I've suggested, that paper does seem to downplay (albeit with low confidence) the role of anthropogenic aerosols in the DTR trends in the regions examined. But contrary to what you've suggested, it too shows DTR substantially decreasing from the 1950s to the 80s, then remaining essentially trendless up to at least 2005 (Figure 4). It also suggests that modeling of natural variability shows no DTR trend at all, while modeling of anthropogenic influences does show a DTR trend of the correct sign, even if too small (-0.02K/dec over the whole period compared to -0.07 observed). I wonder if the effects of nuclear testing, which I believe peaked in that 50s to 80s period, has been ruled out? I wouldn't be surprised if that's not currently included in climate models.

Click to expand...

That's OK.

He just abandoned this thread and repeated his claim in another one.

I expect him to restate it a few more times in the future, along with his 'feedstock changing when oil is above $90/bbl', etc etc

Mithrae said:

"Smaller" is putting it mildly: It shows zero (less than 0.005K/dec) change in DTR over the period 1979-2004 globally. That directly contradicts your contention that the asymmetry continues to this day.


That study covers Greenland, Nordic Seas, Scandinavia for the period 1910-1995. Big thumbs up on your reading comprehension and honesty there! eace


Another big thumbs up there; it's pointed out to you that the DTR reduction halted around 1980-1990, so you cite a 1993 study to 'prove' that the asymmetry "continues to this day."




Scientists say that the DTR trends are caused by X, Y and Z, but the specifics of these processes are poorly understood in terms of modelling ability.

You asserted that "we do not know why we had over 50 years of T-min increasing faster."

There is a slight difference between those two, if you look closely enough Contrary to what I've suggested, that paper does seem to downplay (albeit with low confidence) the role of anthropogenic aerosols in the DTR trends in the regions examined. But contrary to what you've suggested, it too shows DTR substantially decreasing from the 1950s to the 80s, then remaining essentially trendless up to at least 2005 (Figure 4). It also suggests that modeling of natural variability shows no DTR trend at all, while modeling of anthropogenic influences does show a DTR trend of the correct sign, even if too small (-0.02K/dec over the whole period compared to -0.07 observed). I wonder if the effects of nuclear testing, which I believe peaked in that 50s to 80s period, has been ruled out? I wouldn't be surprised if that's not currently included in climate models.

Click to expand...

What you seem to be missing is that in spite of you claiming that,

It shows zero (less than 0.005K/dec) change in DTR over the period 1979-2004 globally

Click to expand...

Implying that all diurnal asymmetry ceased after 1979, a paper in 2013
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00032.1
seems to be looking at why the models are off, saying the models overestimated T-max, and underestimated T-Min.
If the diurnal asymmetry had ceased, why is it still a problem for the models?

longview said:

What you seem to be missing is that in spite of you claiming that,

Click to expand...

It's not me claiming that, it's the paper you misrepresented. Lewis and Karoly 2013 show the same thing, a substantial decrease in DTR in the 1950s to 70s, but essentially trendless from the 1980s onwards (Figure 4D). You can learn to live to with that reality or not, it doesn't particularly bother me either way, but I will keep pointing these facts out in any thread I happen to notice your apparently endless avalanche of misinformation.

Mithrae said:

It's not me claiming that, it's the paper you misrepresented. Lewis and Karoly 2013 show the same thing, a substantial decrease in DTR in the 1950s to 70s, but essentially trendless from the 1980s onwards (Figure 4D). You can learn to live to with that reality or not, it doesn't particularly bother me either way, but I will keep pointing these facts out in any thread I happen to notice your apparently endless avalanche of misinformation.

Click to expand...

And yet the diurnal asymmetry seems to still be a problem in 2013.
If the trend had stopped more than 30 years ago, why are the models still not accurately
tracking the asymmetry that you say no longer exists?

Tim the plumber said:

Given that the consensus[SUP]TM[/SUP] is that we should do lots of things to avoid climate catastrophy and all that this should be a very easy thing for those who are of this opionion to do and show why we must respond to their demands of stopping using fossil fuels;

1, Choose 1 issues with a slightly warmer world that is scary. The actual thing that will impact the world. Corral reefs dying or something.

2, Explain in your own words what mecganism will do this. Not the temperqature rise but the bit between that and the issue you have chosen.

3, Then cite some sort of science that supports this mechanism so we can look at how big an issue it is likely to be.

4, Then it must be scary enough that any local council with traffic lights will have to spend more than it's trafiic lights budget to sort out.

If you do all these things you will have made a prima facia case for action against climate change. If there is no decent responce then you will have shown that there is nothing to fear at all.

Click to expand...

Well apparently Goldman Sachs doesn't need a prima Facia case for Global Climate Change to recognize the huge economic rewards there are for investing Billions of Dollars in green technology.
They don't see this investment as a sacrifice at all. They are and they have been investing BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR MANY YEARS NOW.
So why does Free Electricity bother you so much

Rexedgar said:

It's not all that complicated, imho. Man continually craps in his back yard, one day man steps in a pile of crap! Cut and dried, bare bones!

Click to expand...

I like that pile of crap analogy.
But the ones who put the pile of crap in our back yards have beautiful estates that have walls, like the one Trump can't pay for. And they have guards that will shoot to kill and they have no piles of their **** in their back yards. It's in our's.

Rich123 said:

Well apparently Goldman Sachs doesn't need a prima Facia case for Global Climate Change to recognize the huge economic rewards there are for investing Billions of Dollars in green technology.
They don't see this investment as a sacrifice at all. They are and they have been investing BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR MANY YEARS NOW.
So why does Free Electricity bother you so much

Click to expand...

Who has free electricity? All forms of electricity has costs associated with them.
The question is are those cost outweighed by the benefit.
For home solar and the homeowner the answer may be yes, but it is not free!

Rich123 said:

Well apparently Goldman Sachs doesn't need a prima Facia case for Global Climate Change to recognize the huge economic rewards there are for investing Billions of Dollars in green technology.
They don't see this investment as a sacrifice at all. They are and they have been investing BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR MANY YEARS NOW.
So why does Free Electricity bother you so much

Click to expand...

The massive rewards from subsidies are indeed there.

If there is ever a better (cheaper) way to make electricity than coal who ever invents it will be likely to be the riches man on earth ever.

Tim the plumber said:

The massive rewards from subsidies are indeed there.

If there is ever a better (cheaper) way to make electricity than coal who ever invents it will be likely to be the riches man on earth ever.

Click to expand...

So true.