@NoelFuller

Quote:

You cannot conclude this, by your own initial question you admit to not having the data. I have only just now read remarks from another scientist referring to the same stuff and others wanting to get hold of it - wait and see.

You misunderstand me here. I was asking the question because his claim does not fit the data that are publicly available. I have these data at click and embed the plot accordingly in this post to support my point. And I maintain that "a much faster acceleration" is an exaggerative claim as the acceleration is constant (and very weak). An eyeball look at the plot clearly shows you that CO² emissions do not exhibit "a much faster acceleration".

Quote:

Would you conclude from the graph that what co2 misses h20 mops up?

Do you mean that CO² and H²O absorption spectrum overlap at in the 15µm band? Yes, but the graph does not give quantitatively which parts of the radiated longer wavelengths are respectively trapped by both CO² and H²O. If you want to do some calculation, better stick to CO² only.

Quote:

And thanks for the reference to RealClimate, can't think why I did not have it bookmarked but it is now and already I have read some interesting and helpful stuff, very old, several days in fact, but unrelated to this discussion.

RealClimate is the propaganda's site of G. 'independently-reported' Schmidt and M. 'hockey-stick Mann. You will be at home there.

Edit: typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 23-Feb-2009 at 03:42 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Specifically, there is no additional heat [ie infrared (IR) radiations emitted from ground] absorbed by CO² because all the possible heat radiated by Earth is already entirely trapped by a small part of the current CO².

Sheesh!

Say, what do *you* think happens to that heat once it gets "trapped" by the CO2?

Hint: *If*, as you seem to imply, the energy from any radiation from the sun which made it to the ground could never escape Earth again, this place would be a ball of slag.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

And I maintain that "a much faster acceleration" is an exaggerative claim as the acceleration is constant (and very weak).

Now, try that again with the actual quote, rather than this abridged one, and your argument falls to pieces.

However, I am glad to see that you have given up on the idea of there being a linear relationship. You wouldn't happen to have a source of actual numeric values for those data points?

@umisef

Quote:

Say, what do *you* think happens to that heat once it gets "trapped" by the CO2? Hint: *If*, as you seem to imply, the energy from any radiation from the sun which made it to the ground could never escape Earth again, this place would be a ball of slag.

What make you think in my post that I imply that? Instead of putting this sentence out of its context, feel free to explain your view on this subject. Clearly I don't imply what you imply if you reread the whole §.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@umisef

Quote:

Now, try that again with the actual quote, rather than this abridged one, and your argument falls to pieces.

Done: "The data now show that greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating much faster..." is still an exaggeration. Reread please. And see below.

Quote:

However, I am glad to see that you have given up on the idea of there being a linear relationship.

Well I'm very sorry that you are glad because if you reread what I wrote, I made it clear that I prefer a straight line (I also wrote "as a tangent if you prefer") to grossly estimate the trend. Btw most 'officials' give a single mean value in growth rate trend (see here or here.

Quote:

You wouldn't happen to have a source of actual numeric values for those data points?

Yes. Data (annual mean) for Mauna Loa here. You also have global atmospheric data here to compare.

Edit: you can also use this online interactive graph.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 23-Feb-2009 at 05:48 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@NoelFuller

Quote:

Quote: "The data now show that greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating much faster than we thought," says Field. "Over the last decade developing countries such as China and India have increased their electric power generation by burning more coal. Economies in the developing world are becoming more, not less carbon-intensive. We are definitely in unexplored terrain with the trajectory of climate change, in the region with forcing, and very likely impacts, much worse than predicted in the fourth assessment."

I finally found where the exaggerating claim comes from. It it based on this report. You obviously find the author of the exaggerative claim (Chris Field). Interestingly, in the section listing the 'References supporting this analysis' you only find references by the same team. About the data used by this study, the fossil fuel emissions is based on 1 dataset, the land use change and ocean uptake are model-based and the atmospheric CO² increase is just a global average from 1980 of Mauna Loa data. Trashcan.

Anyway there is little value of discussing an increase in CO² as temperature is not even correlated with CO² level in the last decade:


Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree
Quote:

Quote: Now, try that again with the actual quote, rather than this abridged one, and your argument falls to pieces. Done: "The data now show that greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating much faster..." is still an exaggeration. Reread please. And see below.

Which part about "rather than this abridged one" was too complicated for you to parse? Was it the word "abridged"?

What you are doing is like taking the quote "I hate the homeless situation" and quote it as "I hate the homeless...". (Bonus points for people who get the reference :)

Quote:

because if you reread what I wrote, I made it clear that I prefer a straight line

I know that you prefer a straight line. However, the data is quite clearly *not* on a straight line, so no matter what you prefer, what the data is does not change.

Quote:

to grossly estimate the trend. Btw most 'officials' give a single mean value in growth rate trend

Which just *might* be the mistake, you know, which lead to the original quote. Once you put he actual words back in which you replaced with "...".

Because if what we have is a qudadratic (or higher) function, yet approximate (or "grossly estimate") it with a linear function, then the actual annual change at the end of our observation period is considerably larger than the approximated (or rather, grossly misestimated) one. And at some point, someone goes and looks at the data and says "well, this stuff accurately describes the *average* annual increase over the last 50 years or so, but it's consistently high for the first 25, and consistently low for the second 25 ---which somehow suggests that trying to predict the third 25 years with it is going to be low as well. Oops. Things are increasing faster than we thought. Bummer!". They don't do that out of politcal zeal, but simply because the BEEPing data shows that the previous, simple model is an insufficient description of reality.

@TMTisFree

Well, what *do* you think happens to the heat once it is "trapped" by the CO2?

You made the argument that the idea of increasing CO2 concentrations leading to a "greenhouse effect" was silly, because at pre-industrial CO2 levels, any IR radiated from the ground would be "trapped" within a few metres. To go from your premise (heat gets trapped within a few metres at background CO2 levels) to your conclusion (increasing CO2 levels cannot lead to increasing temperature levels) requires that after "being trapped", the heat is somehow no longer relevant.

Thus, you either need to show how "being trapped" makes the heat no longer relevant, [or]need to modify your argument (which, frankly, at this point is a sad example of populistic nonsense). Or you could just accept at least the principle of a "greenhouse effect".

@umisef

Quote:

Which part about "rather than this abridged one" was too complicated for you to parse? Was it the word "abridged"? What you are doing is like taking the quote "I hate the homeless situation" and quote it as "I hate the homeless...". (Bonus points for people who get the reference :)

The entire quote is irrelevant because IPCC has always claimed that they don't establish predictions, but scenarios. Even if we consider these scenarios as predictions, the entire quote is still irrelevant because he builds short term trend and compare this short term value with the long term scenarios/predictions of IPCC retrofitted to short term value. Even if one misconsider his comparison has some value, he is still exaggerating the trend because his data are based on 1 data set/2 models/1 past mean/5 references of his own work to support his claim. Your analogy is so falling short and no one wins your empty bonus point.

Quote:

I know that you prefer a straight line. However, the data is quite clearly *not* on a straight line, so no matter what you prefer, what the data is does not change.

You still don't know why I put a line. You can theoretically fit an infinity of curves to these data. I choose a line for practical prupose, you choose what you want and do the calculation accordingly. As I link to, 'officials' also prefer a line so I am entitled to do so.

Quote:

Which just *might* be the mistake, you know, which lead to the original quote. Once you put he actual words back in which you replaced with "...". Because if what we have is a qudadratic (or higher) function, yet approximate (or "grossly estimate") it with a linear function, then the actual annual change at the end of our observation period is considerably larger than the approximated (or rather, grossly misestimated) one. And at some point, someone goes and looks at the data and says "well, this stuff accurately describes the *average* annual increase over the last 50 years or so, but it's consistently high for the first 25, and consistently low for the second 25 ---which somehow suggests that trying to predict the third 25 years with it is going to be low as well. Oops. Things are increasing faster than we thought. Bummer!". They don't do that out of politcal zeal, but simply because the BEEPing data shows that the previous, simple model is an insufficient description of reality.

You have understood why it is not possible to compare with current IPCC scenarios, bravo. And as I initially did not set my target time (I did not need to), you perhaps have also understood why I prefer a line.

Btw, as you like to be precise, the "much faster" part of his claim is exaggerative because he is dealing with 'his' statistical data, not future estimated trend. If you compare this with 'the' real data and look back in time, the acceleration is the same as the 1965-1985 period (there was no acceleration in 1985-1995).

That closes the case (for me at least).

Edit: English grammar x3

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 24-Feb-2009 at 03:54 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 24-Feb-2009 at 08:18 AM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 24-Feb-2009 at 08:16 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@umisef

Quote:

Well, what *do* you think happens to the heat once it is "trapped" by the CO2?

Reread my post. It is written black on white [depends on your background color but you get the point] (hint: it is in the ante-penultimate sentence of the related §).

Quote:

You made the argument that the idea of increasing CO2 concentrations leading to a "greenhouse effect" was silly, because at pre-industrial CO2 levels, any IR radiated from the ground would be "trapped" within a few metres. To go from your premise (heat gets trapped within a few metres at background CO2 levels) to your conclusion (increasing CO2 levels cannot lead to increasing temperature levels) requires that after "being trapped", the heat is somehow no longer relevant.

You surely have the ability to put words in my mouth. I did not use "silly" or "pre-industrial CO2 levels" or "background CO2" or "no longer relevant.". As already being discussed here, 'greenhouse effect' is a misnomer, but let use it. If you find the response to your first question above, you will also find that heat is not "not longer relevant" as your wrote. This sadly leads to the fact that your following Quote:

Thus, you either need to show how "being trapped" makes the heat no longer relevant, [or]need to modify your argument (which, frankly, at this point is a sad example of populistic nonsense). Or you could just accept at least the principle of a "greenhouse effect".

is irrelevant.

Btw, I do not like your pompous and somewhat aggressive tone (to which I reply equally). If you want to discuss further, be sure to have a neutral approach.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@umisef

Quote:

I know that you prefer a straight line

I prefer smiley facesso therefore it's more practical.

@BrianK

Quote:

I prefer smiley facesso therefore it's more practical.

I'd prefer marking nicks by believers or unbelievers etc.

Can't follow who is making what point anymore

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Thread


Opps......

Satellite to Study Global-Warming Gases Lost

Too bad, another worthy source of data for us all to manipulate gone.

Plaz

@umisef

Quote:

Specifically, there is no additional heat [ie infrared (IR) radiations emitted from ground] absorbed by CO² because all the possible heat radiated by Earth is already entirely trapped by a small part of the current CO². Sheesh! Say, what do *you* think happens to that heat once it gets "trapped" by the CO2?

I wondered if any infrared ever reached the ground, and how about aerial and satelite infrared photography?

I even wondered why a simple experiment I did nearly 30 years back, in black body radiation? I heard that in past times residents of Saharan type climate made ice at night in the thermal lees of large walls designed to shield the ice making areas from direct sunlight during the day. I put a platinum resistance thermometer inside one of those black balls used in toilet cisterns, another thermometer a handspan outside it, both mounted a couple of hands above a garden by a north facing wall (hot spot in the southern hemisphere). I recorded the temperature at intervals of about a minute throughout the shortest night of the year with an anti-cyclone overhead. The outer thermometer never dropped below 20°C but the inner thermometer dropped below freezing, not that this proves anything quantitatively but it is easy to believe that some people knew about radiation loss to space at night a long time ago. But how does it work?

A lot of heat overall never reaches the ground and in a steady state planet all of it must be re-radiated to space. Heat is not lost to space through convection, even if convection is part of the vertical transport. The excited co2 does transfer energy to nearby gases, it also re-radiates in every direction including up.

The model described by TMTisFree in post #305 is a late 19th century model. It was used very successfully to rubbish a view put forward by Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm.

He like others was trying to explain the ice ages. He calculated that halving the level of co2 could drop temperatures back to ice age levels - the temperature in Europe could drop 4 to 6°C. A colleague, Högbom, had been estimating emissions and absorptions of co2 in the natural sphere, volcanoes, oceans whatever? Along the way he estimated that human generated emissions from factories and other industrial sources (coal) then matched the natural emissions. Although this was seen as a side issue and no cause for concern at the then low levels, Arrhenius in 1896 proposed that human activity may, over a long time, warm the place up a bit and make Europe a nicer place to live in.

Some years later Knut Ångström of Sweden whose specialty was solar radiation and its effect on our atmosphere, asked an assistant (Koch) to perform an experiment directing IR through a cylinder full of co2, reduce the amount of co2 and measure the difference in radiation. It was there that it was realised just how much blocking co2 did in some frequencies. They reached the view that increasing co2, or decreasing it did not support global warming or cooling. Add to that the info from spectrographs that water vapour and co2 together did a pretty good mopping up operation on infrared radiation and Arrhenius's proposition that the amount of co2 made a difference to global temberatures, was as good as dead.

While some people did see through the problem intuitively they were unable to gather the numbers to prove anything, so that is how the issue of AGW stayed until digital computing developed the power to provide much more sophisticated models that began to approximate our actual climate.

Another idea extant earlier was that negative feedback stabilised earth's climate so thoroughly that nothing bad could happen. With better but still insufficient models, earth's climate looked terribly unstable (positive feedbacks) which was unbelievable in the light of the stability idea and threw up catastrophe scenarios. Current modeling has passed way beyond catastrophism but positive feedbacks are established.

To cut this story short and simplify the solution, it is necessary to see the atmosphere, not as an amorphous slab, but as layered, with re-radiation and absorption going on at every level. At the very top IR can escape into space. Small variations in co2 at this level can make real differences to earth's temperature. That is where earth's thermostat is but there is a considerable lapse before new emissions get there, hence of course current temperatures influenced by changing ocean currents do not track instantly the growth in co2, but that will come. Knut Ångström did not realise that the tiny numbers were significant.

So here we are being fed a long disproved, deeply flawed, late 19th - early 20th century, model with every advance in modeling being rubbished as well as the people using them to do their science, and every one that listens to them.

Science is cherry-picked, misrepresented, and misused to befuddle the uninformed reader, why one wonders?. It is reactionary, political and not science. Still it has been educational just to search out what is really the case given such an overt campaign,

You can read a much more detailed and extensive history starting here http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Noel

Edit: it was Knut Ångström who did not realise the significance of the small numbers - 9th para.

Last edited by NoelFuller on 02-Mar-2009 at 01:40 AM.
Last edited by NoelFuller on 01-Mar-2009 at 01:08 AM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Btw, I do not like your pompous and somewhat aggressive tone (to which I reply equally). If you want to discuss further, be sure to have a neutral approach.

Oh! Oh! Oh! a neutral approach?

Noel

@Plaz

Quote:

Too bad, another worthy source of data for us all to manipulate gone.

the UFO's shot it down

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@NoelFuller

It was not aimed at you. Our discussion is correct (tone-wise).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

Quote:

the UFO's shot it down

Nah! someone's pointing the finger :)

Noel

@NoelFuller

Quote:

You can read a much more detailed and extensive history starting here

If you really want to give a link about CO² history, better offer a site build up by someone not from the "hockey-stick" team [Weart is from Schmidt & Mann UnRealClimate crew]. His biased view does not deserve any credibility.

Edit: pb with square brackets link

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 25-Feb-2009 at 07:21 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Plaz

Looking at its mission profile I note it was intended to gather the numbers on the main point in my large post earlier on this page, co2 at the edge of space, among other things. Not sure if the Japanese satelite just launched is doing the same.

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 25-Feb-2009 at 10:13 AM.