@TMTisFree

Quote:

The response is still in this plot you don't want to accept:

I accept things once they are made understandable. I thought my question was simple -- what is the resolution here? We have a pretty graph with 600M years of data. So what is this data? Is it 1 point per day for 6M years? Lots of resolution? Or is it 1 point per 20K years? (Not as much resolution.)

There is a big difference in the graph depending upon resolution. Take the 20K year plot. If there's a 10K year warming but 5K years before and 5K years after are cooler and the same temp the result is a straight line and a loss of record.

So before anyone accepts this they should understand the data set being represented and if this is a good representation or not. We saw someone earlier post a graph that visually appeared to be a linear growth. However, when the data was viewed we understood the relationship was quadradic not linear. Certainly you want to ensure that our graphs are fairly respresentative of data and people accidentally don't draw such false conclusions again.


Quote:

No correlation between CO² levels and temperatures

First off put away that CO2 changes alone drive the climate every time and always. There are various factors the key is understanding what is operating now. As for correlation there are clearly periods of coorelation. 250-350 seems to be a correlation to me where CO2 drops first and temp soon follows.

One interesting question is -- does periods of climate change work only on a single factor? How you are reading this graph is CO2 is the first, driving, and ending factor to climate change. If there are cofactors the graph will likely not reflect CO2's role as it misses the other roles. If there are shared factors such as sun starts it and CO2 completes that cycle again the graph misses out.


Quote:

I said and repeat here "There are already enough unresolved problems to discuss unrealistic ones" and "I focus on CO²". Why trying to put words in my mouth?

There was no need to put words in your mouth. Clearly you focused on CO2 by discarding all other factors. So you were analyzing CO2 effects without analyzing the true composition or compositional change of the atmosphere.

@BrianK

Quote:

I accept things once they are made understandable. I thought my question was simple -- what is the resolution here? We have a pretty graph with 600M years of data. So what is this data? Is it 1 point per day for 6M years? Lots of resolution? Or is it 1 point per 20K years? (Not as much resolution.) There is a big difference in the graph depending upon resolution. Take the 20K year plot. If there's a 10K year warming but 5K years before and 5K years after are cooler and the same temp the result is a straight line and a loss of record. So before anyone accepts this they should understand the data set being represented and if this is a good representation or not.

Refer to our previous discussion in this thread about this graph, no need to repeat.

Quote:

We saw someone earlier post a graph that visually appeared to be a linear growth. However, when the data was viewed we understood the relationship was quadradic not linear. Certainly you want to ensure that our graphs are fairly respresentative of data and people accidentally don't draw such false conclusions again.

Refer to the discussion with umisef in this thread about the 'why the line', no need to repeat.

Quote:

First off put away that CO2 changes alone drive the climate every time and always. There are various factors the key is understanding what is operating now. As for correlation there are clearly periods of coorelation. 250-350 seems to be a correlation to me where CO2 drops first and temp soon follows. One interesting question is -- does periods of climate change work only on a single factor? How you are reading this graph is CO2 is the first, driving, and ending factor to climate change. If there are cofactors the graph will likely not reflect CO2's role as it misses the other roles. If there are shared factors such as sun starts it and CO2 completes that cycle again the graph misses out.

Again we also had have this discussion 2 time where I showed that:
1/ there exists time scale where CO² is correlated with temperature,
2/ CO² lags behind temperature:


Please update your databank.

You are turning in circle with a 200 posts circumference (lag was discussed here in this thread and also in the previous thread).

Quote:

There was no need to put words in your mouth. Clearly you focused on CO2 by discarding all other factors. So you were analyzing CO2 effects without analysing the true composition or compositional change of the atmosphere.

I focus on CO² because alarmists and alarmist scientists, IPCC, policy makers focus on CO² and de-carbonization (they don't care of other pollutions). Pr Pielke Sr has a comprehensive web site showing the errors of IPCC that only deals with the hypothesis of CO² GH effect and not takes in account land use changes, inverts clouds feedbacks, minimizes solar variability, forgets oceanic cycles heavy influences, only relies on subjectively parametrized models elaborated to output CO²-induced catastrophic scenarios to reject any other plausible hypothesis/explanations. Opposite to IPCC and alarmists, I fully recognized all this natural and human parameters influencing the climate although I prefer narrowing my concern on CO² because some take it for granted the hypothesis that modifying the current CO² level could have any influence on current temperature. In addition your Quote:

So now you feel if we get rid of all the water no change would occur?

is not what I call a "true composition or compositional change of the atmosphere" but an irrealistic scare.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 04-Mar-2009 at 07:56 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".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Refer to our previous discussion in this thread about this graph, no need to repeat.

As far as I remember you tried to blame me for failing to see the graph properly. My point which you seem to not care about is once we look at the data set we can better understand a graph. These should be simple questions for you -- How many data points are on the graph? Is the distance between data points consistent?

Quote:

Refer to the discussion with umisef in this thread about the 'why the line', no need to repeat

You prefer a line. Great you drew a linear growth line on data that is a quadradic growth. It provided us 0 clarity. In fact it took it away and provided a misinterpretation of data.

Quote:

Again we also had have this discussion 2 time where I showed that: 1/ there exists time scale where CO² is correlated with temperature, 2/ CO² lags behind temperature:

The failure here isn't my databank. This period where CO2 was out of sync 15% of the cycle (~800 years of a 5000 year cycle) is interesting. It does clearly show that CO2 is not the major starting influence for every single cycle. And here's where the problem lies. The AGW arguement is CO2 is leading the current warming trend. The only way this 1 graph would be a 'home run' for the anti-gw crowd would be if the claim was 'Every climate change ever is forced due to CO2 factors'. Unfortuantely this is the arguement that you disproved and no one made.

Quote:

Opposite to IPCC and alarmists, I fully recognized all this natural and human parameters influencing the climate although I prefer narrowing my concern on CO²

Rephrase: TMTiF recognizes natural and human parameters can influence climate. TMTiF just chooses to ignore them all and provide CO2 estimates with impossible conclusions.

Quote:

"true composition or compositional change of the atmosphere" but an irrealistic scare.

Sorry you're quaking in your boots afraid here of a hypothetical. The question was simple does composition of the atmosphere influence temperatures. Your answer was NO. You are one of the few 'scientists' that believe gasses of differening composition have no relation to their differeing physical properties.

@BrianK

Quote:

As far as I remember you tried to blame me for failing to see the graph properly. My point which you seem to not care about is once we look at the data set we can better understand a graph. These should be simple questions for you -- How many data points are on the graph? Is the distance between data points consistent?

You were/are the one complaining to get the data which was/are available in the papers indicated on the plot. If you want your response, get the papers and re-plot yourself the data. I will certainly not do the work for you. The plot speaks for itself enough.

Quote:

You prefer a line. Great you drew a linear growth line on data that is a quadradic growth. It provided us 0 clarity. In fact it took it away and provided a misinterpretation of data.

IPCC uses a linear increase (~2ppm/yr), so I am entitled to do so. Is the IPCC authority sufficient for you?

Quote:

The failure here isn't my databank. This period where CO2 was out of sync 15% of the cycle (~800 years of a 5000 year cycle) is interesting. It does clearly show that CO2 is not the major starting influence for every single cycle.

Interesting. In your previous post you stated that Quote:

CO2 drops first and temp soon follows

Here you agree that CO² lags behind temperature. No contradiction.

Quote:

The AGW arguement is CO2 is leading the current warming trend. The only way this 1 graph would be a 'home run' for the anti-gw crowd would be if the claim was 'Every climate change ever is forced due to CO2 factors'. Unfortuantely this is the arguement that you disproved and no one made.

An analysis of the past shows that at large time scale (geologic) CO² and temperature are not correlated. Analysis of ice cores shows that in lesser time scale (climatic), temperature and CO² are correlated with CO² always lagging 500-800 years behind temperature. When looking back 800 years from present, you find the MWP, a global warmer period (tentatively but unsuccessfully disproved by the UnRealclimate team). Biases (read data manipulations) in observational terrestrial data explain most of the slight warming in the last century. Satellites data show no warming at all. The last decade shows opposite trends between CO² and temperature. Of course all of these facts do not imply, because I am not mixing correlation with causation, but support the hypothesis that the slight warming at the end of the last century was due to a (combination of) natural event(s). On the other hand, IPCC hypothesis that CO² drives current temperature is more and more untenable, being not supported by past and current observations (no correlation between CO² and temperature, no fingerprint), in contradiction with the accepted framework of physics (support of a perpetuum mobile), and even not supported by the predictions of models parametrized according to modellers' taste. Alarmists rest with no arguments.

Quote:

Rephrase: TMTiF recognizes natural and human parameters can influence climate. TMTiF just chooses to ignore them all and provide CO2 estimates with impossible conclusions.

I do not ignore them, they just are not needed to disqualify the core AGW hypothesis. If it is demonstrated this hypothesis has no base, it will also demonstrate that climate is naturally changing. That why I just need to focus on CO². Is BriK understanding?

Quote:

Sorry you're quaking in your boots afraid here of a hypothetical. The question was simple does composition of the atmosphere influence temperatures. Your answer was NO.

That was not your question. Your question was Quote:

So if we remove all H20 and replace it with CO2 there will be no change to temps?

The positive answer was in response to my own question (because of your lack of substantiated question): Quote:

So if we remove CO² back to the supposed industrial level, there will be no change to temperature?

Please try to follow the discussion. Anyway, there is no interest discussing such unrealistic abstraction which will never be tested experimentally.

Quote:

You are one of the few 'scientists' that believe gasses of differening composition have no relation to their differeing physical properties.

Once again putting words in my mouth. Care to point where I said this (not that it has any interest)?

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:

The plot speaks for itself enough.

This again is laughable. A plot says squat until we can see the data and understand what's going on. Scotese calculated a mean average temperature and CO2 for a period in time scale and plots the points. Having a 20K year gap in data would be much improved compared to much of this data.

Quote:

so I am entitled to do so. Is the IPCC authority sufficient for you?

Depends what we're talking. If you are identifing the the change a line is fine. If you are identifying the rate of change a line is incorrect. Since we asked about the later then no. Whatver you felt justified in using didn't properly answer the question.

Quote:

Analysis of ice cores shows that in lesser time scale (climatic), temperature and CO² are correlated with CO² always lagging 500-800 years behind temperature.

This is an incorrect claim. It's not always.

Quote:

Satellites data show no warming at all.

Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies. -- John Christy University of Alabma, Huntsville.

Quote:

The last decade shows opposite trends between CO² and temperature

The last peak warming was in 2005 a mere 3 years ago not 10. Also, no one said there were 0 oscillations within our climate. Before we find a 'cooling trend' we need more than 3 years. It appears oscillations happen about every decade.

Quote:

Once again putting words in my mouth

Again I asked you about temperatures and if you thought by removing all H20 and only having CO2 if it would impact temperatures. Your answer 'NO'. So no words to put in your mouth here.

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Mar-2009 at 05:11 AM.

@TMTisFree

Maybe you could link to the sources of the graphs and/or explain exactly what a graph shows and what scale etcetera it uses when you use one.


As BrianK points out, graphs are fine, but too much graphs can be a bit hard to follow without source context and such.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@BrianK

Quote:

This again is laughable. A plot says squat until we can see the data and understand what's going on. Scotese calculated a mean average temperature and CO2 for a period in time scale and plots the points. Having a 20K year gap in data would be much improved compared to much of this data.

Then laugh or re-plot yourself.

Quote:

Depends what we're talking. If you are identifing the the change a line is fine. If you are identifying the rate of change a line is incorrect. Since we asked about the later then no. Whatver you felt justified in using didn't properly answer the question.

IPCC does not require you ask something to use a line. Me too.

Quote:

This is an incorrect claim. It's not always.

Ice core references please. Even UnRealclimate scientists recognize this evidence (although their interpretation is very funny).

Quote:

Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming,

Due to biased data (UHI:


no quality check:
)

a very poor and not maintained network of weather stations:


unjustified 'correction' of raw data in the GISS 'adjustment' algorithm:
.

Quote:

while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

That is incorrect. There are still discrepancies between datasets when compared with the same baseline:

or (plotting the difference between 2 other datasets):


Quote:

The last peak warming was in 2005 a mere 3 years ago not 10.

That is again incorrect. The last peak was in 1998 (a decade ago) due to a strong ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) warming, showing that land temperatures are driven by oceans and other natural events. Nothing special in 2005 when looking at trusted data:


Quote:

Also, no one said there were 0 oscillations within our climate. Before we find a 'cooling trend' we need more than 3 years. It appears oscillations happen about every decade.

IPCC does not agree with you and considers there are no such important oscillations because their models, used for supporting future scenarii, have no provision for 1-100 years natural cycles in their implementations.

Quote:

Again I asked you about temperatures and if you thought by removing all H20 and only having CO2 if it would impact temperatures. Your answer 'NO'. So no words to put in your mouth here.

I am still waiting for you pointing to where I wrote a 'no' to a unrealistic/unfalsifiable question of you I didn't and still don't want to discuss.

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".

@tomazkid

Quote:

Maybe you could link to the sources of the graphs and/or explain exactly what a graph shows and what scale etcetera it uses when you use one.

Having background in mathematics and/or statistics, one should be confident that BrianK might be capable to both understand a plot and search further for the data (sources are indicated on the graph) to do a plot himself, no? It is not that difficult but it seems he prefers laughing.

Quote:

As BrianK points out, graphs are fine, but too much graphs can be a bit hard to follow without source context and such.

As BrianK is discussing the subject since more than 850 posts, one can expect that he has some basic knowledge on the matter, some references at hand, some links to important data and sites. Additionally, I try to put references when needed (read to new data or papers: that is to say I do not provided links to old stuffs, already linked to, usual, easy to find or widely spread data, etc). Discussing climate on AWN is not like writing a peer-reviewed paper (you know the difficulty of this task only when you have your first one accepted for publication) and I do not feel obliged to do so here.
But I understand your concern: since it is known that calculations offered in my previous posts to demonstrate the non-existence of a greenhouse (GH) effect by CO² have been derived and replicated in an understandable manner by me from authorities (HITRAN, Dr Nicol, Dr Hug, Dr Garett, etc), no one has further complained about the results. Having forgotten to refer to Dr Nicol's paper is, in this case, very funny .

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:

since it is known that calculations offered in my previous posts to demonstrate the non-existence of a greenhouse (GH) effect by CO² have been derived and replicated in an understandable manner by me from authorities (HITRAN, Dr Nicol, Dr Hug, Dr Garett, etc), no one has further complained about the results.

Let me just go on record that the reason I have not "complained further" about the absurd results is that I worked out it is completely pointless talking to you, seeing as you have no idea about the actual calculations, and are just regurgitating, in the interesting places pretty much verbatim, the Nicol paper.

I'd love to have a chat with Prof Nicol about his calculations, of course. As far as you are concerned, the fact that you take an obviously absurd result and, clearly without even once questioning it, put it forward, merely affirms that you are at best a *former* scientist.

So, please, do not consider the fact that I no longer discuss "your" calculations with you as any form of indication that I believe the results any more than I did a few days ago.

Oh, and Sir Isaac Newton's name is commonly spelled with a 'C' these days. More importantly, his famous quote is about *standing* on the shoulders of giants --- i.e. making a small contribution in height (or in science, of course) which raises the standing one's view *above* that of the giants (or pushes the boundaries between the known and the unknown a bit further). Simply repeating the stuff of giants, especially without critical thinking or understanding, would be more aptly described as clinging to the giants' beards. In the ideal case, the view might be just a tad less elevated than the giants'; In the more likely case, it's just of a whole lot of giant hair. In no case, however, is the view superior to that of the giants themselves....

Last edited by umisef on 05-Mar-2009 at 01:45 PM.

@umisef

Quote:

Let me just go on record that the reason I have not "complained further" about the absurd results is that I worked out it is completely pointless talking to you, seeing as you have no idea about the actual calculations, and are just regurgitating, in the interesting places pretty much verbatim, the Nicol paper.

Have hit a raw nerve it seems. So why you even bother responding?

Quote:

I'd love to have a chat with Prof Nicol about his calculations, of course. As far as you are concerned, the fact that you take an obviously absurd result

You don't understand some of them? Don't forget to ask him about his "obviously absurd results" then.

Quote:

clearly without even once questioning it, put it forward, merely affirms that you are at best a *former* scientist.

Something you did not have understood in my previous responses about it? More certainly you are piling in the vacuum as a typical manner from a current narrow-mind (engineer?) without any argumentum, not from a real scientist.

Quote:

So, please, do not consider the fact that I no longer discuss "your" calculations with you as any form of indication that I believe the results any more than I did a few days ago.

It is interesting that you will not further what you called "discuss" calculations from authority of respected scientists. Escaping with "I'd also love to have a chat with Dr Nicol" does not reinforce credibility but rather highlight lack of.

Quote:

Oh, and Sir Isaac Newton's name is commonly spelled with a 'C' these days.

At least an interesting comment.

Quote:

More importantly, his famous quote is about *standing* on the shoulders of giants --- i.e. making a small contribution in height (or in science, of course) which raises the standing one's view *above* that of the giants (or pushes the boundaries between the known and the unknown a bit further). Simply repeating the stuff of giants, especially without critical thinking or understanding, would be more aptly described as clinging to the giants' beards. In the ideal case, the view might be just a tad less elevated than the giants'; In the more likely case, it's just of a whole lot of giant hair. In no case, however, is the view superior to that of the giants themselves....

Thanks for your enlightening low level textual explanation, with a great paraphrasing to begin with, followed by both a rhetorical emphasis on your first § and an embellished poetry about scientist hairs, to a bright finish with an epistemological revelation about science progress. A great moment, thanks again.

My last words to you. You have fallen in this thread like a paralysed drosophila on meat with an unpleasant and condescending tone towards me. While I fully accept criticizing and discussion, the common denominator of most of your posts is rather nitpicking, that is to say fall in the "I-am-not-able-to-propose-anything-positive-but-rather-concentrate-on-typos"'s category. So, follow from your own idea, you effectively better have a lesson from Dr Nicol's "obviously absurd results" or other distinguished *real* scientists.

Quote:

"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds"

Albert Einstein

Edit: English grammar and less incisive wording
Edit 2: reverted to deserved incisive comment

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 05-Mar-2009 at 05:21 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 05-Mar-2009 at 05:01 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:

Then laugh or re-plot yourself

Maybe this is clearer for you. I find it laughable that you believe this graph is a fully accurate representation. Scortese calcualed an average temp and average CO2 for a period, eg Jussaric period. He then plots that data and draws lines between periods. The resolution between such periods is poor. We see data points 1M years apart, sometimes more. Plotted here. What happens to those 10K cooling or warming trend? They get trended flat. This graph appears to be averages of averages trended for an average. Statistical validity is weak IMO.

As for replotting myself. I never stated he plotted the data wrong. The issue I have is how he averaged the averages for periods then drew a line to communicate the change on average.

Quote:

IPCC does not require you ask something to use a line. Me too

It appears we're in agreement here. You line answers no questions. OK! I agree.

Quote:

That is again incorrect. The last peak was in 1998 (a decade ago) due to a strong ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) warming,

I think the problem here is you aren't reading your own graph. There is a peak in 1998 and it drops to a low in 2000. Then from 2000 to 2008 there's a hump. From 2000 to 2005 the temperature increases and peaks. Then from 2005 there's a downtrend. WMO claims last peak was 2005.

Quote:

I am still waiting for you pointing to where I wrote a 'no' to a unrealistic/unfalsifiable question of you

It's not worth my time to find it. I'll accept that you moved the goal post by ignoring the question, writing and answering your own question in it's place.

@BrianK

Quote:

Maybe this is clearer for you. I find it laughable that you believe this graph is a fully accurate representation. Scortese calcualed an average temp and average CO2 for a period, eg Jussaric period. He then plots that data and draws lines between periods. The resolution between such periods is poor. We see data points 1M years apart, sometimes more. Plotted here. What happens to those 10K cooling or warming trend? They get trended flat. This graph appears to be averages of averages trended for an average. Statistical validity is weak IMO.

Any proxy reconstruction has its own uncertainties and this one is no exception. With that in mind, if you try to get a 10K resolution on a 100k years resolution plot, I do certainly understand your frustration. But the problem is simply between the chair and the plot, not the plot itself. Fell free to get better data then.

Quote:

As for replotting myself. I never stated he plotted the data wrong. The issue I have is how he averaged the averages for periods then drew a line to communicate the change on average.

So you have finally got both papers and concluded plot is effectively based on average of average of data. Care to demonstrate it?

Quote:

I think the problem here is you aren't reading your own graph. There is a peak in 1998 and it drops to a low in 2000. Then from 2000 to 2008 there's a hump. From 2000 to 2005 the temperature increases and peaks. Then from 2005 there's a downtrend. WMO claims last peak was 2005.

Look again at the UAH-MSU graph: the last peak is 2007. But this is of no importance as my initial concern was that the last decade trend (1998-2008) was a decrease in temperature (also shown by HadleyCRUT data btw).

Quote:

It's not worth my time to find it. I'll accept that you moved the goal post by ignoring the question, writing and answering your own question in it's place.

Sure. You will certainly lose your time trying to find the "NO" response I never gave to your unrealistic scenario. How do one call this dishonest practice in English?

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:

Any proxy reconstruction has its own uncertainties and this one is no exception

Really? Yet with all the uncertainties and large amount of years of missing data you are 100% confident that this graph proves without a doubt that CO2 never lead a warming cycle? Even with the CO2 leading a downward then upward trend in the middle of the graph? Sorry your conclusion is laughable.

Quote:

So you have finally got both papers and concluded plot is effectively based on average of average of data. Care to demonstrate it?

Certainly you can search further for the data and read how Scotese calcuated mean averages for Geographic Time periods then plotted them.

Quote:

the last peak is 2007.

Wait you said the last peak was a decade ago in 1997? It's nice that you now indicate there was an upward trend in the last 10 years.

Quote:

But this is of no importance as my initial concern was that the last decade trend (1998-2008) was a decrease in temperature (also shown by HadleyCRUT data btw).

First off the HadleyCRUT data is 2002 to 2008. So how does it show the 1998-2001 data you claimed above?

Take a look at all of the graphs. I'll use the UAH because it'll get too messy trying to talk to all graphs. In 1998 was was an El Nino in effect. (Some may claim a statistical outlier.) But for ease let's accept it. Then in 2000 temps fell back into the 1997 area. Temps then warmed until 2007 and then in 2008 they fell back down. There is no cooling trend. There's drop w/ the majority is warming period and then a slight drop off at the end.

TMTiF: If you really want the last decade then pick the last decade. Jan00 to Jan09 (We might do Feb but none of your graphs provide Feb09 data.) If you really want a decade then pick a decade (00-09) not a hendecade (98-08).

Jan 2000-Jan 2009 is the last 10 year period. If you really want to draw a line to see the total change (what you call trend) over the period we can. Jan of 2000 was ~-.2. Jan of 2009 is +.31 as labeled on the graph. This is a warming of ~.+.5 degreees. A line would slope up for warming. Not down for cooling. Therefore the last decade was warming not cooling.


(NOTE: I think hendecade is the right word? 11 sided figures are hendecagons. So I'm hoping hendecade is an 11 year period.)

EDIT: Changes to be more polite.

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Mar-2009 at 06:31 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 06-Mar-2009 at 06:27 AM.

@all

can we stop going back and forth on this CO2 issue? IMHO its not a non issue.

I heard on TV just the other day that the numbers were all wrong and temps have been in decline since 2000 iirc.......looking more like an ice age than "Global warming" for the next 20-30 years.

So lets move on to the toxins in the Oceans?

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

@Interesting

Sure. I show with a plot in a previous post that CO² molecules absorb surface radiation at a very low height above the surface. The plot uses the Beer's law under these assumed conditions.

Below are the calculations (blatantly stolen from Dr Nicol's paper, with informations from Dr Gerlich's paper, the Daly site, calculations/data provided by Dr Hug and informations "regurgitated" from other informative sites like Hyperphysics):

1/ Processes involved in molecular de-excitation
=======================================
There are 3 processes that leads to the de-excitation of a molecule:
-- re-radiation (or natural decay or homogeneous broadening, see 1a/),
-- relative motion displacement (or Doppler broadening, see 1b/) and
-- collisional displacement (or collisional broadening, see 1c/).

1a/ Determination of the frequency of a re-radiation in the 15µm band
******************************************************************************
The spontaneous rate of decay of a system of N molecules from an excited state to an unexcited state in a time t by re-emitting a photon is given by:

N(t) = N(0).e^(-A.t) where

N(t): number of molecules re-radiating at time t
N(0): number of molecules re-radiating at time t=0
t: time
A: Einstein A coefficient, frequency of de-excitation of a molecule given by:

A = (8.π.h.v^3/c^3).B where

c: light speed = 299792458 m/s
π: pi = 3.1416
w: frequency of absorbed wavelenght = 2.10^13 Hz
h: Plank's constant = 6.6.10^-34 J.s
B: Einstein B coefficient = 6.03.10^22 (see for the calculation and for the explanation)

A = 2.97.10^5 Hz
=============
As the process of decay is continuous, A can be interpreted as representing the probability that an excited molecule in an energetic state will make a transition from its upper energetic level to a lower energetic level in a given time t after being excited by the absorption of a photon or through an energetic collision. As noted in this post, the Einstein B coefficient is dependent mainly on the f term of the equation B = (e^2/4.m.ε.h.v).f, f being the oscillator strength. It is true that for CO², f is less than 1. Even if you choose f = 0.0000001 (f for CO² is >> 0.0000001), x will be about ~10^-10 m, in the same magnitude's order as the diameter of a CO² molecule. However, as in the calculation of the re-radiation frequency, the B coefficient is in line with the frequency itself, taking a very low B lowers the frequency accordingly. This is why choosing f equal to unity is conservative: lowering f does not change the approximation done in the calculation of x, but lowers the magnitude of the frequency of re-radiation.

1b/ Determination of the frequency of relative displacement
*******************************************************************
This phenomenon is due to different molecules moving at different velocities along the line of sight of an observer. The Doppler frequency shift D is calculated from:

D = w.v/c where

w: frequency of absorbed wavelenght = 2.10^13 Hz
v: effective velocity in m/s
c: light velocity = 299792458 m/s

The effective velocity v of the molecules is deduced from the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution and given by (for the formula, see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/molke.html#c1):

1/2.m.v^2 = 3/2.k.T where

m: mass of 1 CO² molecule = 7.04.10^-26 Kg
v: effective velocity in m/s
k: Boltzmann's constant = 1.38.10^-23 J.T^-1
T: temperature = 289 °K

v = 412 m/s which gives a frequency D = 2.10^13 x 412 / 299792458 or:

D = 2.7.10^7 Hz
============

1c/ Determination of the frequency of a molecular collision
******************************************************************
To get this frequency, we have to first estimate the mean free path l of one CO² molecule (for the formula, see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/menfre.html#c3):

l = k.T/(π.d^2.P.V2) where

k: Boltzmann's constant = 1.38.10^-23 J.T^-1
T: temperature = 289 °K
π: pi = 3.1416
d: diameter of a CO² molecule = 0.33.10^-9 m
P: pressure = 760 mmHg = 101.3 kPa = 101300 Pa
V2: is square root of 2

l = 8.10^-8 m

With v the effective molecular velocity determined in 1b/, the collision frequency C is:

C = v/l = 412/8.10^-8 or:

C = 5.10^9 Hz
===========
(note that this value is very conservative: others (Hug, Barrett) have found a value 1 order of magnitude above 10^10 Hz).

What does that mean? in the next post.

Edit: corrected 2 minor typos and added an emphasis about the influence of the (very conservatively chosen) f oscillator strength on the Einstein A coefficient.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 06-Mar-2009 at 10:43 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".

@TMTisFree

Follow up of the previous post.

1d/ Re-radiation frequency versus collisional frequency
**************************************************************
The determination of the frequency of these processes can be viewed as representing the probability of their occurrence: calculated frequency numbers show that

5.10^9 >> 2.7.10^7 >> 2.97.10^5 so that

C >> D >> A
=========

-- Which means that at ambient temperature, the probability that a CO² molecule loses its energy (ie returns to a lower energy level) by a molecular collision (kinetic energy) is more than 4 orders of magnitude higher (> 10^4) than the probability that a re-radiation by a photon occurs.

-- Thus, the energy of excitation of CO² molecules is converted to kinetic energy (heat that is measured with a thermometer) of the colliding molecules. As collisions continue, the molecular system becomes rapidly into a pseudo local thermal equilibrium, a process called thermalization which corresponds to the fast redistribution of the energy/heat through the whole system (mainly H²O and N² which do not re-radiate and CO²), and then in which the probability of further molecular collision rapidly decreases. This process can be viewed as the natural/normal atmospheric effect (what alarmist called the greenhouse effect) that keeps life on this planet.

-- It can be shown by the calculation of the velocity distribution in such system shows that only a very tiny part of the CO² molecules will keep enough energy to re-emit a photon with an energy corresponding to a 2.10^13 Hz frequency (or a 15 µm wavelenght) to re-excite an other (CO²/H²O) molecule. The tiny part which re-radiates does so 50% upwards and 50% downwards, but as the number of non excited CO² molecules is far more higher (ie molecular system is not saturated), the downwards re-radiation is rapidly trapped again by CO² (or H²O) and thermalized through kinetic energy by molecular collision. Thus re-radiation in this frequency range plays only a very small part in the energy trapping process. I showed in this post that the estimated distance x at which a re-radiation takes place is about 10^-17 m, many orders of magnitude lower that the CO² molecular diameter (33.10^-11 m). This means that no downwards 15 µm re-radiated photon by CO² will ever be able to reach the surface.

-- Consequently, any radiation outside this frequency range will be (except for aerosols which will absorb and re-radiate) transparently returned 50% to the upper atmosphere and 50% downwards. How a radiation can interact with a surface? There are apparently 5 possible mechanisms (from here):

a/ One mechanism is for the activated molecule to collide with another molecule, and to drop back into a lower energy state; the energy thus freed becomes kinetic energy of the molecules and corresponds to warming the gas. This is absorption. The photon is permanently lost or attenuated from the radiation field.
>>This is not the case as surface is warmer than atmosphere: 2nd law of thermodynamic forbids such possibility.

b/A second mechanism for release of the energy increase is the spontaneous transition of the molecule [in the surface] (in about one nanosecond) into its original state by emitting a photon which is identical to the absorbed one except for its direction of propagation. This is scattering, where the photon remains part of the radiation field but the direct beam is attenuated.
>>This means the LW photon is absorbed and instantaneously re-emitted upwards. Clearly possible. The atmosphere is transparent to this LW radiation.

c/A third mechanism is the activated molecule releases its energy spontaneously but in two stages. Two photons with different lower energies result; the sum of the energies of the two photons equals the energy of the absorbed photon. The direct beam is attenuated; the original photon has been replaced by two photons at longer wavelengths and is no longer part of the radiation field. This is Raman-scattering.
>>Identical to b/. The 2 re-emitted photons are LW radiations and again atmosphere is transparent for these photons.

d/Other mechanisms for energy release are fluorescence and phosphorescence. These occur when the energy is not released spontaneously, but after relaxation times of nanoseconds to hours.
>>Not involved.

e/Another basic type of interaction involves the conversion of molecular kinetic energy (thermal energy) into electromagnetic energy (photons). This occurs when molecules are activated by collisions with each other and the activation energy is emitted as photons. This is emission.
>>This is the mechanism of radiation emission by surface after solar irradiation. It is not possible to occur for the downwards LW re-radiated photon as it has first to be absorbed by surface and a/ prevents this absorption.

It seems therefore that the only possible mechanism of interaction of the downwards LW photon with surface is the instantaneous re-emission of an identical LW photon. The atmosphere is transparent for this LW photon meaning that it escapes directly in space (a recent spectroscopic analysis of GH gasses by M. Hammer gives the same conclusion).

-- Quantitatively, the total number of these low frequency photons depends only on the total number of the photons radiated by the surface, and thus only on the solar irradiation. Thus adding more CO² molecules will not change the total number of low frequency re-radiated photon.

Let finally estimate how high is trapped radiations from the surface in the next post.

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

2/ Energy distribution of CO² in the atmosphere
======================================
Spectroscopic and theoretical studies show that the re-radiation of energy stored in CO² (what the IPCC called the radiative forcing, the basis of the GH effect), while not null, is very small at atmospheric temperatures (see also Schack A, 1972; Barrett J, 1995; Hug H, 1998; Miskolczi, 2006): because the energy stored in the excited CO² molecules is converted mostly into kinetic energy (the probability of radiationless molecular collision is many order of magnitude greater than the probability an excited molecule returns to its previous low energy state by radiating its energy by a photon, as see in 1/), one can estimate that almost all of radiated energy is trapped within the first meters of the atmosphere (Thomas G.E. and Stamnes K, 1999; Hug H, 1998) using the of Beer-Lambert's law (http://pds-atmospheres.nmsu.edu/education_and_outreach/encyclopedia/beers.htm) defined as:

Ab = 1 - 10^(-e.d.h) where

Ab: relative absorption
e: extinction coefficient of CO² in the 15 µm band = 20.2 m²/mol (see Daly site)
d: molar density of CO² = 380 ppm of CO²/molecular weight CO² that is 0.736 g.m^-3 / 44.01 g/mol
h: height. If we choose 10 m:

Ab = 1 - 10^(-20.2 x 0.736/44.01 x 10) = 1 - 10^(-3.38) = 0.9996 that is:

Ab = 99.96%

Almost all radiations are absorbed within 10 m of atmosphere above surface.
That is very consistent with the plot embed here which pictured that "plotting CO² power absorption against increasing level of CO² (x1, x2 and x3) shows that the 3 curves (380, 760 and 1140 ppm CO²) cross between 3 and 4 meter high above the surface".

It is also possible to estimate this height in an other manner: see next post.

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

3/ Radiated energy in 1D system
==========================
Consider one square meter (1 m²) of ground surface. At a stable temperature of 15°C (289°K), the maximum power radiated (=emitted) by the surface is given by the Stefan's law:

P = ε.o.(T - T')^4 where

P: power in Watt (W)
ε: emissivity of the surface (depends on the color and the roughness) = 1
(note that for simplicity we are conservative with an emissivity ε of 1 all over the world although emissivities vary from 0.7 in deserts to 0.97 for water/ice. See here)
o: Stephan's constant = 5.67.10^-8 W.T^4
T: ground temperature = 289 °K
T': outer space temperature = 0 °K

The maximum power radiated is P = 1 x 5.67.10^-8 x 289^4 = 396 W,
thus, the maximum energy radiated Er by 1 m² of ground in 1 second at 15°C is:

Er = 396 Joules
============
(note that if we consider an increase of temperature of 10°C (25°C), Er = 453 J).

The maximum radiated energy is independant of the CO² level (depends on the temperature and thus on the solar insolation).


4/ Number of molecules in 2D system
===================================
Now consider a column of a height of 10 km representing the part of our atmosphere from the square meter surface up to the tropopause (the top of the troposphere). For the volume of 1 cubic meter right above the square meter of ground in which the CO² level is 380ppm (the 2007 value of CO² level in atmosphere), one calculates that concentration of 380 ppm of CO² is equivalent to 7.36.10^-4 Kg.m^-3 (using the Ideal Gas Law PV = nRT, see here), and given that the mass of a molecule of CO² is 7.04.10^-26 Kg, there is N0 = 7.36.10^-4 / 7.04.10^-26 CO² molecules in 1 m^3 of atmosphere above ground so:

N0 = 1.10^22
==========

As CO² absolute density decreases with height and temperature (note that relative density is stable = well mixed gas), a process called adiabatic lapse rate and driven by:

Nh = N0.(T0/Th).e^(-(m.g.h/k.Th)) where

Nh: molecular density at height h
N0: molecular density at height 0
Th: temperature at height h
T0: temperature at height 0
m: mass of 1 molecule = 7.04.10^-26 Kg
g: gravitational acceleration constant = 9.8 m.s^-2
h: height in meter
k: Boltzmann's constant = 1.38.10^-23 J.T^-1

gives that the total number of CO² molecules (Nh = Nt) in the column is about :

Nt = 5.10^25
==========
(note that for simplicity we are conservative: the 10 km column represents about 70% of the total troposphere which extends to 15-20 km above the equator until the tropopause, and we don't count other high level gases).


5/ Storable (or potentially absorbed) energy by CO²
=========================================
CO² has 3 main absorption bands in the infrared (IR) region (waves radiated from ground surface are IR waves). Let just consider the larger one at 15 µm (see the HITRAN database). This band corresponds to a long wavelength of frequency w = 2.10^13 Hertz. Let now calculate the energy Ea potentially absorbed (= storable) by a molecule of CO² for this wavelength. This is given by:

Ea = h.w where

h: Plank's constant = 6.6.10^-34 J.s
w: frequency of absorbed wavelenght = 2.10^13 Hz

Ea = 6.6.10^-34 x 2.10^13 and

Ea = 1.32.10^-20 Joules
===================

The maximum energy Em1 storable in 1 m^3 being Em1 = Ea x N1 = 1.32.10^-20 x 1.10^22 CO² molecules or:

Em1 = 132 J
==========

The maximum energy Emt storable in our column (with Nt molecules) being Emt = Ea x Nt = 1.32.10^-20 x 5.10^25 CO² molecules or:

Emt = 6.6.10^5 J
=============


6/ Radiated (or emitted) energy versus storable energy
============================================
In 1 second, maximum energy Er emitted by 1 m^2 of ground at 15°C is Er = 396 J (453 J at 25°C)

In 1 second, maximum energy Ea storable by 1 m^3 column of atmos. is Em1 = 132 J
In 1 second, maximum energy Ea storable by 2 m^3 column of atmos. is Em2 = ~264 J
In 1 second, maximum energy Ea storable by 3 m^3 column of atmos. is Em3 = ~396 J
In 1 second, maximum energy Ea storable by 10 m^3 column of atmos. is Em3 = ~3960 J
In 1 second, maximum energy Ea storable by 10 km column of atmos. is Emt = 660000 J

-- From this, it is easy to understand that not all CO² molecules of the column are used to capture radiated energy, but simply to increase the probability that radiated energy will be absorbed (closer to the surface). Put differently, and repeating it, if you use a blind over a window on a sunny day, adding more blinds will not make the room any darker.
If we consider the total number of molecules (not just CO²) in our 10 km column (about 1.10^29 molecules), they will be able to store a maximum energy Em of 1.38.10^7 J that is an equivalent of the energy radiated by the 1 m² of ground during 10 hours with an increase of temperature of 10°C (15°C to 25°C).

-- Interestingly, the energy storable in the first 3 m is equivalent to the energy radiated by surface; this height is also the same as found in the plot embed in this post where all curves intersect.

-- So the number of CO² molecules that can store energy depends only on the energy being emitted by the surface which itself only depends on the solar insulation.
This also means that most of the energy radiated by the surface is absorbed at very low height, typically a few meters (as seen in 2/). This works like a radiator: you can sense the energy radiated very close to it; as far you move away sensation disappears.

-- As the number of CO² molecules increases, the probability that CO² is excited tends also to increase at the same height. But as almost the totality of the radiation from the surface is absorbed within the first meters above the surface, it will not modify the total number of excited CO² molecules and have thus no effect on the total number of low frequency re-radiations towards the surface (GH effect). Because atmosphere is transparent to them, the height at which this process occurs will have no effect on the total number of re-radiation returned to the surface and then back-radiated towards space.

What can it be concluded?
I> Increasing the number of CO² molecules lessens the height at which surface radiation is absorbed by CO². This height is right above the surface (typically a few meters).
II> Atmospheric heat is conveyed by convection process as soon as molecular system (H²0, O², N², CO², etc) thermalizes and is hydrostatically unstable.
III> The marginal fraction of low wavelength re-radiated by CO² towards surface and to which atmosphere is transparent are instantaneously re-emitted towards space.
IV> Energy of the system is driven by solar irradiation.
V> There is no existence of additional greenhouse effect as claimed by alarmists.

Feel free to discuss. Smart trolls or nitpickers will be shamelessly ignored and let in their mediocrity.

Edit: added a sentence.
Edit: minor typo

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 06-Mar-2009 at 12:24 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 06-Mar-2009 at 10:56 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".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Energy of the system is driven by solar irradiation.

Let me check if my understanding of this point is right. Your claim is the earth is not an isolated system but instead is receiving an infusion of energy (read entropy) from the sun itself?

@BrianK


I clearly see what is your motive. There is no need to try to introduce the concept of entropy when heat and energy are sufficient and can be measured.
Second, define what is an isolated system, and to which extend you can still safely evaluate a system as isolated.
Third, have you some objection opposite to the fact that Earth receives energy from the sun or is your question purely rhetorical?

Edit: corrected 3 typos

Bye,
TMTisfree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 07-Mar-2009 at 07:26 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".