Anthropogenic global warming

[Jonathandavid]

CO2 experiment

Great first post, JD!

Thank you! That vid should be part of the references. I was only looking at what I had open on my desk.

[Truthseeker]

Welcome Jonathondavid!

I wonder if Lao Tzu and Jonathondavid know what the IR spectrum for CO2 looks like. http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spec...gesmicrons.htm
Note that some people consider the start of the spectrum to be 0.7 micron; that is not shown in the webpage linked above.

[Juvenal]

Please note that I am not implying in the above that I think scientists are idiots. But I do think there is a gigantic scam going on. Else why is Al Gore operating as he is now and has been for years? If you believe him, a non-scientists who have been called out for numerous errors, have I got a sweet deal for you on a bridge in New York City!

Let me paraphrase your logic:
Al Gore accepts something scientists have concluded.
You don't like Al Gore.
Therefore the scientists must be wrong.

Things don't work like that. Al Gore had nothing to do with the IPCC, National Academies of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or any of the other scientific organizations that accepts the extensive evidence for the greenhouse effect. The scientific conclusions stand on their own, whether or not Al Gore agrees with them.

Dear TS,

What TheLurch said, and ...

By his own account, during his undergraduate studies, under Roger Revelle at Harvard Al Gore was exposed to the Keeling curve, a careful record of CO2 concentrations recorded at the Mauna Loa observatory beginning in 1958. The curve was then, and remains today, compelling, and, in combination with established science on the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, predicts global warming. It made a large impression on Gore, one that informed much of his politics when he followed his father into the Senate representing Tennessee.

Al Gore is not a scientist, and by his own admission, not especially good at math. But the Keeling curve is still compelling, and the physics of CO2 remain unchanged independent of whether any one student got an A or an F, no matter how vocal or visible they are in their activism. The scientists working with the IPCC publish their own reports, and to the extent Al Gore's presentations disagree, we should prefer the IPCC's results.

You are, unfortunately, quite correct in your belief there is a tremendous scam going on, but, also unfortunately, incorrect in your targeting. We can track back the beginning of GW denialism to the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank founded in 1984, and organized around Cold War issues, later becoming prominent in defense of tobacco denialism, funded principally by R. J. Reynolds. In for a penny, when the tobacco money dried up, they shifted their science, but not their methods, to supporting global warming denialism. The same researchers responsible for delaying legislation to address the risks of cancer from cigarette smoke are now engaged in delaying legislation to address the risks of climate change.

As ever, Jesse

[Juvenal]

Welcome Jonathondavid!

I wonder if Lao Tzu and Jonathondavid know what the IR spectrum for CO2 looks like. http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spec...gesmicrons.htm
Note that some people consider the start of the spectrum to be 0.7 micron; that is not shown in the webpage linked above.

Dear TS,

The BBC video posted above doesn't depend on detailed knowledge of the IR spectrum for CO2. It is visible proof of an otherwise uncontested fact: CO2 blocks IR.

As ever, Jesse

[Jonathandavid]

Welcome Jonathondavid!

I wonder if Lao Tzu and Jonathondavid know what the IR spectrum for CO2 looks like. http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spec...gesmicrons.htm
Note that some people consider the start of the spectrum to be 0.7 micron; that is not shown in the webpage linked above.

That looks like a lot of absorption to me...

[HMS_Beagle]

Welcome Jonathondavid!

I wonder if Lao Tzu and Jonathondavid know what the IR spectrum for CO2 looks like. http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spec...gesmicrons.htm
Note that some people consider the start of the spectrum to be 0.7 micron; that is not shown in the webpage linked above.

TS, your charts show CO2 to have the strongest absorption spectrum at wavelength peaks of around 4.2 and 15 microns.

Here is another chart showing the absorption spectra of CO2

CO2_Spectrum.jpg

Infrared radiation wavelength ranges from 0.7 to 1000 microns.

Infrared radiation is absorbed by the CO2 exactly as we have been explaining to you.

[Jonathandavid]

No more responses. I guess that if you keep seeking truth, one day you're going to find it.

[Truthseeker]

The infrared part of the following diagram (solar spectrum irradiance) shows the molecules that play major parts in absorbance of IR

---from the Wikipedia article here
Note for CO2 the low position and relatively modest contributions to the overall absorbance.

[Truthseeker]

No more responses. I guess that if you keep seeking truth, one day you're going to find it.

If you mean you are leaving, well, sorry to see you go. If you mean I quit this thread, I don't always check my subscriptions daily.

[HMS_Beagle]

The infrared part of the following diagram (solar spectrum irradiance) shows the molecules that play major parts in absorbance of IR

Note for CO2 the low position and relatively modest contributions to the overall absorbance.

That's for incoming sunlight striking the Earth. Exactly as we told you, the majority of that energy makes it through to heat the ground. It's the infrared being re-radiated back from the ground toward space that greenhouse gases trap the most.

Is there some sort of point you are trying to make?

[Jonathandavid]

Note for CO2 the low position and relatively modest contributions to the overall absorbance.

And that is why there is snow in the middle of Africa!

The atmosphere doesn't get a lot of its heat directly from sunlight. Rather, it is the earth's surface that warms the air around us. So the actual spectrum you're looking for is the radiation given off by the earth. This is difficult to put in a chart, since it varies wildly from place to place. But in high places, like Mt. Kilimanjaro, the earth cannot do a lot to warm the atmosphere, so those places are cold.

A place that has a lot of snow will reflect a lot of sunlight directly; so the visible spectrum bounces right back into space, not warming the atmosphere much. This is one reason the ice caps are important to our climate; they reflect sunlight back into space in a spectrum similar to the one you showed.

Keep looking, Truthseeker, you're practically there!

[shunyadragon]

The following book is a freshman geology text, and reasonable primer on the climate history and the related natural cycles; New Views on an Old Planet: A history of global change by Tjeerd H. Van Andel. It also addresses human effects on climate change to a lesser extent. The conclusion is we are in a natural warming trend, and acknowledges that humans are likely accelerating this trend.

[Truthseeker]

As I understand, temperatures rise or fall depending on the balance between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation from the earth to outer space & the sun. Before sunrise, the temperature usually continues to fall toward the day's low. At which point, the balance is zero (incoming = outgoing). I'm ignoring the lag of the temperature toward the balance. After that, the balance is to the incoming radiation (incoming > outgoing). The temperature continues to rise until sometime in the afternoon, when again incoming = outgoing. Thereafter, the temperature declines toward tomorrow's low because incoming < outgoing.

Am I right it's usually a question of radiation balance? Of course the reality is really complicated. There may be a cold front sweeping down. Or it's rather cloudy. Rainy, etc.


I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that the CO2 component of the atmosphere has a minor role in determining the radiation balance, on the basis of those graphics that I've posted. And it's likely to remain minor for years.

[Truthseeker]

As I understand, temperatures rise or fall depending on the balance between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation from the earth to outer space & the sun. Before sunrise, the temperature usually continues to fall toward the day's low. At which point, the balance is zero (incoming = outgoing). I'm ignoring the lag of the temperature toward the balance. After that, the balance is to the incoming radiation (incoming > outgoing). The temperature continues to rise until sometime in the afternoon, when again incoming = outgoing. Thereafter, the temperature declines toward tomorrow's low because incoming < outgoing.

Am I right it's usually a question of radiation balance? Of course the reality is really complicated. There may be a cold front sweeping down. Or it's rather cloudy. Rainy, etc.

I should have said at the outset that the radiation both incoming and outgoing is measured at a fixed point on the surface. Of course you probably already figured out that's what I had in mind, but anyway.

[Juvenal]

As I understand, temperatures rise or fall depending on the balance between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation from the earth to outer space & the sun. Before sunrise, the temperature usually continues to fall toward the day's low. At which point, the balance is zero (incoming = outgoing). I'm ignoring the lag of the temperature toward the balance. After that, the balance is to the incoming radiation (incoming > outgoing). The temperature continues to rise until sometime in the afternoon, when again incoming = outgoing. Thereafter, the temperature declines toward tomorrow's low because incoming < outgoing.

Am I right it's usually a question of radiation balance? Of course the reality is really complicated. There may be a cold front sweeping down. Or it's rather cloudy. Rainy, etc.

I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that the CO2 component of the atmosphere has a minor role in determining the radiation balance, on the basis of those graphics that I've posted. And it's likely to remain minor for years.

I should have said at the outset that the radiation both incoming and outgoing is measured at a fixed point on the surface. Of course you probably already figured out that's what I had in mind, but anyway.

That's not right, TS.

Your ideas about the role of CO2 in determining radiation balance are less than coherent. In particular, the sums of incoming and outgoing radiation, as energy, always balance. Outgoing radiation can't be measured from the surface, because CO2 creates a filter, preventing IR radiation from passing, skewing the wavelengths of outgoing radiation away from those of incoming radiation, allowing bandwidths outside the infrared to pass in higher proportion making up for the deficit as IR is trapped in the atmosphere.

As ever, Jesse