|
Post by slh1234 on Jun 9, 2009 6:18:19 GMT
Does anyone have any data on the concentration of CO2 by altitude? I don't have a link, but I believe that it is reasonably well spread throughout the atmosphere. For example, the data from Mauna Loa a few kilometres up lines up with other low-altitude stations. Second time I've seen you refer to Mauna Loa, so I need to ask this again: Where are the monitoring stations on Mauna Loa, and how do they compare with the rest of the earth? I don't think this is a trivial matter if monitoring for CO2 is conducted here. I ask this because of a trip to Hawaii just a couple of weeks ago. We hopped across to the Big Island to visit Kilauea. I had this whole thing about monitoring for CO2 on Mauna Loa in mind, and I drove up Mauna Loa. Of course, I didn't see anything I would recognize as a monitoring station. The jungle is very thick on both sides of this one lane road that goes up Mauna Loa for most of the way up as high as you can drive. The road ends somewhere around nine thousand feet of elevation, but Mauna Loa is over thirteen thousand feet at the summit. But as high as we went, I could STILL smell sulfur dioxide from Kilauea. Of course, that's the direction of the wind that day, and Sulfur Dioxide levels had certain roads inside Hawaii Volcanoes National Park closed that day. It seems to me that if sulfur dioxide is in concentrations that it can still be smelled, then Kilauea could also have a significant effect on CO2 levels here - especially if the wind is blowing in the right direction. So where are they? and what effect does Kilauea, and at times Mauna Loa itself have on monitored CO2 levels here? I think that HAS to be known for any creditibility at all to be lent to CO2 monitoring on Mauna Loa. It's not a matter that can be glossed over.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jun 9, 2009 6:49:13 GMT
So let me put a little perspective on Hawaii, and why I am skeptical of CO2 readings from Mauna Loa. First, of all, most of the pictures I will link to will come from pushpin 1 in this link. The summit of Mauna Loa is at pushpin 2. The road we drove up is very narrow, and I can't find it in aerial shots of Mauna Loa, but it falls between Kilauea (pushpin1) and the summit of Mauna Loa: www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTSN&cp=19.42742~-155.466843&style=h&lvl=11&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&sp=Point.m71pj521snsp_Lookouts%20to%20Kilauea%20Caldera____~Point.m7c4mq2110sg_Mauna%20Loa._Or%20course%2C%20we%20didn't%20hike%20above%20the%20road.%20We%20got%20into%20Lava%20Flows%2C%20Weather%20prevented%20us%20from%20hiking%20higher.___&encType=1 Standing around the caldera of Kilauea, you can see activity like this: lkqcmw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p-0gZXYPNW9Sel7TXYcqKBQ_7gdNj_nFqkxrb92ii5SLcyhr9OnIRTPHgfvsz5xXSuXmC4MUu9LA_WECXPbjDtQ/DSC01411.jpgTo get a perspective on the size of the crater emitting the gas there, look for the man walking in the crater here. I assume the person is a researcher since this area was closed to the public: lkqcmw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pSzwMEmUEepBeeJA1G2Vkx9PyXSf4NxHTEqeXZI01bc91IjRFybElPGfp89a1_ixrj4lEKuSxVC1-5aIWqWOFcg/DSC01420.jpgFrom another perspective, look at the state of the air (careful here, not all of this is smoke - some is steam. Sometimes, it's hard to tell the difference. I'm sure it all combines to just form volcanic smog. But whatever it is, you can smell it very strong through here): lkqcmw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1praX27xTM085P9bVLVG3HFKsA5SmbgDnX5KSML_sG9ifRzWgnbwRRZZgK5okL34U2YjE1LwokJXe-hm9zPLDhbQ/DSC01395.jpglkqcmw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p-8ABZCscb_l50zWQzqYu1WAjGDZw0Fvy4ycgVCjBaKw-97Rcsmc_oK7vBIEKR1Cr5KK2z0KiwQu2BgRuryLd-g/DSC01388.jpgAnd looking at the original map, on a road where I could still smell the sulfur dioxide, somewhere possibly less than 6 miles away from this point are stations where carbon dioxide levels are monitored. And let's not forget that Mauna Loa is still active, and still has major eruptions every twenty years or so, so CO2 could very well be emitted by it as well. So I would think that it would be interesting to monitor CO2 on Mauna Loa, but personally, I think it is ridiculous to think its proximity to active volcanoes has negligible effects on the levels monitored there. I'm certain the Sulfur Dioxide is affected by its proximity to active volcanoes. So I think the CO2 levels monitored there are useful, but I'm going to have a hard time believeing that they are meaningful for any area outside of the Big Island of Hawaii. (And completely aside, here is where the current lava flow from Kilauea hits the ocean: lkqcmw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pw6bmVzEK_7rxcJW_EjfkEoJZua3nAuDY6rLBuSG2BUZnlZjzGmmEnxkDdslQfOOhd-jYLCqijrqXTgNulAjgvw/DSC01494.jpg
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 9, 2009 11:15:48 GMT
Second time I've seen you refer to Mauna Loa, so I need to ask this again: Where are the monitoring stations on Mauna Loa, and how do they compare with the rest of the earth? I don't think this is a trivial matter if monitoring for CO2 is conducted here.
Readings at Barrow, Alaska and the South Pole are both similar to Mauna Loa (i.e. within a few ppm)
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 9, 2009 12:59:16 GMT
If you don't trust Mauna Loa look elsewhere. In this instance, I mentioned Mauna Loa because of its high altitude. There is other evidence of high altitude CO2. The plots in this paper show CO2 levels at between 8km and 13km of 356ppm in 1993 and 368 in 1999. Aircraft observation of carbon dioxide at 8–13 km altitude over the western Pacific from 1993 to 1999 HIDEKAZU MATSUEDA*, HISAYUKI YOSHIKAWA INOUE and MASAO ISHII , Tellus B Volume 54 Issue 1, Pages 1 - 21 Published Online: 20 Mar 2002 www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118916481/abstractThis paper's abstract says that the difference between lower stratosphere and upper troposphere is 1-2 ppm. Temporal and spatial variations of upper tropospheric and lower stratospheric carbon dioxide TAKAKIYO NAKAZAWA*KOHJI MIYASHITA**SHUHJI AOKI*** and MASAYUKI TANAKA*, Tellus B Volume 43 Issue 2, Pages 106 - 117 Published Online: 5 Nov 2002 www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119353747/abstract
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 9, 2009 13:39:04 GMT
Ask Roy Spencer, John Christy, Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen what they think of the above argument. Lindzen: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/richard-lindzen-3.pptWhat we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.
In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own – quite removed from science. One can reasonably expect that opportunism of the weak will lead to efforts to alter the data (though the results presented here have survived several alterations of the data already). Perhaps most important, these results will of necessity ‘offend the sensibilities of the of the educated classes and the entire East and West Coasts,’ and who would want to do that.
Magellan, Lindzen's presentation doesn't address my point. Perhaps it is because he agrees with Spencer, Christy, Michaels and others who accept that CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas whose basic forcing *can* be calculated. Lindzen's arguments have always been about sensitivity of the climate. He's at the optimistic end - but that doesn't mean he's right. How do you know he's at the optimistic end? Spencer published his paper in 2007 on the observed response to warming in the tropics, and it was strongly negative translating to a low climate sensitivity. The last paper you linked to referring to back IR was from 1996 and based on the tropics, yet the whole issue is why the tropics aren't warming as climate models dictate, despite efforts to alter the data and publishing of trash by Santer 08. There's a reason why your side fails in debates; observational data doesn't support the CO2 AGW hypothesis. Your "evidence" is untested climate models, clearly revealed by Lindzen and others as being wrong. The calculations you keep referring to is not what happens in the real world because the atmosphere is not like following a recipe whereby adding and subtracting components will result in a known temperature. There's always that pesky problem with feedbacks and unknowns..... Where is the missing heat?
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jun 9, 2009 14:03:19 GMT
Second time I've seen you refer to Mauna Loa, so I need to ask this again: Where are the monitoring stations on Mauna Loa, and how do they compare with the rest of the earth? I don't think this is a trivial matter if monitoring for CO2 is conducted here.Readings at Barrow, Alaska and the South Pole are both similar to Mauna Loa (i.e. within a few ppm) I would be interested to see that. Do you have links to the raw data. I would also be interested if any monitoring is done like 100 miles off of Hawaii - that would also prove interesting in seeing what effect the volcanic eruptions have on data collected on Mauna Loa.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jun 9, 2009 14:07:49 GMT
If you don't trust Mauna Loa look elsewhere. In this instance, I mentioned Mauna Loa because of its high altitude. There is other evidence of high altitude CO2. The plots in this paper show CO2 levels at between 8km and 13km of 356ppm in 1993 and 368 in 1999. Aircraft observation of carbon dioxide at 8–13 km altitude over the western Pacific from 1993 to 1999 HIDEKAZU MATSUEDA*, HISAYUKI YOSHIKAWA INOUE and MASAO ISHII , Tellus B Volume 54 Issue 1, Pages 1 - 21 Published Online: 20 Mar 2002 www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118916481/abstractThis paper's abstract says that the difference between lower stratosphere and upper troposphere is 1-2 ppm. Temporal and spatial variations of upper tropospheric and lower stratospheric carbon dioxide TAKAKIYO NAKAZAWA*KOHJI MIYASHITA**SHUHJI AOKI*** and MASAYUKI TANAKA*, Tellus B Volume 43 Issue 2, Pages 106 - 117 Published Online: 5 Nov 2002 www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119353747/abstractAltitude would be a reason for choosing Mauna Loa (if it can be trusted) over someplace like Barrows (which sits near sea level). But at its highest it is still just over 4 KM in altitude. The aircraft observations at higher altitude would offer a much stronger suggestion. I'll look at that. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 9, 2009 14:59:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 10, 2009 2:07:59 GMT
The CO2 measurement doesn't really change the fact that the limiting factor is the temperature of the gas...since CO2 emits its own spectrum at atmospheric temperatures even without radiation from the ground pumping it. The so-called "back-radiation" is largely offset by the natural loss of its own heat energy.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 10, 2009 11:29:50 GMT
The CO2 measurement doesn't really change the fact that the limiting factor is the temperature of the gas...since CO2 emits its own spectrum at atmospheric temperatures even without radiation from the ground pumping it. The so-called "back-radiation" is largely offset by the natural loss of its own heat energy. 1) The temperature is, of course, in part maintained by radiation from the ground. Replace the ground with a low emissivity highly insulated surface and the atmosphere would cool more quickly. 2) The infrared sensor used to measure back radiation is looking upwards into a "fog" of IR emitting/absorbing gases. As you increase the concentration of these gases the "fog" gets slightly thicker. This means that you are seeing less far into the fog (at certain spectral lines) which means that you are looking at lower levels in the atmosphere. Since lower levels in the atmosphere are warmer than higher ones (up to the tropopause) then increasing the level of the IR emitting/absorbing gases will very slightly raise the level of back radiation (because radiation is proportional to T^4).
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 10, 2009 12:28:22 GMT
The CO2 measurement doesn't really change the fact that the limiting factor is the temperature of the gas...since CO2 emits its own spectrum at atmospheric temperatures even without radiation from the ground pumping it. The so-called "back-radiation" is largely offset by the natural loss of its own heat energy. 1) The temperature is, of course, in part maintained by radiation from the ground. Replace the ground with a low emissivity highly insulated surface and the atmosphere would cool more quickly. 2) The infrared sensor used to measure back radiation is looking upwards into a "fog" of IR emitting/absorbing gases. As you increase the concentration of these gases the "fog" gets slightly thicker. This means that you are seeing less far into the fog (at certain spectral lines) which means that you are looking at lower levels in the atmosphere. Since lower levels in the atmosphere are warmer than higher ones (up to the tropopause) then increasing the level of the IR emitting/absorbing gases will very slightly raise the level of back radiation (because radiation is proportional to T^4). But you keep missing the fact that unlike a light source shining through the fog...this "fog" will...at the same temperature as the light...emit just as much radiation from its thermal energy as it absorbs from the original source you're talking about. It's only when the fog is colder that it's emissions drop below those of the source (the ground). If you just count the increased absorption you're not getting the real answer because the emissions offset any such increase. The limiting factor is temperature of the gas doing the absorption (for a start)
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 10, 2009 16:49:55 GMT
1) The temperature is, of course, in part maintained by radiation from the ground. Replace the ground with a low emissivity highly insulated surface and the atmosphere would cool more quickly. 2) The infrared sensor used to measure back radiation is looking upwards into a "fog" of IR emitting/absorbing gases. As you increase the concentration of these gases the "fog" gets slightly thicker. This means that you are seeing less far into the fog (at certain spectral lines) which means that you are looking at lower levels in the atmosphere. Since lower levels in the atmosphere are warmer than higher ones (up to the tropopause) then increasing the level of the IR emitting/absorbing gases will very slightly raise the level of back radiation (because radiation is proportional to T^4). But you keep missing the fact that unlike a light source shining through the fog...this "fog" will...at the same temperature as the light...emit just as much radiation from its thermal energy as it absorbs from the original source you're talking about. It's only when the fog is colder that it's emissions drop below those of the source (the ground). Most of the air is colder than the ground, and layers of air are normally colder than the layers of air below. So if a given layer (within which no condensation or evaporation takes place) receives, say 130 units of energy from below, 70 units from above, it will reemit 200 units - half of them up and half of them downwards. [/quote]If you just count the increased absorption you're not getting the real answer because the emissions offset any such increase. The limiting factor is temperature of the gas doing the absorption (for a start)[/quote] The emissivity of the gases will go up as well. As the gas is not all at the same temperature, the change in absorption is fixed depending on the greenhouse gas concentration, but the rate of emission is additionally dependent on the temperature. In other words, as you look up using your infrared eyes, you'll see less far (because of the greenhouse gas "fog") and I think you'll see layers that are emitting more because they hold more greenhouse gases.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 10, 2009 18:39:31 GMT
So if a given layer (within which no condensation or evaporation takes place) receives, say 130 units of energy from below, 70 units from above, it will reemit 200 units - half of them up and half of them downwards. That is illogical. If a molecule gains energy from IR some of that energy will be manifested as heat which will find other escape route. According to your model the atmosphere never heats up. What happens is heat is spread via conduction and convection in addition to whatever scavenging takes place on radiation by the rest of the atmosphere. All that heat energy is then reemitted as broad spectrum IR in all directions just like it has been doing for 4 billion years. You think that there is not much transfer by conduction? When is the last time you poured some water on a hot frying pan?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 10, 2009 19:05:00 GMT
But you keep missing the fact that unlike a light source shining through the fog...this "fog" will...at the same temperature as the light...emit just as much radiation from its thermal energy as it absorbs from the original source you're talking about. It's only when the fog is colder that it's emissions drop below those of the source (the ground). Most of the air is colder than the ground, and layers of air are normally colder than the layers of air below. So if a given layer (within which no condensation or evaporation takes place) receives, say 130 units of energy from below, 70 units from above, it will reemit 200 units - half of them up and half of them downwards. If you just count the increased absorption you're not getting the real answer because the emissions offset any such increase. The limiting factor is temperature of the gas doing the absorption (for a start)[/quote] The emissivity of the gases will go up as well. As the gas is not all at the same temperature, the change in absorption is fixed depending on the greenhouse gas concentration, but the rate of emission is additionally dependent on the temperature. In other words, as you look up using your infrared eyes, you'll see less far (because of the greenhouse gas "fog") and I think you'll see layers that are emitting more because they hold more greenhouse gases.[/quote] But you see ONE of my points. That CO2 forcing is actually overstated and even if the atmosphere was PURE carbon dioxide...the maximum absorption would be at the temperature of the coldest part of the atmosphere. The starting numbers are too high and by a significant amount. If you get that...we can move on to another missed aspect.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 10, 2009 19:23:38 GMT
I would have thought the highest area of absorption for co2 would be the warmer parts near the surface because there you have a higher amount of co2 per volume of atmosphere.
|
|