|
Post by steve on Nov 30, 2009 13:25:33 GMT
On rethinking this, the second part of the answer is probably more relevant. The amount of radiation from the atmosphere as opposed to from the sun is going to be dominated by water vapour near the surface. I did once find a spectrum taken by a building designer looking at engineering aspects, and the comment was that it was difficult to distinguish the water vapour and CO2 emission features. I didn't say that GHGs are more efficient at lower concentrations, it is that the relative importance of CO2 vs water vapour is higher. At 4-6km or above a) a reasonable proportion of the relevant radiation starts getting to space, and b) CO2 and other greenhouse gases start to be more important than water vapour (because of the lower level of water vapour). That was why I said a DRY area - perhaps I should have been more explicit and said an ARID area and one could wait for an anticyclone so that the air is even drier. That way there should be little water vapor to hide the extremely small ( ) amount of downwelling IR from the plume of CO 2. Surely a plume of CO 2 from the surface to say ~18,000ft raising the atmospheric concentration well above the double current levels if it is that effective should create IR downwelling that should be easily detected and quantified? How high are these CO2 "domes"? Have a look at the MODTRAN data to work out whether it would be easy to detect and quantify the extra CO2: geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.htmlThe answer is yes...if you have two identical cities with identical weather, but where one of the cities produces no CO2 and the other emits lots of CO2.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 1, 2009 3:18:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 1, 2009 3:21:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Dec 1, 2009 4:30:52 GMT
Do you really believe the constitution of the atmosphere at 5km cannot affect temperatures at the surface of the earth! Steve, of course it can, 5 km is a small thunderstorm. Of course you can look at the info from areas with increased co2 levels. It might actually tell us something. As always a well designed experiment will always tell you something.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Dec 1, 2009 10:18:59 GMT
Do you really believe the constitution of the atmosphere at 5km cannot affect temperatures at the surface of the earth! Steve, of course it can, 5 km is a small thunderstorm. Of course you can look at the info from areas with increased co2 levels. It might actually tell us something. As always a well designed experiment will always tell you something. Well you appeared to be questioning whether changes 20000 feet up would affect the surface. So no doubt you are fully aware of the vast amount of experimental evidence gathered so far that confirms the effect of atmospheric CO2 on radiation.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 1, 2009 12:18:40 GMT
spaceman, Note the original context was CO2 enhanced over a local area. Any small amount of enhanced heating will be small compared to, say, differences in albedo and also to energy use within the urban area. by a building designer looking at engineering aspects, and the comment was that it was difficult to distinguish the water vapour and CO2 emission features. Water vapour is around 10,000 to 11,000 ppm and co2 is at most (for round numbers ) 400ppm? What is water vapour at 5km altitude? Do you really believe the constitution of the atmosphere at 5km cannot affect temperatures at the surface of the earth! Steve you are waffling again... Take a city in an arid area measure when it is under a large stable dry anticyclone - not common in the UK but quite common in the US. In a large anticyclone (read this SoCold) there tends not to be windshear and the air is dropping and drying further and the winds are light. Now you measure _at_night_ when the air is even more stable and there is no solar radiation. Now upwind of the city CO 2 source and downwind under the plume of CO 2 there should be a noticeable difference. To be really careful balloon sondes could be launched from each measuring place to obtain a temperature, humidity and gas composition profile. This seems to be a simple and cheap experiment to measure the effect of CO 2 on 'downwelling' IR.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 1, 2009 12:21:35 GMT
Do you really believe the constitution of the atmosphere at 5km cannot affect temperatures at the surface of the earth! Steve, of course it can, 5 km is a small thunderstorm. Of course you can look at the info from areas with increased co2 levels. It might actually tell us something. As always a well designed experiment will always tell you something. Well you appeared to be questioning whether changes 20000 feet up would affect the surface. So no doubt you are fully aware of the vast amount of experimental evidence gathered so far that confirms the effect of atmospheric CO2 on radiation. I am aware of a lot of very poorly designed experiments that got through friendly and supportive peer review. Perhaps you would care to cite the experiments in the real world that you found convincing and we can look at their design.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Dec 1, 2009 15:06:52 GMT
spaceman, Note the original context was CO2 enhanced over a local area. Any small amount of enhanced heating will be small compared to, say, differences in albedo and also to energy use within the urban area. What is water vapour at 5km altitude? Do you really believe the constitution of the atmosphere at 5km cannot affect temperatures at the surface of the earth! Steve you are waffling again... Take a city in an arid area measure when it is under a large stable dry anticyclone - not common in the UK but quite common in the US. In a large anticyclone (read this SoCold) there tends not to be windshear and the air is dropping and drying further and the winds are light. Now you measure _at_night_ when the air is even more stable and there is no solar radiation. Now upwind of the city CO 2 source and downwind under the plume of CO 2 there should be a noticeable difference. To be really careful balloon sondes could be launched from each measuring place to obtain a temperature, humidity and gas composition profile. This seems to be a simple and cheap experiment to measure the effect of CO 2 on 'downwelling' IR. There "should be" a noticeable difference, should there? I get the impression that you haven't studied the uncertainties involved in radiosondes. And you've presumably not looked at the MODTRAN link I made to see what the *expected* changes there would be in such an experiment. Possibly it is worth looking at the methodology that was used for the OCO experiment, as it was supposed to be able to measure near surface CO2 (OCO is the experiment that was sabotaged before it could uncover the myth that CO2 was rising )
|
|
N9AAT
Level 3 Rank
DON'T PANIC
Posts: 153
|
Post by N9AAT on Dec 1, 2009 17:53:16 GMT
I hate to say this, but I'm getting to the point where I don't even LIKE experiments anymore (and I'm a BIG supporter of the Scientific Method). It all seems so perverted nowadays! I keep asking WHO is funding this, DO they have an agenda, WHAT is it really telling us, and am I getting this from an empirical scientist or some editorial rewriter?
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Dec 2, 2009 5:20:24 GMT
"So no doubt you are fully aware of the vast amount of experimental evidence gathered so far that confirms the effect of atmospheric CO2 on radiation. "
Actually, no, I haven't seen anything that is believable concerning this. And I do know a great deal about thunderstorms. As the warm air rises, cooler air is forced down. The warm air aloft is cooled as it expands and the heat is radiated into space.. That is basic science, hasn't changed, it isn't going to change, unless whoever created this mess changes the laws of physics. Co2 has nothing to do with it. The heat from co2 at 5 km does not radiate downward. Your statement is with out merit, unsupported, and with out basis.
N9 LLX. I agree, even simple basic experiments are getting twisted out of shape to prove a certain agenda. Such as the one we are discussing. I wasn't looking to rehash data that was/is compromised.
The only agends I have is for coming up with the best solutions for the hardest problems. The very big problem here is that we have wasted a lot of time on this particular issue. It is a very big problem if the growing line starts moving south. It is a very big problem if we are on the verge of it getting colder. That is why this debate is so bitter. You are saying that the amount of co2 will cause run a way heat. I say we don't have enough to migitate the next down turn in temps, providing co2 does have an effect. And I also think we have improved plant heath(accidentally) by adding co2 to the atmosphere. Hence, we are back to where we started... 1. AGW states that co2 is evenly mixed in the atmosphere. 2. Why hasn't a study been done where there are much higher concentrations of co2. (which contradicts statement 1) 3. I am very interested in how you can tell man made co2 from natural co2.
The list goes on and on. It turns out that most of these are just statements, without any verification or validity. You haven't proved even a causal connection between increased levels of co2 and global warming. You've created a world of illusion with smoke and mirrors. You can't have a decent conversation about climate if you don't know how weather systems work. Providing links ?? , I can recite chapter and verse out of Chemtech too.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Dec 2, 2009 10:56:55 GMT
How does the "heat" at 5km avoid being "radiate[d] downwards".
1. AGW states that co2 is evenly mixed in the atmosphere.
It's a good enough approximation.
2. Why hasn't a study been done where there are much higher concentrations of co2. (which contradicts statement 1)
It has been done, and shows that 1 is a good enough approximation.
3. I am very interested in how you can tell man made co2 from natural co2.
As it happens, fossil fuel carbon has a different isotope mix (less C14). I can't remember the details, but CO2 from fossil fuel burning is different too because it combines with oxygen in the air which has a different proportion of oxygen isotopes than oxygen from plant and animal life. So you can tell the difference.
A question to you would be that since we know that the amount of CO2 emitted by fossil fuel burning is more than twice the measured increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, how could the emitted CO2 *not* have an impact on atmospheric CO2 levels.
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Dec 3, 2009 2:02:08 GMT
Oh so plants and animals don't live in the same atmosphere! Gosh why didn't I think of that! So when a fire is burning the oxygen molecules that have isotopes, say, no no we can't combine with you. So only recently has cabon 14 gone up and it never varied before. And it never varies now. All you are measuring is co2 with isotopes. The rest of the co2 you can't tell which or how much. So you have c14 and c14 more or less?? There is no signature.
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Dec 3, 2009 2:19:25 GMT
if you are predicting disaster at higher levels of co2 and in some places it is 280 and others it is over 600, that is not well mixed. And where is the disaster in those areas??
Also, since we are talking about warming, what caused the great lakes to warm? Atmospheric warming didn't cause it. That has been ruled out.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Dec 3, 2009 14:23:56 GMT
Oh so plants and animals don't live in the same atmosphere! Gosh why didn't I think of that! So when a fire is burning the oxygen molecules that have isotopes, say, no no we can't combine with you. So only recently has cabon 14 gone up and it never varied before. And it never varies now. All you are measuring is co2 with isotopes. The rest of the co2 you can't tell which or how much. So you have c14 and c14 more or less?? There is no signature. Don't be sarcastic. C14 is unstable, so in coal and oil deposits it has mostly decayed to C12. C14 in the atmosphere is continuously regenerated by interactions with cosmic rays. So a C14 atom probably did not come from coal. By burning coal and oil one reduces the proportion of carbon 14 in the biosphere. I could dig out the other stuff about oxygen isotopes but you don't seem to be that interested.
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Dec 4, 2009 4:00:00 GMT
Logically coal would seem to have less c14, however, you are saying that because you can tell which co2 was generated where, And you are also saying that the percentage of man man co2 is much larger. Either you don't know, or you do and you are so far into this that you can't back out. I do know and I am saying, you are wrong.
You are either wrong about whether you can tell where the co2 was produced or you are wrong about the amount. You could be wrong about both
|
|