|
Post by dmapel on May 27, 2009 14:10:24 GMT
How about sending an expedition (maybe the Caitlin explorers) to the equatorial rain forests in Africa to measure the temperature there, and then have them trek due North and take the temperature of the Sahara Desert.
My guess is that with all that GHG water vapor and being hit with more direct rays from the ole sun, the equator will be a lot hotter than the desert at the higher latitude. I would just hope that the Caitlin crew would take along thermometers that could take the heat.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 27, 2009 14:22:26 GMT
jtom, FinoWino, Wylie, Icefisher, If the AGW theory is to be tested, and if statements about radiation models being fit for purpose are to be tested, then you need to run the numbers through the theory to see what the AGW theory says before you do the experiment. While CO2 is projected to cause the troposphere to warm, remember that it is also projected to cause the stratosphere to cool. So assuming that sticking CO2 into a crater will cause the crater to warm could be wrong. If you refer back to my descriptions of the greenhouse effect, you will note that my understanding is that the greenhouse effect is important 3-5km up and higher, as it is here that the air is reasonably thin enough that radiation escapes to space, that CO2 is a higher relative proportion as compared with H2O such that an increase of CO2 is significant, and that a temperature gradient exists such that the change in optical depth caused by increasing CO2 means that radiation into space is coming from cooler level. As none of these conditions apply to the crater, my guess is that you won't get a noticeable change in temperature in the crater. Probably the best experiment you could do is to increase CO2 in the whole atmosphere at, say, 1-2ppm per year and estimate whether temperatures will rise, fall or stay the same over a 30 year period. Then after 30 years, compare with the model. Then you should stop increasing CO2 , and then see what the temperature is after 30 years as compared with the model prediction.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on May 27, 2009 15:29:20 GMT
steve: "If you refer back to my descriptions of the greenhouse effect, you will note that my understanding is that the greenhouse effect is important 3-5km up and higher, as it is here that the air is reasonably thin enough that radiation escapes to space, that CO2 is a higher relative proportion as compared with H2O such that an increase of CO2 is significant, and that a temperature gradient exists such that the change in optical depth caused by increasing CO2 means that radiation into space is coming from cooler level. As none of these conditions apply to the crater, my guess is that you won't get a noticeable change in temperature in the crater. Probably the best experiment you could do is to increase CO2 in the whole atmosphere at, say, 1-2ppm per year and estimate whether temperatures will rise, fall or stay the same over a 30 year period. Then after 30 years, compare with the model. Then you should stop increasing CO2 , and then see what the temperature is after 30 years as compared with the model prediction." I think you are right here:"my understanding is that the greenhouse effect is important 3-5km up and higher". CO2 molecules at lower altitudes do not absorb and then re-emit IR back to the surface. Thus that crater/CO2 thing wouldn't work. And I like your idea of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere for the next thirty years and then comparing the result with model predictions. We could also re-tune the models every six months so that they wouldn't get too far out of whack with reality.
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on May 27, 2009 15:58:42 GMT
Steve,
If you are serious in your last comment as opposed to being flippant, I would respond that I don't think that restricting energy choices to several billion people is a good way to perform an experiment. It could cause many of them to die.
My main point by in this post was to try to suggest ways to reconcile the main objections of the two sides by gathering more pertinent scientific data. I believe it to be foolish to suggest that the science is so settled at this time that we need to take potentially fatal actions to thousands, millions or billions of people in such a choatic and poorly understood forum as the global climate.
I was actually very interested to hear about the 1909 experiment in the black box with glass and rock salt windows exposed to the sunlight. It was very clear from that experiment that the nearly complete explanation for ground level heat exchange is convection and evaporation.
Now you say, with some reason, that the upper atmosphere is where the effects of radiation and greenhouse gases other than water vapor are going to be more important. However, I thought it was ground level temperatures that had changed the most.
Also, it is certainly possible to find craters (or valleys) at 3-5+km in height. Volcanic craters can be quite high. For example, the Irazu crater that I mentioned in my original post (with a lake in the middle) is 3.4km high at the rim (well within your 3-5km range). Wouldn't that meet your objection about the necessity to perform the experiment at an altitude where radiation (as opposed to convection) was more relevant? If you want a higher crater, the rim of Mauna Loa in Hawaii is 4.18km high (closer to your higher limit of 5km than the lower limit of 3km in your post). IN addition, Mauna Loa is an ACTIVE volcano, which means it is venting CO2 already. Perhaps simply monitoring the radiation flux entering the volcano, the temperature and the CO2 concentration across the caldera would provide good data of the temperature changes (if any) as a function of greenhouse gas concentration at a given radiation flux. In that case, there wouldn't even be a necessity to add CO2 "artificially". I still believe that controlled CO2 (or methane) additions would be a good experiment, but if cost or disturbance to the local environment is an issue (it nearly always is), then the "passive approach" might be useful. The data (temperature vs. CO2 concentration in the crater during a day/night cycle) MIGHT ALREADY EXIST in another form and for other purposes.
If Mauna Loa isn't high enough for you, there are at least 4 volcanoes (some dormant and some active) over 5km high in the Andes. The highest is Ojos del Salado at 6.89 km (22,615 ft) and the 3rd highest is Licancabur / San Pedro 5.92 km (19,422 feet) high which has a 70-90metre wide glacial lake (must be frozen a lot). Now having an intact rim might be useful, so perhaps choosing the highest crater wouldn't be the best choice, but there are lots of high volcanic craters to choose from. There is no need to perform these experiments only at near sea level.
Confirming the models is NOT the only reason to perform these kinds of experiments. Atmospheric physics is just NOT that well understood. If Kiwi is correct, there will be no effect at any altitude from these kinds of experiments. If you are correct, the additional CO2 (or methane) should have a significant effect at some concentration if radiation is a significant factor (as compared to evaporation or convection) at 3-5km (or higher).
The response that you have given might suggest more interest in reaffirming the existing theory than in finding out a more complete understanding of the truth about greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I do not have the truth about the effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That is why I would like to see more/better experiments in the actual atmosphere, with all its complexities, than I would like to see more reiterations of "the science is settled", when at least to many, it is not.
Hope that this is not too confrontational, I am truly interested in the Science, both out of curiousity and because I admit the possibility of large errors in my thinking (hence the need for more understanding), but also because it is driving such a HUGE agenda with huge implications for energy use (and everyone).
IWylie
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 27, 2009 16:21:13 GMT
Wylie,
Yes I was being flippant using the excuse of an experiment to stop fossil fuel emissions. As I've said before though, I think the risks of reducing fossil fuel levels are more overstated than the risk of BAU.
The wider and deeper the crater, the harder it is to control the other influences on the environment. And this experiment only seeks to test the basic greenhouse theory, not the more contentious aspects relating to amount of feedbacks.
I think the sort of experiment you want has actually been done by making observations of outgoing longwave radiation from clear sky atmosphere as CO2 increases. eg. as described here:
Journal of Climate
Observations of the Infrared Outgoing Spectrum of the Earth from Space: The Effects of Temporal and Spatial Sampling
H. E. Brindley and J. E. Harries
Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
(Manuscript received September 16, 2002, in final form April 10, 2003)
While the greenhouse effect is most important 3-5km and higher, it is unlikely that these layers can warm up the degree or so required to return to equilibrium without requiring that the rest of the atmosphere below also warms.
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on May 27, 2009 16:32:41 GMT
Steve,
The "BAU" scenario for fossil fuel emissions doesn't apply either because peak Oil has probably already occurred and peak coal isn't far behind (peak BTU content of coal has already been reached in the US due to the depletion of high grade coal, like anthracite). BAU extrapolations of fossil fuel emissions assume an unreasonable amount (even a near infinite amount) of fossil fuels available for commercial exploitation. This is just not reasonable or even possible.
I believe that monitoring the atmosphere from space is a great thing but a restricted test of the Greenhouse Theory in an semi-enclosed space but still open for convection and water vapor effects should also be useful. Note that I mentioned repeatedly the use of craters with water present (and without). That should allow some verification (or refutation) of the water/evaporation feedbacks in a realistic setting (no modeling required - although desirable) that are supposed to be important to the existing theory.
Experiments are almost always better than simulations (IMO).
IWylie
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on May 27, 2009 19:44:36 GMT
steve: "While the greenhouse effect is most important 3-5km and higher, it is unlikely that these layers can warm up the degree or so required to return to equilibrium without requiring that the rest of the atmosphere below also warms. "
OK, so the peer reviewed settled science says that the GH effect is most important 3-5km and higher, where GH gases are spread really thin. But that part about the rest of the atmosphere also being required to warm up doesn't seem to be applicable to wylie's scenario of a crater at 3-5km, as there ain't no atmosphere under the crater.
Why don't you just infom wylie that a model can be genned up to do his experiment and verify the settled science, and leave it at that.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on May 27, 2009 20:05:28 GMT
Steve, If your models showed no warming was expected, I would want to do the experiment regardless, just to see what nature had to say about it. If your models showed that warming was expected, I would want to do the experiment to verify it.
There is an old adage: if you are going to do x regardless of whether the outcome of a test is positive or negative, don't bother doing the test.
Do the experiment. Increase CO2 levels in a confined region (other than an lab) and let's see what happens. If repeated experiments drive temps higher, it doesn't matter what the models say, you have your evidence for AGW.
If they don't, then you can run it in your models. If they don't predict changes, either, then fine. You'll still believe them and I won't. At least we'll know that localized higher levels of CO2 should not affect local climes.
Jeez, why do some people confuse theoretical modeling with good old fashion scientific inquiry? Get away from that monitor and do something in real life!
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 27, 2009 20:41:23 GMT
What I find so silly about all of this is that there is an experiment going on as we speak.
CO2 levels continue to rise. Global temperatures are not rising as predicted.
Instead of sucking it up and accepting the fact that the hypothesis of AGW due to increasing levels of CO2 (which may or may not be due to human activity) has been disproved by the actual data before us, they continue to hold on to their belief that humankind is on the path of destroying the planet.
They say that the models have not failed, that there are other factors that have simply "delayed the warming."
This is not science. The models are inconsistent with reality. Scientists base their belief on observations of reality. AGWism is religion.
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on May 27, 2009 22:37:34 GMT
Steve, If your models showed no warming was expected, I would want to do the experiment regardless, just to see what nature had to say about it. If your models showed that warming was expected, I would want to do the experiment to verify it. Do the experiment. Increase CO2 levels in a confined region (other than an lab) and let's see what happens. If repeated experiments drive temps higher, it doesn't matter what the models say, you have your evidence for AGW. If they don't, then you can run it in your models. If they don't predict changes, either, then fine. You'll still believe them and I won't. At least we'll know that localized higher levels of CO2 should not affect local climes. Jeez, why do some people confuse theoretical modeling with good old fashion scientific inquiry? Get away from that monitor and do something in real life! AMEN!!! Well said. I couldn't have said it that well, so I am glad that you did!! IWylie P.S. Science is fun, as long as you don't have to walk up to crater that is 5-6km high!!
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on May 27, 2009 23:58:01 GMT
FinoWino, you're right, evidence is piling on that the models are wrong.
BUT, in keeping with my philosophy that we really don't know XXXX about all the interactions that determine the climate, the models being wrong does not mean that AGW isn't happening. My personal hypothesis is that any AGW is small, if any, but I could be as wrong as the models are.
The one thing about such experiments as the one being discussed is that it can be done repeatedly. We might not know all the variables, but if we can be somewhat certain that the same conditions are maintained while CO2 is being changed, then we can have some degree of confidence that any changes we see are effects of CO2. If we can replicate the experiment several times and get essentially the same results, then we have learned something about CO2 and the climate.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 1:25:09 GMT
Perhaps we could put a roof over a 10 mile square area of land to see what the effects of a deep solar minimum would be like. This way we will learn something about the sun and the climate.
I wonder why scientists don't do this. Too caught up with their "computer models" I bet.
This is the kind of real science that was done in yesteryear - like dumping 1000 tons of sea water onto a forest to get a better understanding about forests and the sea.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 28, 2009 3:40:01 GMT
Perhaps we could put a roof over a 10 mile square area of land to see what the effects of a deep solar minimum would be like. This way we will learn something about the sun and the climate. I wonder why scientists don't do this. Too caught up with their "computer models" I bet. This is the kind of real science that was done in yesteryear - like dumping 1000 tons of sea water onto a forest to get a better understanding about forests and the sea.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 28, 2009 3:45:17 GMT
FinoWino, you're right, evidence is piling on that the models are wrong. BUT, in keeping with my philosophy that we really don't know XXXX about all the interactions that determine the climate, the models being wrong does not mean that AGW isn't happening. My personal hypothesis is that any AGW is small, if any, but I could be as wrong as the models are. The one thing about such experiments as the one being discussed is that it can be done repeatedly. We might not know all the variables, but if we can be somewhat certain that the same conditions are maintained while CO2 is being changed, then we can have some degree of confidence that any changes we see are effects of CO2. If we can replicate the experiment several times and get essentially the same results, then we have learned something about CO2 and the climate. What it does mean is that CO2 is not so important as the AGW crowd would have you believe. If they were honest scientists, they would be working on new models that better matched reality. The problem is that can't be done with a model based on CO2 being the primary forcing agent (as the models to date have demonstrated.) They are the kind of people John Kenneth Galbraith spoke of (see sig line below.)
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 28, 2009 3:48:11 GMT
Omigosh! I made two three posts in a row . Think I'd better avoid certain people for awhile (if you know what I mean ).
|
|