Ohhh dear... I hope this hasn't turned into too much of a headache just working up towards the science of the 1800s... Once the fundamentals are covered, the pace can increase a little ;-)

Just to humour with a small jump-ahead:

Re ML1 post with charts:

I direct you attention to two bands on the chart, CO2 and water vapor. ...

CO2 and water vapor are doing the same thing, absorbing IR. Water vapor absorbs many times more than CO2 by the charts you present.

Tell me why a much smaller absorption band for CO2 would do something different from water which moderates temperature swings.

Tell me why CO2 does not do the same thing as water vapor, provide temperature moderation, in addition to the temperature moderation produced by water. ...

A few bits to note are that:

CO2 is pretty evenly distributed up to very high altitudes. That is, you have the same concentration of CO2 for many miles up. Also note that CO2 doesn't sublime to a solid ('dry' ice) until -79 deg C. There's a very thick layer of gaseous CO2 to do its absorbing...

H2O, with altitude, quickly condenses (into clouds) and ice (high altitude clouds)...

CO2 and H2O are complimentary with the wavelengths that they absorb. However, I believe CO2 contributes nearly 2/3rds of the heat radiation 'entrapment'.

And just a reminder for how far up H2O can go compared to the overall 'thickness' of our atmosphere:



Wikipedia: Top of Atmosphere

Blue light is scattered more than other wavelengths by the gases in the atmosphere, giving the Earth a blue halo when seen from space

...And notice how there is a lot of blue a long way above the H2O clouds.


As for your comments about temperature changes from day to night, that is all down to what ground you're on, vegetation cover, how far you are from the sea or very large volume of liquid water, altitude, and the weather. No surprise there. So yes, you can fry eggs during the day and freeze ice cream at night in an inland desert. You get on-site breakfast and dessert!


Now...

Can you agree those charts are accurate?

Can you agree that CO2 has a wavelength dependant opacity for electromagnetic radiation?

Do you agree that the physics there shows a "greenhouse" effect?


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

CO2 is pretty evenly distributed up to very high altitudes. That is, you have the same concentration of CO2 for many miles up.

That was recently shown to not be so even.

---

CO2 is pretty evenly distributed up to very high altitudes. That is, you have the same concentration of CO2 for many miles up.

That was recently shown to not be so even.

Get real. Read the context.

Yes, it is well known that there is more land mass in the northern hemisphere and there is more activity (human and other life) in the northern hemisphere and there is a small gradient of CO2 levels between the sources of CO2 and the various CO2 sinks across the earth. Look at the percentage range on the scale?...

That is for much later in the discussion and has nothing to do with the present point.

Vertically, the CO2 is well enough mixed to be assumed to be a constant concentration until way way above the (H2O) clouds.

As ever, there are other parts to the "story", but can we give poor old Matt a chance to catch up with the charts. He seems to have a big headache over them.


Meanwhile, do you have useful positive comment that is in context?

Or would you like to explain the significance of your plot?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

CO2 is pretty evenly distributed up to very high altitudes. That is, you have the same concentration of CO2 for many miles up.

That was recently shown to not be so even.

Get real. Read the context.

Significant differences between simulated and observed carbon dioxide abundance outside of the tropics, which raises questions about the lower-to-upper troposphere transport pathways in current models.


Tiwari Y. K., M. Gloor, R. J. Engelen, F. Chevallier, C. Rdenbeck, S. Krner, P. Peylin, B. H. Braswell, M. Heimann (2006), Comparing CO 2 retrieved from Atmospheric Infrared Sounder with model predictions: Implications for constraining surface fluxes and lower-to-upper troposphere transport, J. Geophys. Res., 111, D17106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006681.

Or a preview.

Yes, it is well known that there is more land mass in the northern hemisphere and there is more activity (human and other life) in the northern hemisphere and there is a small gradient of CO2 levels between the sources of CO2 and the various CO2 sinks across the earth. Look at the percentage range on the scale?...

That is for much later in the discussion and has nothing to do with the present point.

Vertically, the CO2 is well enough mixed to be assumed to be a constant concentration until way way above the (H2O) clouds.

As ever, there are other parts to the "story", but can we give poor old Matt a chance to catch up with the charts. He seems to have a big headache over them.


Meanwhile, do you have useful positive comment that is in context?

Or would you like to explain the significance of your plot?

Regards,
Martin

---

CO2 is pretty evenly distributed up to very high altitudes. That is, you have the same concentration of CO2 for many miles up. [For a particular location]

That was recently shown to not be so even.

Get real. Read the context.

Significant differences between simulated and observed carbon dioxide abundance outside of the tropics, which raises questions about the lower-to-upper troposphere transport pathways in current models.


Tiwari Y. K., M. Gloor, R. J. Engelen, F. Chevallier, C. Rdenbeck, S. Krner, P. Peylin, B. H. Braswell, M. Heimann (2006), Comparing CO 2 retrieved from Atmospheric Infrared Sounder with model predictions: Implications for constraining surface fluxes and lower-to-upper troposphere transport, J. Geophys. Res., 111, D17106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006681.

Or a preview.

Looks like you're just throwing in some FUD to confuse the current context.

That looks to be very good research and data. So have you taken the trouble to look at what it means rather than randomly stirring?

That research is looking high in the atmosphere (troposphere and above). The northern hemisphere to southern hemisphere variation at that high altitude looks to be from 389 - 382 ppm depending on location. Interestingly, look at the trends for the two spot comparisons given...

So what 'significance' are you claiming?

My significance is that CO2 concentration for a particular location is constant enough and from the ground up to high enough to be significant for entrapping the earth's warmth. (H2O and others do their share also.)


Meanwhile, nearer to earth, it's looking like Matt is about to concede his anti-CO2 stance...

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

CO2 is pretty evenly distributed up to very high altitudes. That is, you have the same concentration of CO2 for many miles up. [For a particular location]

That was recently shown to not be so even.

Get real. Read the context.

Significant differences between simulated and observed carbon dioxide abundance outside of the tropics, which raises questions about the lower-to-upper troposphere transport pathways in current models.


Tiwari Y. K., M. Gloor, R. J. Engelen, F. Chevallier, C. Rdenbeck, S. Krner, P. Peylin, B. H. Braswell, M. Heimann (2006), Comparing CO 2 retrieved from Atmospheric Infrared Sounder with model predictions: Implications for constraining surface fluxes and lower-to-upper troposphere transport, J. Geophys. Res., 111, D17106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006681.

Or a preview.

Looks like you're just throwing in some FUD to confuse the current context.

That looks to be very good research and data. So have you taken the trouble to look at what it means rather than randomly stirring?

Funny you should use those words, because that is not what is happening in the atmosphere. The data show a disconnect between what is happening on the ground and what is happening at high altitude. In other words, lack of any vertical transport of CO2. That is an issue for the models. It means what happens on the ground doesn't affect what is going at altitude. Garbage in, garbage out.

Consider the ice core samples used to establish old CO2 levels. If the CO2 isn't mixed uniformly in the atmosphere, are the ice core samples valid data? Garbage in, garbage out.

BTW look at those charts you posted. What % of the black body curve for the ground radiation is absorbed by CO2? What % is absorbed by H2O? Somewhere I heard methane CH4 was many times more powerful as a green house gas than CO2. What % is absorbed by methane? Are you getting your own picture?

---

Re ML1 post with charts:

I direct you attention to...

Matt, you're jumping ahead of yourself and of the game...

Firstly, can you answer whether:

You agree those charts are accurate?

You agree that CO2 has a wavelength dependant opacity for electromagnetic radiation?

Do you agree that the physics there shows a "greenhouse" effect?

Regards,
Martin

My first estimate was that it would take two weeks to get to something substantive. I now estimate two years.

From the charts I agree CO2 shows the same type effect as does water vapor but to a much lesser extent. What do you think it shows?

A greenhouse effect is only the prevention of convection and circulation. If you have another definition please provide it. You were the one which said the term "greenhouse effect" is a lie were you not?

If the charts are read by you as opacity then you do not understand what is going on or the meaning of opaque.

Like water, CO2 absorbs some IR during the day and releases it at night. This in no way changes the average temperature. If you have a mechanism by which it could increase the average temperature please describe it.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

While awaiting a means to suspend entropy let me post some facts on CO2.

[li]CO2 comprises 0.03% of the atmosphere by weight.

[li]total atmospheric CO2 750-830 GigaTons

[li][li]uncertainty 80GT about +/-5% +/-40GT

[li] The human CO2 contribution is 3 GT per year.

[li]The human contribution is only 3/80ths of the uncertainty. That is what people call "in the noise."

[li]Known non-human emissions are 210 GT/yr. The amount from the 1000+ active undersea volcanoes is unknown.

[li]1/3 of CO2 cycle is unknown. There are some active avenues of investigation but there is nothing considered a serious candidate to explain the missing 1/3.

[li]In ALL core samples CO2 increases AFTER temperature increases. The earth's temperature is still increasing from the last ice age. Of course we expect CO2 to be rising now.

[li]The Sahara desert started to appear about 4500 years ago.

[li]The Sahara reached its current extent about 3000 years ago.

Yeah Matt just a few comments on your so called CO2 "FACTS".

Those "FACTS" are a load of crap.

They should read...

1- CO2 comprises 0.0582% of the atmosphere by weight.
2- total atmospheric CO2 is about 3000 GigaTons.
3- CO2 levels have been increasing by about 2 ppm/yr for the last ten yrs.
4- The atmospheric CO2 load has been increasing by about 20 GigaTons/yr
5- Human activity CO2 contribution is about 24 Gigatons/yr
6- Over the last 20 Yrs the boundary of the Sahara dessert has moved South about 150 miles, and is thus expanding.

I know you laid claim to being a scientist, specifically a physicists,
but heck I might be an engineer, trust me , you'll have to take my word for it.
Now I'm not sure if you're just dissembling, or you just don't understand
the material you cut/paste from a google search, but most of what you post is
disconnected at best.

I suspect that you only show up in this thread to call people "MELTERS",
and to have a link posted to your real mission in life, your website ,
where we can all learn how to save 80% on our nicotine addiction.

Bleep ;o)

As to you suspicions,

your 4) per year divided by your 2) total says it is increasing 20/3000 per year says it is increasing 1/150 or 0.66% per year. But 3) say 0.0002% per year.

If I take those as correct numbers I can conclude all but a negligible amount and likely below measurement error is remaining in the atmosphere.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

I suspect that you only show up in this thread to call people "MELTERS",
and to have a link posted to your real mission in life, your website ,
where we can all learn how to save 80% on our nicotine addiction.

Bleep ;o)

Interesting that you would find the tobacco thing worth mention. This is almost a first. The point is libertarian. Screwing the self-righteous puritan profiting from an addiction is the motivation. It is for the good of the smoker to deter smoking with taxes but they will fight to the death as to who gets the tax revenue.

If it is your addiction also, I need to write an important update becaUse of a change in the law but have not yet. If you are interested I will give you the short version.

You should have noticed [url]http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/taeh.html which is now 20 years old and still not a single issue I raised has been answered by the melters. It is a draft manuscript I shopped around but could get no interest. Back in 1989 people were still wondering what happened to the coming ice age. The publishers were all interested in the melting scam. Of course my only prior publications had been magazines and other problems with style but then that is what an editor is for.

[/url]

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

_

I suspect that you only show up in this thread to call people "MELTERS",
and to have a link posted to your real mission in life, your website ,
where we can all learn how to save 80% on our nicotine addiction.

Bleep ;o)

As to you suspicions,

your 4) per year divided by your 2) total says it is increasing 20/3000 per year says it is increasing 1/150 or 0.66% per year. But 3) say 0.0002% per year.

If I take those as correct numbers I can conclude all but a negligible amount and likely below measurement error is remaining in the atmosphere.

I see that Math isn't one of your strong points, and that sarcasm is completely lost on you.

You are invited to present your calculations as will I.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Consider two objects orbiting a star at exactly the same distance. Both are in the habitable zone, the Goldilocks zone, not too cold, not too hot but just right. One has no atmosphere at all. The other has an atmosphere. The temperature extremes between day and night on the airless object is hundreds of degrees. For the planet with an atmosphere the temperature extreme varies between 10 degrees and 80 degrees, degrees F of course.

The planet with the atmosphere is of course the Earth and the other is the Earth's moon.

For the earth the components of the atmosphere are heated during the day reducing the upper temperature extreme. This heat is released at night decreasing the lower temperature extreme. Only water is unequally distributed in the atmosphere. The more water vapor the less the temperature extremes.

CO2 behaves the same as water vapor. It absorbs heat during the day and releases it at night in the same way as water vapor. In fact in the same way as matter.

There is a difference between heat and temperature. I have yet to find a melter who understands the difference. In fact in most cases they do not suggest they know there is a difference. If a person does not have a working understanding of the difference they cannot possibly understand anything said, pro or con, about global melting.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Consider two objects orbiting a star at exactly the same distance. Both are in the habitable zone, the Goldilocks zone, not too cold, not too hot but just right. One has no atmosphere at all. The other has an atmosphere. The temperature extremes between day and night on the airless object is hundreds of degrees. For the planet with an atmosphere the temperature extreme varies between 10 degrees and 80 degrees, degrees F of course.

The planet with the atmosphere is of course the Earth and the other is the Earth's moon.

For the earth the components of the atmosphere are heated during the day reducing the upper temperature extreme. This heat is released at night decreasing the lower temperature extreme. Only water is unequally distributed in the atmosphere. The more water vapor the less the temperature extremes.

CO2 behaves the same as water vapor. It absorbs heat during the day and releases it at night in the same way as water vapor. In fact in the same way as matter.

There is a difference between heat and temperature. I have yet to find a melter who understands the difference. ...

You really do appear to be in an incredibly child-like cloud cuckoo land.

OK, you have your theory there. You claim to understand about thermal mass, heat, and temperature.

Please show your calculation for the effect of only the thermal mass of our atmosphere. I'll accept appropriate simplifications.

(Other comments to previous posts when more time spare.)

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Consider two objects orbiting a star at exactly the same distance. Both are in the habitable zone, the Goldilocks zone, not too cold, not too hot but just right. One has no atmosphere at all. The other has an atmosphere. The temperature extremes between day and night on the airless object is hundreds of degrees. For the planet with an atmosphere the temperature extreme varies between 10 degrees and 80 degrees, degrees F of course.

The planet with the atmosphere is of course the Earth and the other is the Earth's moon.

For the earth the components of the atmosphere are heated during the day reducing the upper temperature extreme. This heat is released at night decreasing the lower temperature extreme. Only water is unequally distributed in the atmosphere. The more water vapor the less the temperature extremes.

CO2 behaves the same as water vapor. It absorbs heat during the day and releases it at night in the same way as water vapor. In fact in the same way as matter.

There is a difference between heat and temperature. I have yet to find a melter who understands the difference. ...

You really do appear to be in an incredibly child-like cloud cuckoo land.

OK, you have your theory there. You claim to understand about thermal mass, heat, and temperature.

Please show your calculation for the effect of only the thermal mass of our atmosphere. I'll accept appropriate simplifications.

(Other comments to previous posts when more time spare.)

Regards,
Martin

Try reading it again. The fact has been observed. Any calculation could only approximate the observed fact.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Consider two objects orbiting a star at exactly the same distance. Both are in the habitable zone, the Goldilocks zone, not too cold, not too hot but just right. One has no atmosphere at all. The other has an atmosphere. The temperature extremes between day and night on the airless object is hundreds of degrees. For the planet with an atmosphere the temperature extreme varies between 10 degrees and 80 degrees, degrees F of course.

The planet with the atmosphere is of course the Earth and the other is the Earth's moon.

For the earth the components of the atmosphere are heated during the day reducing the upper temperature extreme. This heat is released at night decreasing the lower temperature extreme. Only water is unequally distributed in the atmosphere. The more water vapor the less the temperature extremes.

CO2 behaves the same as water vapor. It absorbs heat during the day and releases it at night in the same way as water vapor. In fact in the same way as matter.

There is a difference between heat and temperature. I have yet to find a melter who understands the difference. ...

You really do appear to be in an incredibly child-like cloud cuckoo land.

OK, you have your theory there. You claim to understand about thermal mass, heat, and temperature.

Please show your calculation for the effect of only the thermal mass of our atmosphere. I'll accept appropriate simplifications.

Try reading it again. The fact has been observed. Any calculation could only approximate the observed fact.

As ever, you're missing the plot and you're showing great ignorance of any science.

Supposedly, you know about radiation, temperature and heat. Presumably, you also know about heat capacity and thermal lag. You have made the claim/hypothesis that our earthly temperatures are predominantly controlled by the thermal mass of our atmosphere. I'm very sure that is not the case...

Please show your assumptions and calculations that proves your case and proves me wrong.

Good luck,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Looks like Matt has conceded the Earth - Moon comparison for the effects of the atmosphere on temperature.

For anyone wishing to do the calculations or to just simply look it all up, you should find that:

The magnitude of the surface temperature variation is determined mainly by the planet's/moon's surface material. The Earth has lots of liquid water that is nicely conductive and has a very high thermal mass, whereas the moon has it's entire surface that is more like the dry sandy deserts of Earth;

The Earth's atmosphere maintains a higher average temperature due to the effects of allowing in light from the sun and trapping heat radiation (the 'greenhouse' effect analogy);

The thermal mass of the atmosphere only has a small effect in reducing the day/night temperature range. For example, you can be perfectly comfortable in shorts and t-shirt on a nice calm bright sunny day even while there is snow on the ground and sub-zero air temperature. You only get chilled by the air if there is a breeze.


With the right conditions, you can get a 'monsoon-type' feedback effect where clouds that form as the air temperature falls can then trap heat radiated from the ground below for the evening/night. However, too much vapour and it instead rains...


I'll let Matt show off his sums.

His argument was?


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)