Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
Lost_BMW said:
In the same spirit of fairness - or more truthfully, accuracy - the troll referred to was the legend in his own lunchtime 'Dean Ninety' and, you did not maintain your lay personage, initially, but posted papers etc. here as if you had sourced them/ were 'learned' before it was revealed that you were being fed. If that's not regurgitating a line - by offering arguments from others as if your own (choice, at least) then I'm Martian.
Capable of evidencing your position using credible sources? We all are. The problem you have is that you asked for sources from BS and quickly posted them here as if you were well informed; the position you masqueraded. Tell us honestly, did you read any/ all of them before quoting the title or a synopsis/ comment on why it countered an argument, from say TB? If so you must be a bloody fast reader looking at some of the timings.
Even if the time stamps clear one aspect the tone of the posts you made on BS (how appropriate) were disingenuous as at odds with your supposed open mindedness here =>
PH "I'm open minded and willing to learn - tell me more" . . .
BS "They've quoted this, help me to counter it!" type crap.
Unconvincing I'm afraid.
Fine, apologies about the troll comment (although others have accused me of it). You will, however, notice that I've not actually got much help from the folks on Bad Science. Their advice was to not bother debating the issue.Capable of evidencing your position using credible sources? We all are. The problem you have is that you asked for sources from BS and quickly posted them here as if you were well informed; the position you masqueraded. Tell us honestly, did you read any/ all of them before quoting the title or a synopsis/ comment on why it countered an argument, from say TB? If so you must be a bloody fast reader looking at some of the timings.
Even if the time stamps clear one aspect the tone of the posts you made on BS (how appropriate) were disingenuous as at odds with your supposed open mindedness here =>
PH "I'm open minded and willing to learn - tell me more" . . .
BS "They've quoted this, help me to counter it!" type crap.
Unconvincing I'm afraid.
And if, as you seem to be suggesting, one cannot be both a layperson and read scientific papers, by that definition I am not a layperson. Did I read every paper - every word - before using them to evidence my position? No, of course not. There wouldn't be time. I have read as much as I can (and understood as much as I can) in the time available, but that doesn't necessarily matter, does it?
I haven't really asked anyone to help me counter any arguments, and if you read the thread over on the other site you'll see that I have asked other what they think of the arguments. An important if subtle distinction.
You are of course entitled to think what ever you like of me, but to try to support your position with spurious evidence would be deliciously ironic in the context of this thread, wouldn't you agree? Also - and I urge readers of this thread to make up their own minds - I think I have been polite and courteous to a fault in spite of deleterious comments directed at me personally, and have avoided responding to such comments as they detract from the core of the debate. People checking in after a night away need to go through 10 pages of insults and this really does nothing.
Is that fair?
EDIT TO ADD: I DID asked to be 'fed' the information, so that is all true. I got one source. Which I already had looked at. But I want to tell the truth, even if it does make me look like an arse.
Edited by Facefirst on Sunday 13th February 12:23
Edited by Facefirst on Sunday 13th February 12:28
Lost_BMW said:
"Interesting. Is it possible to both exhibit classic 'skeptic' debating tactics and be able to debate on the issues?"
A quote from?
To give people my perspective in full, from the same source:A quote from?
'The biggest issue I have is the structure of the arguments against AGW (I don't know enough about it to competently debate the arguments themselves). It is just all too familiar, isn't it?
People publishing outside of their field, discrediting peer review, single-sources used, misquoting or quoting out of context, and all with the back beat of a conspiracy or some shady motive on the part of a faceless 'them' who are after all your money and want to control you.'
If you read back, I have already highlighted the similarities between the arguments here and those used in other topics such as 9/11 'truth'. I also said at that time that it was no comment on the content of the argument, merely the structure of the debate.
If you don't agree, then fine, but I have been very clear on the subject and the limitations of applying it here.
Edited by Facefirst on Sunday 13th February 12:22
Edited by Facefirst on Sunday 13th February 12:23
hairykrishna said:
turbobloke said:
Welcome back.
I teach the stuff your post covers, what's new.
Thank you. I teach the stuff your post covers, what's new.
Nothing's new. If you teach this stuff, why did you let the 'all absorbed at the surface' misunderstanding to continue to propagate?
Desaturation was discussed and dealt with long ago and offers nothing new. It merely elaborates with images something that we dealt with before. You are off on another attrition loop. Anyway to deal with it all yet again...
Unline NASA diagrams showing the 'greenhouse effect' high up in the atmosphere, most carbon dioxide absorption takes place near the surface of the earth, in a few tens of metres meters. Whatever the distance is and I have no wish to debate it, so call it X. Doubling carbon dioxide levels would halve the distance of absorption to X/2 and a shorter distabce is not an automatic increase in bulk temperature when there are so many degrees of freedom operating and means of energy transfer beyond radiative transfer.
In the desaturation (reasonable principle) application to manmade global warming (both myths), supposedly, the desaturation effect occurs in the atmosphere where conditions of temperature and pressure are both greatly reduced - a reduction in line broadening - and the shoulders on the absorption peaks for carbon dioxide are not saturated. You posted some images of the absorption fine structure 'shoulders'. Also in the thinner atmosphere, the shoulders of the absorptions don't overlap so much with absorptions from water vapor.
The shoulders of the peaks are said to be not saturated, which means more CO2 will result in more absorption. Not only is this effect minuscule - think again about the physical conditions as to get the temperature and pressure for this effect to operate significantly it's above the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and into the stratosphere, where there would be effectively no mixing with air near the surface of the earth due to the tropopause. Since the 2nd Law of thermodynamics tells us that a cooler upper atmosphere layer cannot heat a lower layer spontaneously by radiative transfer, and convection is ruled out as the temperature gradient is the wrong way round with the tropopause as a barrier, how is this effect (even if large and pertinent to temperature (read on) going to heat the lower troposphere or near-surface?
To get this effect the atmospheric density will be about one tenth that at sea level and the temperature about -50 deg C. At the top of the troposphere pressure is one tenth surface and at the top of the stratosphere about one thousandth. So how thin is the air of which carbon dioxide is only 390 parts per million (v) anyway?
At an atmospheric height relevant to desaturation, carbon dioxide wavelengths will absorb completely in a few hundreds of meters, because at ground level where the density is at least ten times higher they absorb in a few tens of meters. When doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, they would do the same in half the former distance i.e. a few hundreds of metres /2. Again this shorter distance is not an automatic increase in bulk temperature but if it was how is the heat going to reach the lower atmosphere, where the 'global warming' measurements are taken?
Nothing of significance can happen, as we're talking about a thin air effect that due to the required conditions operates almost wholly in the stratosphere, which does not circulate significantly with the lower atmosphere - tropopause, convection out due to the temperature gradient being the rong way round at that height. In the troposphere temperature decreases with height and energy transfer towards space by convection operates, in the stratosphere the temperature increases with height and as a physicist you should appreciate the implications for convection. As to radiative transfer, remember the 2nd law and how cold it is up there, cold layers at height cannot heat warmer layers of the atmosphere lower down (2nd Law).
Summary: your desaturation argument is not valid. Just as it wasn't valid the last time we considered it and I explained why. If you take science from books and articles you need to understand its context and basis, or rather lack of, better before trying to sell it on. You had a simiar problem with solar wind effects iirc.
The 'more carbon dioxide means thermageddon' argument is entirely unsupportable.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 13th February 12:39
Facefirst said:
And if, as you seem to be suggesting, one cannot be both a layperson and read scientific papers, by that definition I am not a layperson. Did I read every paper - every word - before using them to evidence my position? No, of course not. There wouldn't be time. I have read as much as I can (and understood as much as I can) in the time available, but that doesn't necessarily matter, does it?
I haven't really asked anyone to help me counter any arguments, and if you read the thread over on the other site you'll see that I have asked other what they think of the arguments. An important if subtle distinction.
I'll leave it at this - point made I believe and, sure, others can make up their minds by reading the entirety of your posts on there - it wouldn't matter if you hadn't quoted the many papers you listed + comments on the assumed power some of these gave to your position so quickly before reading or understanding them all, by your own admission?I haven't really asked anyone to help me counter any arguments, and if you read the thread over on the other site you'll see that I have asked other what they think of the arguments. An important if subtle distinction.
You didn't understand aspects of the subject well enough to counter (or understand) the points raised by, e.g. TB or Guam and yet posted confident sounding arguments using papers as if you had read them, which I don't believe you had, in all cases, before doing your research, relying on others to bail you out. Poor imho.
Yet felt able to impugne the motives of posters on here, thus: "People publishing outside of their field, discrediting peer review, single-sources used, misquoting or quoting out of context, and all with the back beat of a conspiracy or some shady motive on the part of a faceless 'them' who are after all your money and want to control you.
Something else folk can find on there:
From a certain 'touchingcloth', re. TB
He's mixing in ideology with his "science".
He seems to be coming from the position that, unless we have absolutely rock solid evidence that we are heading towards a disaster that we can avoid through policy changes, policy changes should not be made. Rather than presenting an honest assessment of the facts - that data, models and science are always going to be imperfect, that policy makers should bear those imperfections in mind and act according to the best available information - he is taking the fundamentalist view; flaws = total unreliability. No one or nothing can be trusted, and therefore we should do nothing.
Followed by:
touchingcloth> you nailed it!
from a certain Kerplunk.
From a certain 'touchingcloth', re. TB
He's mixing in ideology with his "science".
He seems to be coming from the position that, unless we have absolutely rock solid evidence that we are heading towards a disaster that we can avoid through policy changes, policy changes should not be made. Rather than presenting an honest assessment of the facts - that data, models and science are always going to be imperfect, that policy makers should bear those imperfections in mind and act according to the best available information - he is taking the fundamentalist view; flaws = total unreliability. No one or nothing can be trusted, and therefore we should do nothing.
Followed by:
touchingcloth> you nailed it!
from a certain Kerplunk.
turbobloke said:
Because it's accurate and if you knew what you were dealing with you would know also.
Desaturation was discussed and dealt with long ago and offers nothing new. It merely elaborates with images something that we dealt with before. You are off on another attrition loop. Anyway to deal with it all yet again...
Unline NASA diagrams showing the 'greenhouse effect' high up in the atmosphere, most carbon dioxide absorption takes place near the surface of the earth, in a few tens of metres meters. Whatever the distance is and I have no wish to debate it, so call it X. Doubling carbon dioxide levels would halve the distance of absorption top X/2 and a shorter distabce is not an automatic increase in bulk temperature when there are so many degrees of freedom operating and means of energy transfer beyond radiative transfer.
In the desaturation (reasonable principle) application to manmade global warming (both myths), supposedly, the desaturation effect occurs in the atmosphere where conditions of temperature and pressure are both greatly reduced - a reduction in line broadening - and the shoulders on the absorption peaks for carbon dioxide are not saturated. You posted some images of the absorption fine structure 'shoulders'. Also in the thinner atmosphere, the shoulders of the absorptions don't overlap so much with absorptions from water vapor.
The shoulders of the peaks are said to be not saturated, hence desaturation, which means more CO2 will result in more absorption. Not only is this effect minuscule - think again about the physical conditions as to get the temperature and pressure for this effect to operate significantly it's above the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and into the stratosphere, where there would be effectively no mixing with air near the surface of the earth due to the tropopause. Since the 2nd Law of thermodynamics tells us that a cooler upper atmosphere layer cannot heat a lower layer spontaneously by radiative transfer, and convection is ruled out as the temperature gradient is the wrong way round with the tropopause as a barrier, how is this effect (even if large and pertinent to temperature (read on) going to heat the lower troposphere or near-surface?
To get this effect the atmospheric density will be about one tenth that at sea level and the temperature about -50 deg C. At the top of the troposphere pressure is one tenth surface and at the top of the stratosphere about one thousandth. So how thin is the air of which carbon dioxide is only 390 parts per million (v) anyway?
At an atmospheric height relevant to desaturation, carbon dioxide wavelengths will absorb completely in a few hundreds of meters, because at ground level where the density is at least ten times higher they absorb in a few tens of meters. When doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, they would do the same twice the former distance i.e. a few hundreds of metres x2. Again this shorter distance is not an automatic increase in bulk temperature but if it was how is the heat going to reach the lower atmosphere, where the 'global warming' measurements are taken?
Nothing of significance can happen, as we're talking about a thin air effect that due to the required conditions operates almost wholly in the stratosphere, which does not circulate significantly with the lower atmosphere - tropopause, convection out due to the temperature gradient being the rong way round at that height. In the troposphere temperature decreases with height and energy transfer towards space by convection operates, in the stratosphere the temperature increases with height and as a physicist you should appreciate the implications for convection. As to radiative transfer, remember the 2nd law and how cold it is up there, cold layers at height cannot heat warmer layers of the atmosphere lower down.
Summary: your desaturation argument is not valid. Just as it wasn't valid the last time we considered it and I explained why. If you take science from books and articles you need to understand its context and basis, or rather lack of, better before trying to sell it on. You had a simiar problem with solar wind effects iirc.
The 'more carbon dioxide means thermageddon' argument is entirely unsupportable.
You are off spouting the more complex desaturation argument as beloved by various sceptic blogs- the specific argument being addressed was that posted by Ali yesterday, that all of the IR that can be absorbed by CO2 is already absorbed within a few meters of ground level. This is not the case, it is not accurate. You know this but don't correct it and, rather than defend this, you're off on the argument merry go round again.Desaturation was discussed and dealt with long ago and offers nothing new. It merely elaborates with images something that we dealt with before. You are off on another attrition loop. Anyway to deal with it all yet again...
Unline NASA diagrams showing the 'greenhouse effect' high up in the atmosphere, most carbon dioxide absorption takes place near the surface of the earth, in a few tens of metres meters. Whatever the distance is and I have no wish to debate it, so call it X. Doubling carbon dioxide levels would halve the distance of absorption top X/2 and a shorter distabce is not an automatic increase in bulk temperature when there are so many degrees of freedom operating and means of energy transfer beyond radiative transfer.
In the desaturation (reasonable principle) application to manmade global warming (both myths), supposedly, the desaturation effect occurs in the atmosphere where conditions of temperature and pressure are both greatly reduced - a reduction in line broadening - and the shoulders on the absorption peaks for carbon dioxide are not saturated. You posted some images of the absorption fine structure 'shoulders'. Also in the thinner atmosphere, the shoulders of the absorptions don't overlap so much with absorptions from water vapor.
The shoulders of the peaks are said to be not saturated, hence desaturation, which means more CO2 will result in more absorption. Not only is this effect minuscule - think again about the physical conditions as to get the temperature and pressure for this effect to operate significantly it's above the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and into the stratosphere, where there would be effectively no mixing with air near the surface of the earth due to the tropopause. Since the 2nd Law of thermodynamics tells us that a cooler upper atmosphere layer cannot heat a lower layer spontaneously by radiative transfer, and convection is ruled out as the temperature gradient is the wrong way round with the tropopause as a barrier, how is this effect (even if large and pertinent to temperature (read on) going to heat the lower troposphere or near-surface?
To get this effect the atmospheric density will be about one tenth that at sea level and the temperature about -50 deg C. At the top of the troposphere pressure is one tenth surface and at the top of the stratosphere about one thousandth. So how thin is the air of which carbon dioxide is only 390 parts per million (v) anyway?
At an atmospheric height relevant to desaturation, carbon dioxide wavelengths will absorb completely in a few hundreds of meters, because at ground level where the density is at least ten times higher they absorb in a few tens of meters. When doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, they would do the same twice the former distance i.e. a few hundreds of metres x2. Again this shorter distance is not an automatic increase in bulk temperature but if it was how is the heat going to reach the lower atmosphere, where the 'global warming' measurements are taken?
Nothing of significance can happen, as we're talking about a thin air effect that due to the required conditions operates almost wholly in the stratosphere, which does not circulate significantly with the lower atmosphere - tropopause, convection out due to the temperature gradient being the rong way round at that height. In the troposphere temperature decreases with height and energy transfer towards space by convection operates, in the stratosphere the temperature increases with height and as a physicist you should appreciate the implications for convection. As to radiative transfer, remember the 2nd law and how cold it is up there, cold layers at height cannot heat warmer layers of the atmosphere lower down.
Summary: your desaturation argument is not valid. Just as it wasn't valid the last time we considered it and I explained why. If you take science from books and articles you need to understand its context and basis, or rather lack of, better before trying to sell it on. You had a simiar problem with solar wind effects iirc.
The 'more carbon dioxide means thermageddon' argument is entirely unsupportable.
As I said, pointless.
hairykrishna said:
turbobloke said:
Because it's accurate and if you knew what you were dealing with you would know also.
Desaturation was discussed and dealt with long ago and offers nothing new. It merely elaborates with images something that we dealt with before. You are off on another attrition loop. Anyway to deal with it all yet again...
Unline NASA diagrams showing the 'greenhouse effect' high up in the atmosphere, most carbon dioxide absorption takes place near the surface of the earth, in a few tens of metres meters. Whatever the distance is and I have no wish to debate it, so call it X. Doubling carbon dioxide levels would halve the distance of absorption to X/2 and a shorter distabce is not an automatic increase in bulk temperature when there are so many degrees of freedom operating and means of energy transfer beyond radiative transfer.
In the desaturation (reasonable principle) application to manmade global warming (both myths), supposedly, the desaturation effect occurs in the atmosphere where conditions of temperature and pressure are both greatly reduced - a reduction in line broadening - and the shoulders on the absorption peaks for carbon dioxide are not saturated. You posted some images of the absorption fine structure 'shoulders'. Also in the thinner atmosphere, the shoulders of the absorptions don't overlap so much with absorptions from water vapor.
The shoulders of the peaks are said to be not saturated, hence desaturation, which means more CO2 will result in more absorption. Not only is this effect minuscule - think again about the physical conditions as to get the temperature and pressure for this effect to operate significantly it's above the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and into the stratosphere, where there would be effectively no mixing with air near the surface of the earth due to the tropopause. Since the 2nd Law of thermodynamics tells us that a cooler upper atmosphere layer cannot heat a lower layer spontaneously by radiative transfer, and convection is ruled out as the temperature gradient is the wrong way round with the tropopause as a barrier, how is this effect (even if large and pertinent to temperature (read on) going to heat the lower troposphere or near-surface?
To get this effect the atmospheric density will be about one tenth that at sea level and the temperature about -50 deg C. At the top of the troposphere pressure is one tenth surface and at the top of the stratosphere about one thousandth. So how thin is the air of which carbon dioxide is only 390 parts per million (v) anyway?
At an atmospheric height relevant to desaturation, carbon dioxide wavelengths will absorb completely in a few hundreds of meters, because at ground level where the density is at least ten times higher they absorb in a few tens of meters. When doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, they would do the same in half the former distance i.e. a few hundreds of metres /2. Again this shorter distance is not an automatic increase in bulk temperature but if it was how is the heat going to reach the lower atmosphere, where the 'global warming' measurements are taken?
Nothing of significance can happen, as we're talking about a thin air effect that due to the required conditions operates almost wholly in the stratosphere, which does not circulate significantly with the lower atmosphere - tropopause, convection out due to the temperature gradient being the rong way round at that height. In the troposphere temperature decreases with height and energy transfer towards space by convection operates, in the stratosphere the temperature increases with height and as a physicist you should appreciate the implications for convection. As to radiative transfer, remember the 2nd law and how cold it is up there, cold layers at height cannot heat warmer layers of the atmosphere lower down.
Summary: your desaturation argument is not valid. Just as it wasn't valid the last time we considered it and I explained why. If you take science from books and articles you need to understand its context and basis, or rather lack of, better before trying to sell it on. You had a simiar problem with solar wind effects iirc.
The 'more carbon dioxide means thermageddon' argument is entirely unsupportable.
You are off spouting the more complex desaturation argument as beloved by various sceptic blogs- the specific argument being addressed was that posted by Ali yesterday, that all of the IR that can be absorbed by CO2 is already absorbed within a few meters of ground level. This is not the case, it is not accurate. You know this but don't correct it and, rather than defend this, you're off on the argument merry go round again.Desaturation was discussed and dealt with long ago and offers nothing new. It merely elaborates with images something that we dealt with before. You are off on another attrition loop. Anyway to deal with it all yet again...
Unline NASA diagrams showing the 'greenhouse effect' high up in the atmosphere, most carbon dioxide absorption takes place near the surface of the earth, in a few tens of metres meters. Whatever the distance is and I have no wish to debate it, so call it X. Doubling carbon dioxide levels would halve the distance of absorption to X/2 and a shorter distabce is not an automatic increase in bulk temperature when there are so many degrees of freedom operating and means of energy transfer beyond radiative transfer.
In the desaturation (reasonable principle) application to manmade global warming (both myths), supposedly, the desaturation effect occurs in the atmosphere where conditions of temperature and pressure are both greatly reduced - a reduction in line broadening - and the shoulders on the absorption peaks for carbon dioxide are not saturated. You posted some images of the absorption fine structure 'shoulders'. Also in the thinner atmosphere, the shoulders of the absorptions don't overlap so much with absorptions from water vapor.
The shoulders of the peaks are said to be not saturated, hence desaturation, which means more CO2 will result in more absorption. Not only is this effect minuscule - think again about the physical conditions as to get the temperature and pressure for this effect to operate significantly it's above the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and into the stratosphere, where there would be effectively no mixing with air near the surface of the earth due to the tropopause. Since the 2nd Law of thermodynamics tells us that a cooler upper atmosphere layer cannot heat a lower layer spontaneously by radiative transfer, and convection is ruled out as the temperature gradient is the wrong way round with the tropopause as a barrier, how is this effect (even if large and pertinent to temperature (read on) going to heat the lower troposphere or near-surface?
To get this effect the atmospheric density will be about one tenth that at sea level and the temperature about -50 deg C. At the top of the troposphere pressure is one tenth surface and at the top of the stratosphere about one thousandth. So how thin is the air of which carbon dioxide is only 390 parts per million (v) anyway?
At an atmospheric height relevant to desaturation, carbon dioxide wavelengths will absorb completely in a few hundreds of meters, because at ground level where the density is at least ten times higher they absorb in a few tens of meters. When doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, they would do the same in half the former distance i.e. a few hundreds of metres /2. Again this shorter distance is not an automatic increase in bulk temperature but if it was how is the heat going to reach the lower atmosphere, where the 'global warming' measurements are taken?
Nothing of significance can happen, as we're talking about a thin air effect that due to the required conditions operates almost wholly in the stratosphere, which does not circulate significantly with the lower atmosphere - tropopause, convection out due to the temperature gradient being the rong way round at that height. In the troposphere temperature decreases with height and energy transfer towards space by convection operates, in the stratosphere the temperature increases with height and as a physicist you should appreciate the implications for convection. As to radiative transfer, remember the 2nd law and how cold it is up there, cold layers at height cannot heat warmer layers of the atmosphere lower down.
Summary: your desaturation argument is not valid. Just as it wasn't valid the last time we considered it and I explained why. If you take science from books and articles you need to understand its context and basis, or rather lack of, better before trying to sell it on. You had a simiar problem with solar wind effects iirc.
The 'more carbon dioxide means thermageddon' argument is entirely unsupportable.
As I said, pointless.
You say
"the specific argument being addressed was that posted by Ali yesterday, that all of the IR that can be absorbed by CO2 is already absorbed within a few meters of ground level"
I say
"the removal of line broadening effect is negligible, occurs almost wholly in the stratopshere where the necessary conditions are met, and cannot cause warming of the troposphere because: a shorter absorption distance isn't an automatic bulk temperature increase, there's no convective transfer possible, and the 2nd law as before rules out a cooler higher atmospheric layer heating a lower warmer one by radiative transfer"
Those points have been discussed before and understood by many on here. I showed you how the science actually works outside of advocacy blogs and clearly all you can reply with is "spouting off complex desaturation arguments" well if you can't understand what you're cutting and psting why do you bother? It's not complex to me and I doubt it's complex to others as there are many graduate and post-doc scientists on this thread.
Note the time of editing (original post) before kerplunk goes ballistic on a point of order.
turbobloke said:
I just checked back when saturation, and desaturation, were last discussed in reasonable detail on PH. One was 2006 
Mega-attrition looping by Believers here
TB, could you explain that in laymans terms please? I'm too thick to understand the mental block that HK seems to be havingMega-attrition looping by Believers here
The real Apache said:
turbobloke said:
I just checked back when saturation, and desaturation, were last discussed in reasonable detail on PH. One was 2006
Mega-attrition looping by Believers here
TB, could you explain that in laymans terms please? I'm too thick to understand the mental block that HK seems to be havingMega-attrition looping by Believers here
Carbon dioxide cannot absorb all IR radiation passing through it.
Certain IR wavelengths are absorbed at characteristic wavelengths corresponding to molecular vibration modes, the details of these depend on the geometry / symmetry of any gaseous molecule's structure.
Due to the temperature and pressure in the lower troposphere, collisions between molecules perturb molecular vibrational energy levels and the corresponding absorptions ('broadening').
Under lower troposphere conditions some of the broadened carbon dioxide lines overlap with absorption lines from water vapour which at up to 4% of the atmosphere is as we know more effective than carbon dioxide and it absorbs the corresponding IR.
At altitude the temperature and pressure are less, so there are fewer inter-molecular collisions and less energetic collisions at that, this results in less perturbation of vibrational energy levels, i.e. less broadening, so that the 'shoulders' of the absorption bands of carbon dioxide 'shrink' away from the water vapour absorptions.
The conditions are met in the lower stratosphere.
The argument then goes that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will result in more absorption due to this high altitude effect even if ground level saturation is accepted.
Even so any increase in carbon dioxide absorption suffers from the same error high up as low down.
Low down, a degree of absorption occurring in distance X from the Earth's surface will happen in distance X/2 if carbon dioxide levels are doubled. Half a distance is not an automatic bulk temperature increase since apart from the problem of dimensional inequivalence (units of measurement, one is metres the other is deg C) there are many degrees of freedom and energy transfer can occur by a variety of modes including convection.
High up, where the pressure is one-tenth as near the troposphere-stratosphere boundary, and the temperature is -40 deg C or cooler, the additional absorption will occur in (say) a distance of 10X since the thinner air with carbon dioxide in it is at a pressure one-tenth approx of the lower troposphere, near-surface.
If carbon dioxide is now doubled high up, the same degree of absorption as before will happen in half the distance, i.e. 10X/2. A shorter distance is not an automatic bulk temperature increase as per before...but here the problem is worse.
In the lower troposphere convection can mix gases well but in the stratosphere the temperature increases with height rather than decreases so even if this junkscience act of simply equating a shorter distance to an automatic bulk temperature increase was applicable (it's not) then how can the increased temperature affect the troposphere...the tropopause barrier and lack of convection won't permit much mixing if at all, and a cooler higher atmospheric layer cannot heat a warmer lower layer via radiative transfer anyway by the 2nd Law, so even if there was something in the junkscience it can't affect the troposphere.
Now go back to our discussions on this thread on the True Believer Law of Thermos Dynamics, where an ice cube can heat soup at room temperature (ho ho). In this misconception any single, local act of emission and absorption is nonsensically taken as equivalent to 'cooling' and 'heating' when in fact temperature is a bulk property derived from the particle energy distribution and heating or cooling are net effects over time not instant. It may then seen where the confusion=error arises and how in junkscience a higher cold layer of the atmosphere can allegedly heat a warmer lower layer by radiative transfer if only a single photon is emitted and absorbed. This is of course rubbish for the reasons above relating to temperature being a bulk property and the process of heating or cooling as net over time rather than given by a selective emission and absorption instance.
P.S.
No wish to do an attrition loop on Thermos Dynamics
And ETA there are other reasons for line broadening beyond collision broadening via molecular deformation, namely Doppler broadening via molecular motion and intrinsic Heisenberg broadening via the uncertainty principle. Before a pedant calls that one out
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 13th February 14:17
TB, thanks for taking the time to answer Apache's question. I must admit that your earlier answer th HK was way above my head.
This time around I (think that I) have understood. However I am a bit lost about this bit:
Or am I missing something?
Don
--
This time around I (think that I) have understood. However I am a bit lost about this bit:
turbobloke said:
The argument then goes that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will result in more absorption due to this high altitude effect even if ground level saturation is accepted.
Surely, adding more CO2 will not change the width of the absorbtion lines, and therefore there won't be any more absorbtion???Or am I missing something?
Don
--
Just to try to reconcile back to HK's point re IR...
We all know that things like (ahem) sidewinder missiles lock on IR sources from quite a long way off (well, lets say more than a meter anyway...).
In general, IR across most frequencies will travel a heck of a long way in the atmosphere (as will wavelengths of visible light). But its not most wavelengths we are discussing - its specifically the 15micron wavelength, since this is the wavelenght absorbed by CO2, and it is this absorption which gives rise to the presumed 'greenhouse effect'.
The 15 micron radiation effectively goes nowhere in the atmosphere because it so effectively absorbed by CO2 !.
If you made a sidewinder IR detector wich only operated in the 15 mciron range, it would be considered a bit of a design flaw...
Sorry if ths is teaching you all to suck eggs!
We all know that things like (ahem) sidewinder missiles lock on IR sources from quite a long way off (well, lets say more than a meter anyway...).
In general, IR across most frequencies will travel a heck of a long way in the atmosphere (as will wavelengths of visible light). But its not most wavelengths we are discussing - its specifically the 15micron wavelength, since this is the wavelenght absorbed by CO2, and it is this absorption which gives rise to the presumed 'greenhouse effect'.
The 15 micron radiation effectively goes nowhere in the atmosphere because it so effectively absorbed by CO2 !.
If you made a sidewinder IR detector wich only operated in the 15 mciron range, it would be considered a bit of a design flaw...
Sorry if ths is teaching you all to suck eggs!
don4l said:
TB, thanks for taking the time to answer Apache's question. I must admit that your earlier answer th HK was way above my head.
This time around I (think that I) have understood. However I am a bit lost about this bit:
Or am I missing something?
Don
--
It's to do with capturing radiation that was already heading out towards space from ground level, high in the atmosphere where the shoulders on the absorption peaks for carbon dioxide are not saturated. However as at lower levels, increasing carbon dioxide concentration merely decreases the distance over which absorption occurs, and the shorter distance remains different to an automatic bulk temperature increase even 'up there'. Meanwhile there is no visible human influence 'down here' which is a measure of how daft this can get.This time around I (think that I) have understood. However I am a bit lost about this bit:
turbobloke said:
The argument then goes that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will result in more absorption due to this high altitude effect even if ground level saturation is accepted.
Surely, adding more CO2 will not change the width of the absorbtion lines, and therefore there won't be any more absorbtion???Or am I missing something?
Don
--
Ali G said:
Just to try to reconcile back to HK's point re IR...
We all know that things like (ahem) sidewinder missiles lock on IR sources from quite a long way off (well, lets say more than a meter anyway...).
In general, IR across most frequencies will travel a heck of a long way in the atmosphere (as will wavelengths of visible light). But its not most wavelengths we are discussing - its specifically the 15micron wavelength, since this is the wavelenght absorbed by CO2, and it is this absorption which gives rise to the presumed 'greenhouse effect'.
The 15 micron radiation effectively goes nowhere in the atmosphere because it so effectively absorbed by CO2 !.
If you made a sidewinder IR detector wich only operated in the 15 mciron range, it would be considered a bit of a design flaw...
Sorry if ths is teaching you all to suck eggs!
No, not at all, and equally may I add that IR observatories are either built on mountain tops or sent into orbit since water vapour is a major problem (cf carbon dioxide, puny) and you either have to get above as much water vapour in the atmosphere as you can by going to altitude, or observe from a satellite e.g. IRAS above and beyond the atmosphere if you want to undertake IR astronomy.We all know that things like (ahem) sidewinder missiles lock on IR sources from quite a long way off (well, lets say more than a meter anyway...).
In general, IR across most frequencies will travel a heck of a long way in the atmosphere (as will wavelengths of visible light). But its not most wavelengths we are discussing - its specifically the 15micron wavelength, since this is the wavelenght absorbed by CO2, and it is this absorption which gives rise to the presumed 'greenhouse effect'.
The 15 micron radiation effectively goes nowhere in the atmosphere because it so effectively absorbed by CO2 !.
If you made a sidewinder IR detector wich only operated in the 15 mciron range, it would be considered a bit of a design flaw...
Sorry if ths is teaching you all to suck eggs!
Facefirst said:
And I think, in the interest of fairness, that it needs pointing out that:
1) My 'blanket judgments' were wrong, I was wrong to make them, and I stated as such along with an apology.
2) I maintain my 'layman credentials' and am quite capable of evidencing my position using credible sources such as papers and other literature.
3) That time lines establish that I asked for help on the Bad Science forums after posting here, thus refuting any accusations of trolling. Further more, I've not regurgitated any of their arguments (no more than I have 'regurgitated' arguments from, say, peer reviewed journals etc).
4) I stopped posting comments from here on there when asked to do so, as established by a detailed discussion on forum clock differences.
I hope that helps.
Don't worry about it FF, there's nothing wrong with seeking advice elswhere and you've made many good points that clearly haven't originated from BS so you aren't just channeling the arguments of others. Those complaining about it are showing a sudden opportunistic sensibility. PH-ers seeking advice here on debates being held elsewhere is a regular occurence and nobody bats an eye-lid - to see how faux this righteousness is all you have to do is wait a while for the next time.1) My 'blanket judgments' were wrong, I was wrong to make them, and I stated as such along with an apology.
2) I maintain my 'layman credentials' and am quite capable of evidencing my position using credible sources such as papers and other literature.
3) That time lines establish that I asked for help on the Bad Science forums after posting here, thus refuting any accusations of trolling. Further more, I've not regurgitated any of their arguments (no more than I have 'regurgitated' arguments from, say, peer reviewed journals etc).
4) I stopped posting comments from here on there when asked to do so, as established by a detailed discussion on forum clock differences.
I hope that helps.
In my book the only mistake you made was agreeing not to cross-post things from here over there - again this is a completely new standard being applied and your politeness is being used as a stick to beat you with as though you've admitted a wrong.
Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 13th February 14:43
Meanwhile I suspect that a few folks on this thread may well not have seen or delved into this, do have a delve, delving is good.
How Does the IPCC Safeguard Against Bias?
According to insiders, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change selects its authors via a secretive process. Nothing prevents scientists belonging to certain schools-of-thought from dominating the reports that get produced.
Does the IPCC Follow the Rules? Insiders Say ‘No’
According to insiders, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rules are being ignored on the one hand – and circumvented on the other.
These relate to this which is discussing the content of this
How Does the IPCC Safeguard Against Bias?
According to insiders, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change selects its authors via a secretive process. Nothing prevents scientists belonging to certain schools-of-thought from dominating the reports that get produced.
Does the IPCC Follow the Rules? Insiders Say ‘No’
According to insiders, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rules are being ignored on the one hand – and circumvented on the other.
These relate to this which is discussing the content of this
turbobloke said:
Meanwhile I suspect that a few folks on this thread may well not have seen or delved into this, do have a delve, delving is good.
How Does the IPCC Safeguard Against Bias?
According to insiders, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change selects its authors via a secretive process. Nothing prevents scientists belonging to certain schools-of-thought from dominating the reports that get produced.
Does the IPCC Follow the Rules? Insiders Say ‘No’
According to insiders, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rules are being ignored on the one hand – and circumvented on the other.
These relate to this which is discussing the content of this
I scanned it and it was damning, but will it change anything? maybe, if the report is correct in that the Government realise they have alienated people with their heavy handed attitude........A bigger game changer for me is their dismay in finding they can't pay for their fantasies How Does the IPCC Safeguard Against Bias?
According to insiders, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change selects its authors via a secretive process. Nothing prevents scientists belonging to certain schools-of-thought from dominating the reports that get produced.
Does the IPCC Follow the Rules? Insiders Say ‘No’
According to insiders, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rules are being ignored on the one hand – and circumvented on the other.
These relate to this which is discussing the content of this
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff