Not even close. The CO2 capture bands are almost saturated right now. That's why we have increased our CO2 concentration 50% but only increased retention of heat by about .15%.
Climate-gate
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
Not even close. The CO2 capture bands are almost saturated right now. That's why we have increased our CO2 concentration 50% but only increased retention of heat by about .15%.
You are correct (as usual) but for CH4 there is still a long way to go before near saturation. I.e. doubling the concentration in the air will nearly double the warming effect.
Definitely. Fortunately the half-life of methane is a lot lower than that of CO2.
Yes. The survival in air half life is about 10 years. CH4 reacts with the OH- radical concentration and both are destroyed. Measurements of CH4 half-life in air about a decade ago gave the half life as slightly less than 10 years but now it is slightly more than 10 years as the OH- radical concentration is dropping, but the flux of CH4 into the air continues to accelerate. I.e. Global warming, fastest in the Arctic, is releasing CH4 from the tundra and shallow Artic Ocean floor. Now near the Siberian shore, "clouds," some more than a mile in diameter, are bubbling up too dense for sub sonars to function - where they had no problems in WWII.
We may be in a thermal "run-a-way" condition already.* The annually greater release of CH4 during 2012 removed OH- faster than natural processes could replace it, so the CH4 released in 2013, will on average remain in the air longer. Etc. Thus CH4 is the real threat, not CO2 as two different positive feedback are increasing its concentration in the air:
(1) CH4's destruction of OH- is increasing the atmospheric half life of CH4.
(2) The global warming effect of CH4, is increasing the rate of release of CH4.
One should note the CH4 is a "3D" molecule not the "1D" molecule that O=C=O is. Thus has more complex absorption spectra. More and wider absorption bands that absorb at more IR wave lengths and do so much more strongly. I.e. one CH4 molecule has same GW effect as about 25 CO2 molecules.
The two feed backs listed above do not include the feed back interactions with other molecules (CO2 & H2O, mainly) via global warming. I.e. The warming of the oceans reduces their ability to remove CO2 from the air and increases the H2O in the air. It is highly probable that the average increase in atmospheric humidity is responsible for the stronger storms, increase of flooding (more rain) and their greater economic damage. {30 April 14 insert by edit: 32 now dead in < 4 days of tornados and flooding in US's gulf states} Some studies, indicate that the surface layers of tropical (warmer) oceans are now at saturation for CO2. - No longer absorption sinks for CO2.
The increase of humidity can be lethal: Human bodies at 37C degrees, even when just resting in a chair, need to dump ~100 W to the air. They do that mainly by perspiration (evaporation, which is impossible if the humidity is 100% and less as the humidity increases.) Less than an hour of exposure to 35C wet bulb temperature will kill you as the evaporative cooling with only 2 degrees C from total area of a naked human will not remove 100W. And it is not just humans that will die, but many animals will too. Those that live in water like alligators, sea turtles, hippopotami, etc. may survive 35C wet bulb conditions. Also note that temperatures above 40C are quite common in many inhabited parts of the world so all that is needed to make humans and many warm blooded animals extinct, is a little more ocean evaporation. I.e. at 40C you don't need 100% humidity to be lethal but I don't know how low it can go and still be lethal. Many do die in extreme "heat waves" now.
Unfortunately the amount of CH4 in tundra and on the ocean floor holds more carbon that ever existed in coal, probably more than in ALL economically recoverable fossil fuels than ever existed. So I don't see any limit to how much the multiple feed back processes now operating will be limited prior to reaching 35C wet bulb in at least the tropics and possibly in the southern US states.
* Lets hope we are not too late. In any case there is no reason not to switch the sugar cane based alcohol fuel for cars. It is cheaper per mile driven with zero subsidies (not the millions annually given to growers of corn). It is cleaner burning so tune up and repair bills are lower. But most importantly it is slightly "CO2 negative" instead of the very strong source of CO2 that gasoline is. This is due to fact some of the cane (the roots) remains in the ground and huge volumes of alcohol would be in ocean tankers, the storage tanks at ports, and the fuel tanks of more than 100 million cars if the world were to switch to that fuel instead of gasoline. Compared to switching to battery powered cars, the changes needed at car factories are trivial as the IC engine technology remains with just a few minor changes. (A monitor of the fuel mix so gasoline can still be used / mixed in as any percentage/ during the decade or so the transition would require, and some rubber gaskets and hoses that are not damaged by alcohol.) Alcohol fueled cars are a 30 year proven technology used in Brazil, now with "Flex-Fuel" cars that run on any mix of alcohol and gasoline. (I always buy alcohol as it is cheaper per mile driven and gives slightly more power.)
The area needed to supply all the world's cars still needing liquid fuel is about 3% of the arable land (less than world's abandoned pasture). No forest trees need to be cut, as Big Oil tells you. In fact if only the abandoned pasture were used, food production would increase as normally about every five years, soy beans are planted in the field instead of cane, to restore the available nitrogen content more cheaply than with artificial fertilizer. Brazil would love to be growing more valuable corps in it very fertile soil and importing alcohol for Africa and Central America, where millions now live "outside the cash economy." - Convert them into paid cutters and planters of cane so they can buy products made in more advanced countries. - A "win / win" for all but "Big oil."
For a very good discussion of the Artic Ocean CH4 problem, including brief view of the dense methane clouds bubbling up (at 7:30 & 9:45 into the less than 20 minute video), by four experts* watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsPHytEnJM&list=PLRlpsECwDGcKBvVd3pJetCgROMKkNmCCA
* World renowned experts: Dr James Hansen, Dr Natalia Shakhova, Dr Peter Wadhams, David Wasdell (Apollo-Gaia Project). The second is Russian leader who has been measuring these Artic changes for decades. I STRONGLY urge you to watch this video to the end.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/16/Climate-McCarthyism-the-scandal-grows
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...e-Defector-Forced-to-Resign-by-Alarmist-Fatwa
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...e-Defector-Forced-to-Resign-by-Alarmist-Fatwa
Third link concludes with: ‘The paper, co-authored by Lennart Bengtsson, was originally submitted to Environmental Research Letters as a research Letter. This was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, who reported that the paper contained errors and did not provide a significant advancement." The two reviewers may have been biased, I have no way to know; but surely told what the errors were.
The first is basically the same. It states:
"This does all rather invite the question: if the climate establishment is really so sure of the solidity of the science underpinning its doomsday predictions, how come it needs to adopt such desperate, unethical and unscientific methods to shut out dissenting voices?"
And then the very next paragraph gives a self contradicting reference to published anti-GW paper and a "bad week" for the GW people I. e. states:
"The Bengtsson scandal comes at the end of an exceedingly bad week for the cause of climate alarmism. In other news, still further scorn has been poured on the methodology of the Cook et al paper on the "97 per cent consensus."
The second link is also about Lennart Bengtsson's failure to get his paper published, which had errors and he is a "research fellow" not even an assistant professor according to that article; However, the fourth link, also about Lennart Bengtsson, does add "professor" in front of "research fellow."
SUMMARY: All four of your links relate to the rejection of the same article and it was reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who found errors in it.,
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't freedom of speech and freedom of association the right not to associate your writing efforts with someone because you don't like their associates? This isn't McCarthyism, this is more akin to Donald Sterling not understanding why his own actions shocked his associates. This may be "going emeritus."
"It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’
This, Prof Bengtsson told the Times, was "utterly unacceptable" and "an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views."
He added:
‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist.’
"As the emails leaked in 2009 made abundantly clear, the organised suppression of sceptical papers in learned journals by the alarmist establishment has long been rife within the field of climate science."
"Like most of the mainstream media, the Times has been remarkably slow to latch onto the corruption, malfeasance, waste, dishonesty, bullying and lies which are rife throughout the climate change industry. Finally, it seems, the MSM is beginning to wake up to something it really ought to have picked up on long ago: the greatest and most expensive scientific scandal in history, in which a cabal of lavishly grant-funded, activist-scientists from Britain to Australia, Germany to the US, has exaggerated the evidence for "man-made global warming" and attempted ruthlessly to suppress the work of sceptical scientists who dispute the "consensus."
"This does all rather invite the question: if the climate establishment is really so sure of the solidity of the science underpinning its doomsday predictions, how come it needs to adopt such desperate, unethical and unscientific methods to shut out dissenting voices?"
That about sums it up. It's not settled science. Any political hack that says such a thing errs by definition. Science is never settled because of the limitations of those doing the science. What's going on is the ramrodding of an agenda upon the world. Essentially a manifestation of tyranny. The money for these prostitutes comes from the politicians who have the ability to squeeze/extort/wrest/rob the haves. The 'authority' of the prostitutes in the eyes of the ignorant common man gives the lie/agenda traction...which in turn increases the power of the political scum. Everybody's happy from the liars and prostitutes to the exploited, hapless suckers willingly divesting themselves of what little they already have out of a misguided sense of self sacrifice. It's sick.
Photizo's technique there - of baiting response with bare links so that he canbilly said:
1) make other people do the work of constructing his argument and making his point for him (from the links alone, he might as easily be setting up a mockery or parody of the continuing absurdity characteristic of denialists, as anything else - the work of reason and inference is put on the readers)
2) attack other people's assertions without having to defend any of his own, thereby protecting the absurd garbage he is attempting to establish as reasonable from reason
3) disown whatever is chosen by critics (readers) as most obviously error, fraud, bullshit, and deception from these links, allowing the impression that what he takes from them is a sound and honest remainder without ever saying what exactly that is
- is one reason many moderated forums in the scientific networld ban bare links in discussion forums.
To read and respond to any more of those links, none of which - not a single one, ever, on this forum - have legitimately supported any of the arguments Photizo has attempted to make from them, is to play a part in an attempted deception. You become the foil in an attempted sleight of mind.
And so we have this:
That is of course false, in several ways
(the emails show nothing of the kind, there is no alarmist establishment, there is no organized suppression of "sceptical papers" (sic), the emails involved were not leaked but stolen by hackers (a felony crime, as yet unprosecuted) and then manipulated so as to abet slander of a private citizen via falsehood (also a felony crime), and so forth).
Photizo has been informed of all this - he cannot post such things as his own claims any more, because they've been debuinked so thoroughly so many times that he can make no argument or provide any evidence.
But he wants to repeat that and the like, over and over and over, on forums like this one, for some reason (note the motives he attributes to others). So he makes arrangement to do so, with the help of baited foils.
So smoking doesn't increase your risk of cancer because the science isn't settled? Would be a great excuse to keep smoking. (And in fact cigarette companies tried that for years, using the same arguments deniers are using now.)
The problem there is that reality tends to smack you in the face when you use such cheap rhetorical tricks to do what you want to do rather than heed the science. In the case of smoking it could be an annoying case of metastatic lung cancer - and at that point all your rhetorical points in the world won't convince those cells of yours to stop dividing so fast. And the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, for example, won't settle back down just because you quote some right-wing blather at it. The real world follows the dictates of nature rather than the hopes of politicians.
To photzimo what do you think is not scientific or politically motivated in my serious post 644 concern about CH4 being a possible killer of much of humanity and many other manuals?
Methane, CH4's Greenhouse Warming Potential,GWP (compared to CO2) is initially much stronger than equal mass of CO2: "A substance's GWP depends on the timespan over which the potential is calculated. A gas which is quickly removed from the atmosphere may initially have a large effect but for longer time periods as it has been removed becomes less important. Thus methane has a potential of 34 over 100 years but 86 over 20 years" - quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming potential.
This is because CH4 reacts with the atmospheric OH- radical destroying both to make water vapor and CO2. Now, with the OH- radical concentration falling and the CH4 release rate increasing, the half-life of CH4 has increased to 12.4 years, from the less than 10 of a decade ago. I. e. the GWP of CH4 is increasing with no clear upper limit in sight.
The supply of CH4 that can be released by GW is enormous. More carbon in the tundra and shallow sea that all the coal that ever existed. And in a positive feed back cycle, more is being released every year. Read post 644 on this again. A 35C wet bulb temperature will kill you in an hour, and for much of the world it seems certain that will occur as also in positive feed back is ocean evaporation.
* In this interactive slideshow, below, UCS reveals the secret tactics used by the fossil fuel industry to spread disinformation and delay action on climate change — the very same tactics used by Big Tobacco for years to mislead the public about the dangers of smoking.
Watch: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...sil-fuel-industry-disinformation-tactics.html
This is the same group that after years of publishing scientific facts, forced the tobacco industry to admit smoking caused cancer and was addictive.
Perhaps you deny that too?
Fox News will report any thing that they are paid well for.
Methane, CH4's Greenhouse Warming Potential,GWP (compared to CO2) is initially much stronger than equal mass of CO2: "A substance's GWP depends on the timespan over which the potential is calculated. A gas which is quickly removed from the atmosphere may initially have a large effect but for longer time periods as it has been removed becomes less important. Thus methane has a potential of 34 over 100 years but 86 over 20 years" - quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming potential.
This is because CH4 reacts with the atmospheric OH- radical destroying both to make water vapor and CO2. Now, with the OH- radical concentration falling and the CH4 release rate increasing, the half-life of CH4 has increased to 12.4 years, from the less than 10 of a decade ago. I. e. the GWP of CH4 is increasing with no clear upper limit in sight.
The supply of CH4 that can be released by GW is enormous. More carbon in the tundra and shallow sea that all the coal that ever existed. And in a positive feed back cycle, more is being released every year. Read post 644 on this again. A 35C wet bulb temperature will kill you in an hour, and for much of the world it seems certain that will occur as also in positive feed back is ocean evaporation.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/ said:
* In this interactive slideshow, below, UCS reveals the secret tactics used by the fossil fuel industry to spread disinformation and delay action on climate change — the very same tactics used by Big Tobacco for years to mislead the public about the dangers of smoking.
Watch: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...sil-fuel-industry-disinformation-tactics.html
This is the same group that after years of publishing scientific facts, forced the tobacco industry to admit smoking caused cancer and was addictive.
Perhaps you deny that too?
Last edited by a moderator:
To photzimo what do you think is not scientific or politically motivated in my serious post 644 concern about CH4 being a possible killer of much of humanity and many other manuals?
Methane, CH4's Greenhouse Warming Potential,GWP (compared to CO2) is initially much stronger than equal mass of CO2: "A substance's GWP depends on the timespan over which the potential is calculated. A gas which is quickly removed from the atmosphere may initially have a large effect but for longer time periods as it has been removed becomes less important. Thus methane has a potential of 34 over 100 years but 86 over 20 years" - quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming potential.
This is because CH4 reacts with the atmospheric OH- radical destroying both to make water vapor and CO2. Now, with the OH- radical concentration falling and the CH4 release rate increasing, the half-life of CH4 has increased to 12.4 years, from the less than 10 of a decade ago. I. e. the GWP of CH4 is increasing with no clear upper limit in sight.
The supply of CH4 that can be released by GW is enormous. More carbon in the tundra and shallow sea that all the coal that ever existed. And in a positive feed back cycle, more is being released every year. Read post 644 on this again. A 35C wet bulb temperature will kill you in an hour, and for much of the world it seems certain that will occur as also in positive feed back is ocean evaporation.
* In this interactive slideshow, below, UCS reveals the secret tactics used by the fossil fuel industry to spread disinformation and delay action on climate change — the very same tactics used by Big Tobacco for years to mislead the public about the dangers of smoking.
Watch: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...sil-fuel-industry-disinformation-tactics.html
This is the same group that after years of publishing scientific facts, forced the tobacco industry to admit smoking caused cancer and was addictive.
Perhaps you deny that too?
Fox News will report any thing that they are paid well for.
That's also the Fox News intellectual honesty ratio: Honesty/dishonesty = 7%/93% = .075269. And the 'FoX News bullshit ratio': non bullshit/bullshit = .075269 for all subject news reports.
Fix this model error
Fox News bullshit ratio: bullshit/non bullshit = 93%/7% = 13.2857
Last edited:
For a very good discussion of the Artic Ocean CH4 problem, including brief view of the dense, nearly mile in diameter, methane clouds bubbling up (at 7:30 & 9:45 into the less than 20 minute video), by four experts watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsPHytEnJM&list=PLRlpsECwDGcKBvVd3pJetCgROMKkNmCCA Note these "CH4 clouds" did not exist as recently as WWII. Then sub's sonars functioned well off the coast of Siberia, but now are blinded by the scattering bubbles. - Like your are in an extremely dense fog.http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/02/arctic-methane-a-global-environmetal-disaster-in-the-making/#.U3fOH9EU_Nw said:
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/methaneuk/chapter02.pdf 20 Chapter 2: Climate science of methane said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Does the greenhouse effect change when gases like CO2, are saturated with respected to IR absorption?
In other words, say we begin with a still CO2 molecule; ground state. It has plenty of room to absorb energy such as IR. Say the molecule has been absorbing IR fr some time and finally reaches a saturation point, where all degrees of freedom for IR are now full and saturated. Won't it become more transparent to any additional IR? When it was at the ground state, the IR photon dwell time was higher, since there was room to absorb and retain new photons. But as it becomes saturated, new IR can't dwell for long, since the CO2 is full and other IR has to make room. This point is called heat capacity.
In a regular greenhouse, the temperature won't keep rising as fast as in the morning, because the heat loss at the walls will rise as time goes on. When the greenhouse just begins to warm up, in the morning, the walls are still cold from the night before, so heat transfer outward is low, even with plenty of sun shining in. But as the greenhouse warms the walls to saturation, the heat transfer outward gets higher and higher.
I was wondering if we are using the entire day of the greenhouse analogy, including wall saturation, or just the maximum AM warm up, with cold walls with plenty of residual heat capacity in the walls; maximum insulator arrangement.
In other words, say we begin with a still CO2 molecule; ground state. It has plenty of room to absorb energy such as IR. Say the molecule has been absorbing IR fr some time and finally reaches a saturation point, where all degrees of freedom for IR are now full and saturated. Won't it become more transparent to any additional IR? When it was at the ground state, the IR photon dwell time was higher, since there was room to absorb and retain new photons. But as it becomes saturated, new IR can't dwell for long, since the CO2 is full and other IR has to make room. This point is called heat capacity.
In a regular greenhouse, the temperature won't keep rising as fast as in the morning, because the heat loss at the walls will rise as time goes on. When the greenhouse just begins to warm up, in the morning, the walls are still cold from the night before, so heat transfer outward is low, even with plenty of sun shining in. But as the greenhouse warms the walls to saturation, the heat transfer outward gets higher and higher.
I was wondering if we are using the entire day of the greenhouse analogy, including wall saturation, or just the maximum AM warm up, with cold walls with plenty of residual heat capacity in the walls; maximum insulator arrangement.
The answer to your initial question is yes; but you don't correctly understand why.
The rate of decay of an upper state to a lower one by radiation essentially a fixed constant. Likewise the probably of a "passing" photon being absorbed by an atom in the lower state making a "inverse radiative" transition to a higher energy state is a constant but does depend upon the wave length of the photon. (The energy of the photon must be very nearly the same as the energy gap between the two states. Any tiny difference will be taken up by a change in the kinetic energy of the absorbing atom.)
So your concern with the atomic picture is ill founded. Here is what happens with "saturation of the absorption bands":
There is a net upward flux of radiation which if the wave length matches one of the absorption bands, may be absorbed. Then it will very quickly be re-radiated (in tiny fraction of a second). The partially or fully up direction of this re-radiation is same probability as the opposite direction. I.e. the re-radiated energy is sent in a random direction. The net effect is that the upward flux is a decreasing function of altitude. With the current concentration of CO2 (vertically changing for other reasons) at a very high altitude, the averaged (over all the CO2 atom's absorption bands) is only about 1/3 the upward flux that existed at the surface of the earth. Thus CO2's effect on global warming is "2/3 saturated" - I. e. even a 100 fold increase in the CO2 concentration would only absorb only that last 1/3 (a 50% increase in the current effect of CO2 on global warming). That is why the often and ignorantly cited true fact that CO2 concentration has been several times higher in the world is not evidence that there is not much reason for concern with Global Warming.
The CO2 molecule is linear (1D) with only a pair of double bonds: O=C=O but CH4 is "3D molecule" (a pyramid with the C in the center.) and thus has a much more complex set of absorption band and most are stronger than simple CO2 has. Furthermore, CH4's current concentration is low - far from saturation. I.e. if its concentration were to increase by factor of ~4 (or is it 6?, I forget) it would still not be significantly saturated and yet have greater Global Warming effect than CO2 does. I. e. CH4, not CO2 should be your main concern. It, via mutual positive feed back interactions with especially water vapor, which is and even stronger* than CH4 has the power to kill most of the world's mammals, humans included.
The oceans are evaporating more, causing more rain that increases the average humidity, makes floods** (and associated landslides) more common and serious. Each of these agents (CO2, CH4 & H2O) by its self is a positive feed by system. They have also mutual positive feed back systems. The fact that the Arctic is warm about 5 times faster than the tropics is melting the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean. That has a very strong self alone positive feed back system too. I.e. the square meter that last year was ice covered reflected at least 90% of the sunlight but now that it is open water, it absorbs 90% of the solar energy falling on it. As soon as start of Fall 2015, there may be no floating ice in the Arctic Ocean. - It is too late to prevent the end of summer floating ice (or the extinction of polar bears, not in zoos) in the very near future.
This accelerating Arctic warming is weakening the jet stream, as it is driven by the temperature difference between the arctic and the temperate zones. With less momentum in rotations about the N. pole, it wanders N/S more. That brings very cold air into the deep south of the US and its "fronts" contact warm fronts from the Gulf of Mexico. That is why "once every 100 year" tornadoes are happening every few years now. Crop freezes and terrible ice storms occur now in the deep south. My daughter's husband had a 30 hour trip back home from work, much of it on foot, as car were abandon, many out of gas, all over Atlanta's highways a few months ago. This is just a small taste of what is coming.
The best practical thing that could and should be done, ASAP, is to switch to more economical per mile driven sugar cane bassed alcohol for ALL the world's cars needing liquid fuel.
Less than 3% of world's arable land would be required. Just the abandoned pasture land in Africa is much more than needed. That alcohol fuel for cars is slightly "CO2 negative" - I. e. removes more CO2 from the air growing the cane than comes out of the exhaust pipes of cars. People need to revolt against "big oil" now abusing them, and perhaps killing their grand children. (You die if in 35C wet bulb temperature for about an hour.)
* "Even stronger" because the H20 molecule has a permanent electric dipole with both the positive protons (the two Hs) on the same side of the negative O - - quasi ion, 105 degrees in angular separation, not 180.
** By edit, about 2 hours after writing, CNN was telling 35 dead in the Balkans with worse ever floods and landslides burying houses.
It is only going to get worse much worse.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree. Photizo seems to be a brain washed fraud - uninterested in real discussion. Has not replied to my direct request to him at start of post 651, asking for at least one point he thought was false or "politically motivated" in my post 644. He does seem to be politically motivated. Perhaps he is a paid shill for big oil?
In post 645, he posted without any comment four links - all about the same research fellow whose anti-climate warming paper was not published as two reviewers fond errors in it and it offered nothing new.
Yeah, he's nothing but a crank and quickly forgotten like yesterday's weather forecast. (Shrug)
They're posted as information for any who care to read. If someone desires to comment way or the other, that's fine.