Global warming is not caused by CO2

  • #101
Andrew Mason
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,610
356
This is how a greenhouse really works:
A greenhouse can use many different techniques for regulating and/or storing heat. These do not illustrate the greenhouse principle. The principle is simple: let shortwave radiant energy in and trap the longwave radiation on its way out.

There is a popular misconception that the greenhouse effect is misnamed, suggesting that the trapping of heat by CO2 in the atmosphere is fundamentally different than the use of glass in a greenhouse. The principle is the same, although the mechanism is different. In a greenhouse the glass reflects the IR radiation back into the greenhouse ie. the IR radiation is not absorbed and reradiated by the glass. With CO2 the IR radiation emitted by the surface of the earth is absorbed by the CO2, so the temperature of the CO2 increases. The CO2 then emits IR radiation - half of it back toward the earth.

AM
 
  • #103
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,028
16
It is well understood that the "greenhouse effect" is a misnoma. An actual greenhouse works by physically preventing air from convecting heat outside of its glass housing. The "greenhouse" effect in the atmosphere is completely different, it works by gas particles absorbing energy in specific bands of the the electro-magnetic spectrum and re-emitting this energy, some of which goes back towards the earth.

Convection is the most efficient form of heat transfer, of course it accounts for a great deal of the earth's dissipated energy. So much so that I don't think that small changes in CO2 will drive a significant increase in this dissipative mechanism. In fact, I don't really see why it would necessarily act as a convection enhancer in the first place, perhaps it even has the reverse effect? Given that CO2 covers bands of the electro-magnetic spectrum not covered by water vapour or methane, I reckon it's probably more important as a greenhouse gas, because if it weren't there the energy would be free to escape.

As for the discussion surrounding the scientific method, I think we have to look at this science less as a pure mathematical science, such as the type of science that Feynman was doing, and more as a kind of "geophysical hazards" type science. This is mixed with political, financial and of course sociological considerations which detract from the pure science - I don't mean that in an "excuses for poor science" kind of way - it's just how this science is. For example, take the study of volcanology, if the scientist who studies the volcano thinks it's going to erupt, she does her best to check the science but she cannot be 100% certain that it will go; it's still her job to let people know she thinks it's gonna go, perhaps she will give them a degree of certainty and allow the authorities to handle the PR. Of course I'm not saying that Feynman was wrong, he was most certainly right in my opinion, and it is a shame that climate science (and earth sciences in general) isn't closer to the rigourous science conducted by the likes of Feynman, but the complexity of the macroscopic scale forbids it. Incidentally, I'm not so sure that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions = global warming hypothesis is presented as being "proven", I seem to remember a "90% certain" from the IPCC.

To quote a famous glaciology paper, Mann 1978, when the fear of global warming first started to emerge:

Schneider sums up the dilemma facing mankind: despite the crudities and inadequacies of present techniques for modelling the climatic effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 content and the resultant doubts about the magnitude of the warming that would actually occur, we cannot afford to let the atmosphere carry out the experiment before taking action because if the results confirm the prognosis, and we should know one way or another by the end of the century, it will be too late to remedy the situation on account of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere (Keeling and Bacastow estimate that, if all accessible fules were burnt, restoration of pre-industrial levels of CO2 would take at least 10,000 yr).

S
I fully agree with what you write, and I always pointed out that AGW is 1) a genuine possibility, that, given the data, is certainly plausible and 2) that given the potential damage (although that can also be disputed, but ok...) of AGW, even if there were only a 30% chance of it actually happening in dramatic proportions, we should try to mitigate it. So, given the current state of affairs, I think that there is no discussion that we should at least plan how to get our CO2 emissions down, just in case. But that's the social and political part.

However, science is science and it is not because the means to gather proof are harder, that truth is easier to find and hence that one has to be less rigorous. And what disturbs me profoundly in the *scientific* discussion of AGW, is that open but sceptic inquiry is now frowned upon - while it should be the prevailing attitude. When you look at the IPCC and all the supportive bodies around it, it seems that if you even dare to question certain hypotheses of the AGW theory, you are stamped as a heretic, a climate sceptic, etc... with the underlying insinuation that you are or a crackpot, or that you have some or other vested interest in denying AGW, or that you have yourself leading by your emotions and are in a psychological state of denial.

We have had, according to their saying, official members of the IPCC here on this board requesting that discussions be closed simply because they were putting in doubt aspects of the AGW hypothesis, and that this should be treated as crackpot stuff, as if it were creationism or something of the kind. I find this, given the current state of knowledge, a very very worrisome attitude on the scientific level. It is the thing I try to point out (and I might come over as an AGW denier because of that, which I'm not).

Again, there's enough stuff on the table to say that it is not completely crazy to think of AGW, and given its potential dangers in its most extreme forms, that by itself is sufficient to warrant careful policies. Even a 10% chance of AGW (which means that there is 90% chance that AGW is not true) should make us err on the side of caution. Nobody would accept, say, a 10% chance that we would ignite the atmosphere in the coming century or 10% chance of some other global disaster. So the very absence of total proof that there is no AGW is sufficient to warrant careful policies.

But that has *nothing* to do with the question whether it makes sense or not to investigate in the difficulties that the AGW theory still faces. The very fact that taking on this position now makes you a heretic, or a non-scientist, or a spokesman of this or that presumed lobby, is, to me, as a scientist, profoundly shocking.

Also the 90% certainty displayed by the IPCC is itself just a statistical estimate of a distribution of responses to radiative forcings which is based upon certain hypotheses which are then given 100% a priori certainty. I think it is a very optimistic estimate of the actual state of knowledge.
 
  • #104
4,465
72
We have had, according to their saying, official members of the IPCC here on this board requesting that discussions be closed simply because they were putting in doubt aspects of the AGW hypothesis, and that this should be treated as crackpot stuff, as if it were creationism or something of the kind.
:grumpy: I should not react to the less apparent due diligence of that IPCC groupthink but this is insane. If you can't win the discussion, remove the opponent. Why wasn't this alleged IPCC member invited to refute the rebuttals and demonstrate the robustness of the climate change notion?

Problem is that all evidence has evaporated; the ice cores; the hockeystick and the actual records.

In the beginning there were the ice cores showing a remarkable correlation between "temperature" and carbon dioxide. Given the greenhouse effect hypothesis this appeared to be a rather convincing substantiation, which certainly warranted climate caution.

But later research showed a substantial lag of CO2, following temperatures and the alternate guess of explaining it away as positive feedback, has never been substantiated. Instead, the characteristic behavior of positive feedback is missing. It actually shows that CO2 did nothing observable, essentially falsifying the estimated greenhouse effect of CO2.

Then came the hockey stick, Mann et al ironing out the wrinkles of the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice age in the last millennium; showing an overwhelming convincing nobrainer correlation between temperatures and CO2 both rising dramatically in the last millenium.

But then it was demonstrated that the hockey stick was mainly based on an incorrect algoritm, causing all Monte Carlo simulations to produce hockeysticks. Later reconstructions of the last millennium do show the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age again, demonstrating the predominance of natural variability independent of CO2. Mind that he discussion, whether or not the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, is irrelevant and plays no role in asserting the “warming power” of CO2.

An then the actual records; indeed the temperatures and CO2 were rising simultaneously in the last quarter of the last century, again suggesting causality. However the warming trend diminished around the beginning of this century, while the CO2 continued to rise, again demonstrating that natural variability outperforms CO2.

Notice also that melting glaciers, a warmer Arctic and rising sea levels, merely proof changing conditions, but not what caused those changes. Furthermore, notice also that climate model runs, based on the unproven hypothesis merely constitute circular reasoning. That’s no evidence either.

So what is the evidence left that supports substantial warming due to rising levels of CO2? I can’t think of any. Instead we have competing hypotheses (Chilingar et al 2008, Miscolczi 2007) explaining why the basic idea’s of the greenhouse hypothesis may be incorrect.

But it doesn’t matter since we have to curb emissions anyway to transit to sustainable energy, right? Wrong. It matters because science is turned into ideology or dogma here to enforce policy. That will backfire hard eventually when proven incorrect in the future. Perhaps we should let the governments be run by engineers, who can’t afford basing their designs on unproven dogmas.
 
Last edited:
  • #105
wolram
Gold Member
4,267
557
The worrying thing to me is, that scientists can not derive an experiment to prove or dis prove AGW, the laboratory is Earth and is tangible, or is it that this problem IS so testable?
 
  • #106
Andrew Mason
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,610
356
However, science is science and it is not because the means to gather proof are harder, that truth is easier to find and hence that one has to be less rigorous. And what disturbs me profoundly in the *scientific* discussion of AGW, is that open but sceptic inquiry is now frowned upon - while it should be the prevailing attitude. When you look at the IPCC and all the supportive bodies around it, it seems that if you even dare to question certain hypotheses of the AGW theory, you are stamped as a heretic, a climate sceptic, etc... with the underlying insinuation that you are or a crackpot, or that you have some or other vested interest in denying AGW, or that you have yourself leading by your emotions and are in a psychological state of denial.
There is a big difference between questioning a theory and taking a position that the theory is wrong. The first is good science. The second is not, unless you can a) provide conclusive evidence against it and b) provide an alternative theory that explains all the evidence.

AM
 
  • #107
4,465
72
There is a big difference between questioning a theory and taking a position that the theory is wrong. The first is good science. The second is not,
What happened to the scientific method? It's not the subjective position one takes, it's the objective evidence that counts. If you can't falsify a hypothesis, the chance is that there is some truth in it


unless you can a) provide conclusive evidence against it and b) provide an alternative theory that explains all the evidence.
No, conclusive evidence is enough. It doesn't matter if the defendant has a motive and has no alibi and is the owner of the murder weapon. If the DNA of the offender doesn't match, he is innocent. Period. The barrister/counselor doesn't have to proof who else did it.

nevertheless, my previous post shows both elements
 
  • #108
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,028
16
The worrying thing to me is, that scientists can not derive an experiment to prove or dis prove AGW, the laboratory is Earth and is tangible, or is it that this problem IS so testable?
Sure, we're doing it right now. We're pumping a lot of CO2 up there. One day, we will have lowered our CO2 output dramatically, or because we all collectively decided so (for good or bad reasons), or because there are no cheap fossil fuels left. That can be 30 years in the future, or 200 years in the future. It is then sufficient to look at the climate records over still some more decades, and the issue will be settled for good. So between 50 and 200 or 300 years, we will know for sure and there will be no more discussion :biggrin:

The drawback is that it is a long experiment...
 
  • #109
Andrew Mason
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,610
356
No, conclusive evidence is enough.
Conclusive evidence is enough to falsify a theory. But that does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong, just the theory supporting the conclusion. To take a position that the conclusion that human activity is warming the earth is wrong, a scientist has to provide conclusive evidence that the AGW theory is wrong and offer an explanation that is consistent with all the evidence that leads to a different conclusion.


It doesn't matter if the defendant has a motive and has no alibi and is the owner of the murder weapon. If the DNA of the offender doesn't match, he is innocent. Period. The barrister/counselor doesn't have to proof who else did it.
DNA is not always conclusive. It depends on the circumstances. The case of Dr. John Schneeburger is a case in point. The eyewitness (the victim of a rape) said he did it. A DNA sample extracted from his arm did not match the DNA of the perpetrator left at the crime scene. A second DNA test on blood from the Dr. matched the first sample. There was another "theory" that fit all the evidence and the complainant was vindicated and Schneeburger was convicted.

Usually, though, if DNA does not match, the non-match is conclusive evidence exhonerating the accused and proving another theory and resulting in another conclusion ie that the perpetrator was a person whose identity is not known.

AM
 
  • #110
4,465
72
Conclusive evidence is enough to falsify a theory. But that does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong, just the theory supporting the conclusion. To take a position that the conclusion that human activity is warming the earth is wrong, a scientist has to provide conclusive evidence that the AGW theory is wrong and offer an explanation that is consistent with all the evidence that leads to a different conclusion.
Wouldn't be the first step, testing the AGW hypothesis with real life data. Sure that has been done and there was evidence that supported it but, repeating myself, now ALL evidence is evaporated, verschwunden. We only see natural variability, there is nothing left that needs to be explained other than natural variability can't explain.
 
  • #111
49
0
Before moving to other topics, this thread touched on CO2 level effects on human physiology with little recognition of the ability of closed environments to raise CO2 levels when large numbers of humans or animals raise CO2 by their breathing.

Consider a thousand people attending a function in a room of 1000 m2 are and 10 m height. As they enter the volume of CO2 is about 3,500 liters. They each exhale 1 liter each 6 minutes. After 2 hours the level becomes 23,500 liters. No-one notices because each of us is already experiencing a much higher CO2 inhalational level due to “dead space” exchange effects in which the 5% CO2 air that we exhale is mixed with incoming air. Now think about the levels achieved on a submarine and the need to be concerned but not dismayed. The CO2 levels we need to consider are well below toxic levels in all cases.

On the other hand, now land on Venus or Mars with an over 95% CO2 atmosphere. Respiration now introduces a nineteenfold rise in a gas that dissolves quickly in water and dissociates into hydronium (H3O+ = H+) and bicarbonate (HCO3-) ions to create an instant acidosis as well as taking away oxygen needed for cerebral activity. The drop in pH becomes as important as the lack of oxygen in killing us.

While we are in the health-carbon area we seem to be missing a major point in the recent dialogue about carbon and its potential negative effects on “World” climate. The rising use of “fossil fuels” in the last half century has had one unambiguous effect on the World. It has released very low 14C carbon into the atmosphere, lowering the elevation that was produced by atmospheric testing from the end of World War II to 1969. The rise and fall are of the same magnitude, returning us to pre-WWII 14C levels. This confirms the allegation of the magnitude of the addition. It also means that 14C levels would be 30% higher without fossil fuel use.

What is the 14C doing to our health? We have 18% carbon bodies. For a 70 kg adult, this converts to 6.3x1026 carbon atoms. One in a trillion (10-12) is 14C, giving us 6.3x1014 14C atoms in our bodies. 14C half life is 5,730 years, giving us a rate of disintegration of 6x108 per day or 7,000 per second. Each event emits an electron from the nucleus whose average energy is 156 keV. A molecular bond can be broken by 2 eV of energy. A feature of this disintegration is that the atomic number of the product goes up 1. It is once again nitrogen, altering the chemistry of its molecule. In DNA, this means a chain disruption that needs repair. DNA chain repair takes time and an unrepaired change mediated by the altered state can lead to a chromosomal crossover linkage. Such crossovers are responsible for malignant diseases and other proliferation problems. No-one has been able to quantify the C to N effect. General features of exposure to radiation are used to estimate the problem’s magnitude. What ever its magnitude, this problem is 30% less than it would have been without fossil fuel use.
 
Last edited:
  • #112
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,028
16
While we are in the health-carbon area we seem to be missing a major point in the recent dialogue about carbon and its potential negative effects on “World” climate. The rising use of “fossil fuels” in the last half century has had one unambiguous effect on the World. It has released very low 14C carbon into the atmosphere, lowering the elevation that was produced by atmospheric testing from the end of World War II to 1969. The rise and fall are of the same magnitude, returning us to pre-WWII 14C levels. This confirms the allegation of the magnitude of the addition. It also means that 14C levels would be 30% higher without fossil fuel use.

What is the 14C doing to our health? We have 18% carbon bodies. For a 70 kg adult, this converts to 6.3x1026 carbon atoms. One in a trillion (10-12) is 14C, giving us 6.3x1014 14C atoms in our bodies. 14C half life is 5,730 years, giving us a rate of disintegration of 6x108 per day or 7,000 per second. Each event emits an electron from the nucleus whose average energy is 156 keV. A molecular bond can be broken by 2 eV of energy. A feature of this disintegration is that the atomic number of the product goes up 1. It is once again nitrogen, altering the chemistry of its molecule. In DNA, this means a chain disruption that needs repair. DNA chain repair takes time and an unrepaired change mediated by the altered state can lead to a chromosomal crossover linkage. Such crossovers are responsible for malignant diseases and other proliferation problems. No-one has been able to quantify the C to N effect. General features of exposure to radiation are used to estimate the problem’s magnitude. What ever its magnitude, this problem is 30% less than it would have been without fossil fuel use.
Ok, this is going to get off topic, but this is dramatic for 2 reasons, the first one being that if there are people 5000 years of so from now are going to get all of their history wrong because of that erroneous C-14 scale, and second, because if it happens to be true that there is hormesis, then we are doing away with all that good radiation that would have stimulated our cell repair mechanisms :rofl:

No, seriously, I don't think that the slight lowering of the radiation dose due to C-14 compensates all the toxic stuff we inhale because of coal powered plants...
 
  • #113
765
15
Wouldn't be the first step, testing the AGW hypothesis with real life data. Sure that has been done and there was evidence that supported it but, repeating myself, now ALL evidence is evaporated, verschwunden. We only see natural variability, there is nothing left that needs to be explained other than natural variability can't explain.
That's a bold statement.

Although it raises a fair point:

globaltemp.jpg


Looking at these temperatures, and comparing to the life-over-time chart below, it would seem that Humans have evolved on a planet with bipolar glaciation, a fairly unusual state of affairs in Earth History. How will the humans react to change? My guess is they'll get scared and try to kill each other, who knows, maybe they will become extinct?


http://lachlanhunter.deadsetfreestuff.com/geological_time.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #114
4,465
72
... the first one being that if there are people 5000 years of so from now are going to get all of their history wrong because of that erroneous C-14 scale, ...
It's exactly that atmospheric 14C variation that has played an essential role in the myth forming. In the early days of ice core layer counting and the discovery of the large isotope excursions (d18O) it was assumed that these resembled temperatures, which is not unlogical. So seeking confirmation of that, the ice core records were compared with many other geologic records which were carbon dated. However, little one was aware of the high variability of the delta14C in atmospheric CO2, which led to mismatching. For instance some glacial readvance was carbon dated 12,000 years BP and the start of the alleged hyper cold Younger Dryas was counted to about 12,900 - 12,700 years ago. It seemed a perfect match and one could move ahead with such a nice evidence.

Now the problem is that 12,000 14C years calibrates with INTCAL04 to about 13,830 calendar years which is in the middle of the alleged warm Bolling Allerod interval.

Of course one never looks back to see if the process was still valid with modern information available, because that would seriously challenge this interpretation:
edit:
alley2000.gif




see for instance:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm
 
Last edited:
  • #115
49
0
Vanesch wrote
No, seriously, I don't think that the slight lowering of the radiation dose due to C-14 compensates all the toxic stuff we inhale because of coal powered plants...
You seem to equate nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide effects with radiation exposure. Do you have any evidence to support your position. I live in an area where all electricity is generated from coal. No-one here knows of such a relationship. If you are right we need to abandon solar and wind power because, being periodic, they will need to be supported by coal. Nuclear is not suited to periodic use. Periodic Sierra hydroelectric use is prominent in California in summer but is at capacity. I have lived before where wind power was used and was annoyed by the devices’ appearance without knowing yet of the bird deaths.

30% is more than a little. People in the radiation-cancer field usually make the relationship linear. The DNA repairase process may produce some positive feedback, increasing disease more than linearly.

I lived for 14 years in the Southern California air basin where inversions mediated by the Pacific were a regular feature. Aldehydes and opacity were the main source of difficulty. Collection of gasoline vapor to avoid its entry into the air has reduced opacity. Conversion of diesel trucks to natural gas is useful there but cab conversions are all for show. Future supplies of natural gas are threatened by a number of NIMBY movements. An attempt there to have ships use only low gravity bunker oil while in the area is being met with resistance that will raise shipping costs.
 
  • #116
Andrew Mason
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,610
356
Wouldn't be the first step, testing the AGW hypothesis with real life data. Sure that has been done and there was evidence that supported it but, repeating myself, now ALL evidence is evaporated, verschwunden. We only see natural variability, there is nothing left that needs to be explained other than natural variability can't explain.
So I guess you can explain Venus' surface temperature without reference to CO2 content of its atmosphere.!?

AM
 
  • #117
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,028
16
Vanesch wrote
You seem to equate nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide effects with radiation exposure. Do you have any evidence to support your position. I live in an area where all electricity is generated from coal.
I don't have any evidence because there is no evidence at all that low levels of radiation exposure have any health effect at all - one only takes on *by convention* the LNT model in radiation protection, because it is the severest model that makes sense. From that model one can calculate the expected number of victims due to a radiation exposure. It is 5.6% of chance to die prematurely per Sievert of equivalent dose. I think, off the top of my head, that the dose you are talking about must be around 100 microsievert per year or so (C-14 is a fraction of the natural body self-irradiation, next to cosmic and telluric irradiation which amounts to a few hundred microsieverts a year).

The average world exposure is 2.4 mSv / year, of which about 0.4 mSv comes from medical diagnosis exposure (world average) and 1.2 mSv / year medical diagnosis exposure in the West (dentists and the like). Most of the natural background radiation varies, from about 1 mSv to 10 mSv per year, but there are some places where this gets in the 100 mSv / year, without observable effects which can clearly be distinguished from other variability.
So I don't think we should get nervous because of 0.1 mSv or so...

That said, a serious fraction of particulate and chemical air pollution is due to coal fired plants, and that pollution is known to lead to a significant number of death per year. Coal brings in the environment large amounts of mercury, of radium, of uranium, etc...

No-one here knows of such a relationship. If you are right we need to abandon solar and wind power because, being periodic, they will need to be supported by coal. Nuclear is not suited to periodic use.
That's a misunderstanding. See https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1949854&postcount=235 and related posts.

Nuclear is flexible, more so than coal. The only sources which are more flexible are hydro and gas. But nuclear can follow load for more than 99% of the time.

30% is more than a little. People in the radiation-cancer field usually make the relationship linear. The DNA repairase process may produce some positive feedback, increasing disease more than linearly.
Actually, the DNA repair mechanism is more the theoretical basis for models where the effect of a small dose variation is smaller than given by an overall linear relationship, and maybe even a threshold or even hormesis.

But in any case, any non-linear relationship between dose and effect that remains in agreement with effects at higher, measured doses will have a lower effect of a small increase in dose than the linear model. If you don't believe this, do the example with a quadratic model. It is only in the improbable case where the "quick rise" would be exactly on the background level that one would get a worse effect. The reason why this is improbable is that there are very large variations in natural background from place to place.

Now, what you may not know is that the radioactive exposure of people by coal fired plants is several times higher than due to the entire nuclear industry, and with nearby coal fired plants, this can amount up to 200 microsievert per year. That's still a low dose, btw, but of the order of the C-14 effect you were talking about.

EDIT: that said, we are really off-topic here, and any further discussion should be in the nuclear engineering forum...
 
Last edited:
  • #118
4,465
72
So I guess you can explain Venus' surface temperature without reference to CO2 content of its atmosphere.!?

AM
That's not the question. It's not about challenging the radiative proportions of CO2, it's about understanding how it works. The question is if the condition of Venus would constitute support/proof for the IPCC greenhouse hypothesis or would it support the convection hypothesis of Chilingar et al. Let's see,

The IPCC assumes a global temperature increases of about 3 degrees per doubling CO2, Now if you do the math for Venus doubling the CO2 starting with 1ppmv you'd end up with an order of magnitude of about 20 degrees per doubling. It would require a rather creative explanation to talk that together.

However Chilingar et al propose that the Earth atmosphere is mainly heated by convection The convection transports the heat up so that the chance increases that emitted energy escapes to space rather than being re-absorpted at the Earth surface. How is this for Venus? The strong radiative properties of the CO2 are suppressing convection in the lower atmosphere. Hence energy emitted from the surface has a far larger chance to hit the surface again. Venus is missing the convective air conditioner of Earth.

Hence the Venus numbers don't add up for the IPCC hypothesis but the missing convection in the lower layers do support Chilingar et al.

There is a lot more to say about the origin of the heat of Venus but that's less relevant here.
 
Last edited:
  • #119
4,465
72
That's a bold statement.
Sorry Jack, I intended to react earlier but I wasn't sure what you intended to suggest.

Anyway, I don't seem to recall that the IPCC had presented the geological alleged greenhouse-icehouse pendulum as evidence for CO2 causing warming. It could be equally true that warming caused higher CO2 levels as the ice cores suggest. Apart from that, there are deviations. The Paleocene greenhouse appears to have had http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:11423657 [Broken].

So I stand by my capitals for ALL evidence being evaporated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #120
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
...The IPCC assumes a global temperature increases of about 3 degrees per doubling CO2, Now if you do the math for Venus doubling the CO2 starting with 1ppmv you'd end up with an order of magnitude of about 20 degrees per doubling. It would require a rather creative explanation to talk that together...
Most of IPCC's 3 degrees/ 2x CO2 is from feedbacks, mainly water vapor effects, as you often point out, so I don't think one can compare directly to Venus in this way.
 
  • #121
765
15
Sorry Jack, I intended to react earlier but I wasn't sure what you intended to suggest.

Anyway, I don't seem to recall that the IPCC had presented the geological alleged greenhouse-icehouse pendulum as evidence for CO2 causing warming. It could be equally true that warming caused higher CO2 levels as the ice cores suggest. Apart from that, there are deviations. The Paleocene greenhouse appears to have had http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:11423657 [Broken].

So I stand by my capitals for ALL evidence being evaporated.
Let me apologize, I originally intended to make a point about your "all evidence evaporated" claim seeming a bit ... extreme. Then I got to thinking about how in terms of geological time we're going through a cold spell, and that any warming we experience will be within natural variability. Yet that doesn't necessarily mean that the cause of the warming is natural!

The point I failed to make in that post was that even though 6+ degrees of warming would seem to be "natural" within the range of temperatures experienced over geological time, we are perhaps encouraging this warming by pumping out CO2.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #122
49
0
vanesch has seen no benefit from fossil fuel use in the fall in 14C body radiation from 10,000 to 7,000 disintegrations/sec since 1969. He uses radiation hormesis to make his argument. I looked for 14C experiments to document its hormesis and could find none. Are there any? I will use chronic myelogenous leukemia as an example of a disease produced by 14C. Its post-exposure incidence rose after Hiroshima http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_myelogenous_leukemia and has been falling widely in recent years http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cmyl.html . Its hallmark is the Philadelphia chromosome, making it an early unsuccessful target of genetic engineering. The product of the crossover, a tyrosine kinase, has become a target of a successful treatment. Radiation hormesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis is more controversial than chemical hormesis, a newer version of the homeopathy of a century ago. vanesch doesn’t seem to consider it in his treatment of coal products, but it is an easy assertion for me. My southern California experience taught me that aesthetic judgments need to be supported by health burden data. Do you have any significant information about coal use air product toxicity? It is an important consideration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #123
Andrew Mason
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,610
356
That's not the question. It's not about challenging the radiative proportions of CO2, it's about understanding how it works. The question is if the condition of Venus would constitute support/proof for the IPCC greenhouse hypothesis or would it support the convection hypothesis of Chilingar et al. Let's see,

The IPCC assumes a global temperature increases of about 3 degrees per doubling CO2, Now if you do the math for Venus doubling the CO2 starting with 1ppmv you'd end up with an order of magnitude of about 20 degrees per doubling. It would require a rather creative explanation to talk that together.

However Chilingar et al propose that the Earth atmosphere is mainly heated by convection The convection transports the heat up so that the chance increases that emitted energy escapes to space rather than being re-absorpted at the Earth surface. How is this for Venus? The strong radiative properties of the CO2 are suppressing convection in the lower atmosphere. Hence energy emitted from the surface has a far larger chance to hit the surface again. Venus is missing the convective air conditioner of Earth.
Radiation is entirely a function of termperature. A black body at a given temperature emits a radiation distribution according to Planck's law. So it has nothing to do with CO2's radiative properties.

Convection and conduction operate in the atmosphere. The surface heats by absorbing radiation from the sun. The layer of atmosphere in contact with the surface warms by conduction. That layer moves due to change in buoyancy and is replaced by cooler air which, in turn, warms by conduction from the surface. The result is that heat is transferred to the atmosphere.

This has the effect of cooling the surface of the earth by transfering some of the heat to the atmosphere. But now IR radiation from the atmosphere, in addition to the radiation from the sun, reaches the earth surface thereby increasing the amount of radiation from (and therefore temperature of) the surface.

My question is how does increasing the CO2 affect the conduction/convection process and introduce more cooling, as Chilingar et al suggest?

AM
 
  • #124
Andrew Mason
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,610
356
That's not the question. It's not about challenging the radiative proportions of CO2, it's about understanding how it works. The question is if the condition of Venus would constitute support/proof for the IPCC greenhouse hypothesis or would it support the convection hypothesis of Chilingar et al.

....

Hence the Venus numbers don't add up for the IPCC hypothesis but the missing convection in the lower layers do support Chilingar et al.
The IPCC says that there is another important mechanism of heat transfer operating in the atmosphere (other than conduction/convection). It says that radiation from the earth is absorbed by certain gases, particularly CO2 which is opaque to a broad range of infrared radiation. The atmosphere continues to be warmed by conduction and convection but also by this absorption of radiation. It is this additonal heating that raises the temperature beyond what normal conduction/convection contributes. This increases the radiation reaching the surface and therefore the surface temperature.

Chilingar et al do not appear to address this at all.

AM
 
Last edited:
  • #125
4,465
72
The IPCC says that there is another important mechanism of heat transfer operating in the atmosphere (other than conduction/convection). It says that radiation from the earth is absorbed by certain gases, particularly CO2 which is opaque to a broad range of infrafred radiation. The atmosphere continues to be warmed by conduction and convection but also by this absorption of radiation. It is this additonal heating that raises the temperature beyond what normal conduction/convection contributes. This increases the radiation reaching the surface and therefore the surface temperature.

Chilingar et al do not appear to address this at all.

AM
That's, right they don't. But the keyword is emission altitude. (sorry short in time right now)Mind that if the incoming radiation is worth a blackbody temperature of -18C then at radiation equilibrium, the outgoing emission must originate from the same temperature range. No?

That's somewhere high in the atmosphere, what happens below there is a mixture of conduction, convection and radiation. More later
 

Related Threads on Global warming is not caused by CO2

  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
19K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
36
Views
15K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
88
Views
15K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
66
Views
14K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
54
Views
9K
Top