Warming crowd fears real debate

[theworldasweknow it]

Adrian Godsafe MSc wrote:

<quoted text>
CO2 actually a linear molecule with double bonds
structure O=C=O
with absobtion of IR the following...
O==C==O or OCO or O=C==O
and also with those molecular vibration modes also add the ones where the C ends up out of plane with the O or the O out of plane with the CO.
Plenty of vibration certainly. 13CO2 and 14CO2 are even more prone to molecular absorbtion and re radiation.
The tiny amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is enough to raise the temperature above the non greenhouse blackbody ambient, & enough to keep the bulk of H2O on the surface liquid.
That bit IS important, as while H2O is an excepionally good greenhouse gas, it has the nasty habit of dropping out of the sky as condensate,(liquid & solid) and the solid form of H2O although able to also absorb IR is extremely reflective and has an exceptionally large heat capacity, which means it stays solid for a long time & will absorb & re radiate IR while remaining solid making it a pretty good IR mirror in the solid state.
With liquid H2O the extra input of greenhouse gas alters the ambient temperature of the store of liquid H2O, and that change is permanent, explaining the upward temperature increase over the last century.
Without CO2 input by human activity the trend with liquid H2O on the planet surface is a gradual rise to an ambient.
With extra CO2 input the rate of heating to the ambient is faster. The big bit however is CFC from 1950-90s white goods (which are soluble in water at low concentration & being heavy are now floating around in the ocean). That is the main cause of the oceanic temperature spike as a result of their effect being rather better then CO2 as a greenhouse heater, ie. CFC rather than CO2 is the root cause of the "Hockey stick" which is the atmospheric response to oceanic warming as a result of the atmosphere being a shell on top of the high heat capacity store of H2O which is currently warming.
Have a nice day: Ag
ps. I did chemistry as a subsidiary degree 1985-86 for Geology in 1987, so I know about the molecular bonding & IR.
Lists of molecular frequencies (analysed in PhD dating to the 50s) however are hard to find in literature, CO2 & H2O bands do overlap and the re radiated IR spectrum is a narrow bell curve rather than a laser sharp line.

ok bear with me - my university training is in other areas

ok if the are prone to absorbtion and reradiation then they are only absorbing and reradiating an existing heat source - the sun - so all it would mean then would be that they delay heat from reaching the earth

yep sure h20 becomes rain,snow,mist etc but CO2s life in the atmosphere is only 5 yrs. Also mans contribution to CO2 is minimal.

Also the effect of co2 reduces as it increases in the atmosphere

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/co2...

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/co...

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/at...

You say CO2 is heavy in water but then say it floats? Also I would tend to think the location of cool and warm bodies of water as per the PDO and their proximity to weather stations would have a greater impact on the temperature record than Co2.

Also I dont have a strong faith in the temperature record as I think its fraught with errors - particularly warming biases - and if the record was properly corrected I think it would show a lot less warming up until 1998 and more cooling since.

Have a nice day
TWAWKI

[Adrian Godsafe MSc]

theworldasweknowit wrote:

<quoted text>
ok bear with me - my university training is in other areas
ok if the are prone to absorbtion and reradiation then they are only absorbing and reradiating an existing heat source - the sun - so all it would mean then would be that they delay heat from reaching the earth
yep sure h20 becomes rain,snow,mist etc but CO2s life in the atmosphere is only 5 yrs. Also mans contribution to CO2 is minimal.
Also the effect of co2 reduces as it increases in the atmosphere
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/co2...
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/co...
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/at...
You say CO2 is heavy in water but then say it floats? Also I would tend to think the location of cool and warm bodies of water as per the PDO and their proximity to weather stations would have a greater impact on the temperature record than Co2.
Also I dont have a strong faith in the temperature record as I think its fraught with errors - particularly warming biases - and if the record was properly corrected I think it would show a lot less warming up until 1998 and more cooling since.
Have a nice day
TWAWKI

CO2 in water is actually H2CO3 and is a completely different molecule (Carbonic acid) which makes the tang in fizzy drink.

CFC on the other hand (which is the bit I was talking about next) is a very heavy gas, whose molecules remain unchanged in H2O.

The IR (heat) initially from the sun is absorbed in the right band frequency and @ that frequency, the covalent bond goes "boinga boinga" until it spits the IR frequency band wavelength back out as an IR frequency wave. The reason why the wave is a bell curve is because the bond is surrounded by other covalent bonds & some of the energy is kept behind to stabilise the bouncing bonds in the other part of the molecule or added to as excess from said bond cluster.

This also occurs in hydrogen polarity bonds such as those which keep water liquid, & form the hexagonal ice lattice. The hydrogen bonds are an order of magnitude lower in strength than covalent bonds so are strongest in far IR.

The frequency absorbance and re emmision varies according to the mass of the atoms in the molecule.

For example C-H seen in Methane (CH4, a greenhouse gas) is lower mass the O-H and absorbs & emits a lower frequency than an O-H bond, the the bond vibrates in & out & side to side warping the tetrahedron. The higher energy transformation however C---H to CH & back well and truly overlaps with O-H, and the tetrahedral transformation flip modes overlap with hydrogen bonds.

With CFC the C-H is replaced with C-F of C-Cl the atoms here are heavier and most also feature C-C in the molecular backbone. Their vibrtation & warp bands absorb IR @ frequencies that would normally heat atoms in ionic lattices (causing them to jiggle about), & their re radiation covers bands in all of the spectrum from near IR through to TV microwaves.

This is in fact the mechanism behind greenhouse heating, it is the conversion of wavelengths that would normally pass through on the way in & back out into IR bands that heat the molecules.

Seen another way from space, the earth with a low greenhouse budget would appear bright on the dayside & dark on the nightside in an IR view, with the crescent view day/night smeared out due to radiative cooling from the day-night transition.
With extra greenhouse heating of the surface, the view from space would be darker on the dayside, & brighter on the nightside with the crescent day/night transition hard to see.

With a monster effect greenhouse, the Venus situation kicks in where the day/night transition in IR is absent, and the disc radiates the same on both sides, no matter how long the nightside stays in the dark.

[Adrian Godsafe MSc]

Follow on:

The Solar heat budget is exactly that. It is the sum total blackbody radiation from an incandescent hot disc.

The greenhouse effect from molecules merely traps & re radiates frequencies from this blackbody & bounces them around within the molecular layer (either the atmosphere, the oceans, or in outer planets the organic goop solidified on the surface of the satellites).
The main feature of greenhouse molecules is their high heat capacity, and the ability to absorb a particular band & re radiate in a cascade of bands capable of absorbtion by surrounding molecules. The result is overall general heating of the surrounding molecules which (eventually) gain enough energy to re radiate in turn.

The culprit in the atmosphere for heat storage is actually N2 which is triple bonded & is able to store a lot of energy within the bond vibration without radiating & will transfer the energy between other gas molecules by collision (think bumper cars & you are just about there).
In the oceans, the culprit is the hydrogen bonded H2O where the excess energy is held in the H2O molecules themselves where there re radiation in OH bands is absorbed by near neighbours, & collisions are frequent in the dense liquid. The hydrogen bonds stop the entire lot from fizzing off into the atmosphere, & the hydrogen bonds store the heat.

All greehouse gases do is actually grab bands from the blackbody spectrum from the sun that are out of reach of the bulk carrier molecules (& effectively are transparent to those frequencies) & re radiate in frequencies that bounce the carriers around making the bulk opaque to those frequencies at levels that increase with the concentration of greenhouse gas.

The same in fact as covering the soil with a black plastic cover (the soil heats up because the black absorbs sunlight). Next ask the question of why does BLACK absorb sunlight & heat up while WHITE, or SILVER is far less efficient.

That is the nature of the greenhouse effect. It is a trapping of heat: the area in the trap heats up, the area outside of the trap cools down because it is not being "zapped by reflected heat from the trapped area.
Greenhouses to not detonate in monster explosions because eventually the trap reaches an ambient locally higher inside that then radiates from the bounds at a rate equal to the insolation.

My mention of CFC molecules as the chief oceanic greenhouse gas is because they react in a very similar way to black plastic polytunnel cloches, and are able to absorb some visual bands & re radiate in IR as the molecule "boings & snakes" in response to its internal energy budget. The solubility is in large part due to the brine containing Cl & some F in the ocean & its ability to hydrogen bond with H2O via the Cl & F. This also affects its ability to transfer heat direct to the hydrogen bonds in the bulk H2O in the ocean.
The plastic goop floating & disintegrating in the oceans also reacts in a very similar way (but in rather bigger chunks).

Is that bit better understood than the original?

Have a nice day: Ag

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Devils Advct wrote:

<quoted text>
Gee Less. You yourself seem to fail at offering any unargueable points. Man-made emissions of CO2 IS the only arguement. It is what is blamed on AGW (hence the name), and tell us, if you light a match in a room in your house, does your air conditioner kick-on?

No. But if that match lights a fire in the stove, it sure would. The match is just the 'cause' while the stove is the 'effect'.

The 'forcing' of CO2 alone equates to 50,000 Hiroshima size bombs per hour, every hour, 365 days a year.

That adds up.. and it is the slow addition of heat over decades that makes up global warming.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Correction, I should have said the ADDITIONAL forcing of the INCREASE in CO2 levels..

[Fun Facts]

The first step is to prove there has been extrodinary global warming. If you can't prove that, then all the info on CO2 is irrelevant.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Fun Facts wrote:

The first step is to prove there has been extrodinary global warming. If you can't prove that, then all the info on CO2 is irrelevant.

Please catch up to 2008. You seem to be living in the past. Or maybe you just don't get all this reality stuff.

The fact is that global temperatures are increasing ( well established science), we have proof of increases in GHGs from industry, and the Enhanced Greenhouse effect is confirmed.

The only are of question today is how this will affect climate.

[Fun Facts]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Please catch up to 2008. You seem to be living in the past. Or maybe you just don't get all this reality stuff.
The fact is that global temperatures are increasing ( well established science), we have proof of increases in GHGs from industry, and the Enhanced Greenhouse effect is confirmed.
The only are of question today is how this will affect climate.

Well if the warming is well established science then it should not be hard to find a temperature record of actual temperatures that supports man made global warming.

Actual machanical temperatures are available from 1651. You should be able to find just one that will support your cause.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Well if the warming is well established science then it should not be hard to find a temperature record of actual temperatures that supports man made global warming.

Ok. Here is the top guys in the science of global temperature averages.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Not that I expect you to understand.

[Fun Facts]

That is not a graph of actual temperatures.

That is a graph of temperature anomalies. It is a graph that has averaged the temperatures of the 1960 to 1990 time period and has taken temperatures and compared them to that average.

Who determined that the average temperature of the 1960 to 1990 time period represents the average world temperature? If they had decided that the 1940 to 1970 time period represented the average temperature of the world then that graph would look very different.

I asked for a temperature record made up of actual measured temperatures. Find one of those.

[theworldasweknow it]

Fun Facts wrote:

The first step is to prove there has been extrodinary global warming. If you can't prove that, then all the info on CO2 is irrelevant.

I agree - just started a new thread - hockey stick debunked yet again - it seems all the AGW hoaxers have is fiddled figures that bear little resemblance to reality

[theworldasweknow it]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok. Here is the top guys in the science of global temperature averages.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
Not that I expect you to understand.

ROFL

well NASA are fast losing their reputation and become anything but credible as they continue to fiddle with the temperature record

what you have shown shows that even for that short period that most of it doesnt correlate with CO2 trends. It also doesnt show the recent plataeuing and cooling of temps

So as usual the typical junk science from you

[theworldasweknow it]

Fun Facts wrote:

That is not a graph of actual temperatures.
That is a graph of temperature anomalies. It is a graph that has averaged the temperatures of the 1960 to 1990 time period and has taken temperatures and compared them to that average.
Who determined that the average temperature of the 1960 to 1990 time period represents the average world temperature? If they had decided that the 1940 to 1970 time period represented the average temperature of the world then that graph would look very different.
I asked for a temperature record made up of actual measured temperatures. Find one of those.

seems like the raw record is hidden away as it would show up too many phonies who cant scientifically substantiate why they massaged the numbers to fit their green religion

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Fun Facts wrote:

That is not a graph of actual temperatures.That is a graph of temperature anomalies. It is a graph that has averaged the temperatures of the 1960 to 1990 time period and has taken temperatures and compared them to that average.

A silly quibble. Take any base point (such as 1960) aand the first derivative signal given and you can integrate the changes into an absolute measurement for each point in the sampling.

The fact is that we are interested in the first derivative ( change ) so it is more convenient and useful.

Fun Facts wrote:

Who determined that the average temperature of the 1960 to 1990 time period represents the average world temperature?

A silly quibble. As it would be a filtered average of the 30 years times span ( 30 years is standard for climate science ) it represents the average global temperature for the midpoint ( 1975). It is therefore an accurate global average temperature from which the first derivative can be extracted for display.

Fun Facts wrote:

If they had decided that the 1940 to 1970 time period represented the average temperature of the world then that graph would look very different.

Utter rubbish. It would be the same graph with only a change in the reference point. The graph would either have slightly different numbers for the 'ticks' or it would be shifted up slightly.

Fun Facts wrote:

I asked for a temperature record made up of actual measured temperatures. Find one of those.

If you cannot understand graphs and simple math, I fail to see how you can understand anything I could possibly tell you.

[Fun Facts]

A silly quibble, Utter rubbish?? Must be "new and improved" scientific terms.

If it is such a silly quibble then answer the question.

30 years is the "standard for climate science"??? Who said? The earth is 4.5 billion years old, how do you pick a single 30 year period and call that the average?

If you were to have picked a different 30 year period, you would get a different graph. Why, because the average temperature is going to change for each 30 year period.

You still have not been able to produce a temperature record of actual temperatures that supports man made global warming.

Don't you wonder why you can't find one? They have obviously been produced or they, the makers of anomaly charts, would have nothing to make their charts from.

If its real then you don't have to massage the data. Find one, just one.

[Fun Facts]

theworldasweknowit wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree - just started a new thread - hockey stick debunked yet again - it seems all the AGW hoaxers have is fiddled figures that bear little resemblance to reality

Where's your new thread?

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Fun Facts wrote:

A silly quibble, Utter rubbish?? Must be "new and improved" scientific terms.

How would you know since you don't understand any current science, much less anything new.

Fun Facts wrote:

If it is such a silly quibble then answer the question.

I did. Now it is up to your to understand how to add the anomaly to the base number to get the absolute temperature. I'd figure I gave it away there but truly you are simple enough to fail even 2+2 math.

Fun Facts wrote:

30 years is the "standard for climate science"???

Climate scientist. Since climate is a long term response, and there are many 'decadal' oscillations, they settled on 30 years as far enough above the nyquist for signal extraction.

Fun Facts wrote:

Who said? The earth is 4.5 billion years old, how do you pick a single 30 year period and call that the average?

The length of the signal doesn't matter. The sample points can be endless. The signal processing is what eliminates temperature fluctuations on shorter periods.

{more Gibberish deleted}

p.s. even for a cooling technician you are unusually under-educated.

[Fun Facts]

What I do understand is that you cannot answer my question.

[Cthulhu_]

From CRU site:

Why are the temperatures expressed as anomalies from 1961-90?

Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries estimate average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90). For stations to be used, an estimate of the base period average must be calculated. Because many stations do not have complete records for the 1961-90 period several methods have been developed to estimate 1961-90 averages from neighbouring records or using other sources of data. Over the oceans, where observations are generally made from mobile platforms, it is impossible to assemble long series of actual temperatures for fixed points. However it is possible to interpolate historical data to create spatially complete reference climatologies (averages for 1961-90) so that individual observations can be compared with a local normal for the given day of the year.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature...

[Fun Facts]

Wow, the best answer is because we didn't have a better data base to work with? And even the one we chose was lacking so we had to extrapolate numbers to add into our average.