Paper questions the effect of carbon on global warming

a reply to: mobiusmale

Considering there are a plethora of ATS threads that explain in detail the science behind AGW, I do not have the time to waste explaining science behind AGW everytime someone has doubts and thinks they come across an GOTCHA revalation to the climate change science. I have also realized it is often a waste of time, as someone who is too lazy to do the actual research will not take the word of a forum poster.

The information is out there for those who seek it.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
It has for a long time seemed to me based on my knowledge of chemistry and physics that more carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere replacing the oxygen would translate into cooler temperatures. The water vapor that is produced in the combustion reaction would mean more clouds.

The amount of water in the oceans is so overwhelmingly larger that the amount of water vapor in atmosphere is in weather equilibrium with ocean. And that amount of water vapor depends on the temperature.

I always figured that a lot of the machine generated heat that we produce would be converted to kinetic energy by generating air currents, so we would be more likely to see more energetic weather than calmer weather.

That's preposterous.

The mechanical energy (and direct heat energy) from fossil fuel powered machines is completely insignificant next to the forces of planetary climate and weather.

a reply to: jrod

OK, alright, I looked at this and tried to figure out the physical argument, and yes it's almost certainly wrong or far too limited in its analysis.

joannenova.com.au...


Conventional models assume increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the surface, then apply the feedbacks to the surface warming. But if feedbacks start up in the atmosphere instead, everything changes.

This is a post with big potential. A feedback the other climate models miss?

All the establishment models assume carbon dioxide warms the sky, which leads to the surface warming*, and the feedbacks then apply to the surface warming. It’s in the model architecture, the models can’t do it any other way. But what if the feedbacks don’t wait — what if the feedbacks start right away, up in the atmosphere? What if, say, CO2 warms the air,

What is the cross section between infrared emitted by CO2 and the other components of the air? Numbers matter.

Suppose other atmospheric components absorbed 1% of the energy? The numbers matter. Then almost all would pass through until it hit the surface, which absorbs 100% of what's left, e.g. 99%. So, then the approximation would be valid.

If there were a strong interaction between CO2 lines and other components of the air---the physical requirement for this effect to happen it would already be in the radiative transfer models. We'd already know it as people would talk about the strongly interacting frequencies where water and CO2 are simultaneous strong absorbers---they'd know it decades ago.

and that affects humidity and or clouds right then and there? These would be feedbacks operating on tropospheric warming, and they can reroute that energy.

I believe this effect is already in the well established radiative transfer models! They worry about all the ingredients in the atmosphere and their absorption across the frequency spectrum, and propagate all the energies at various frequencies in various layers of the atmosphere.

Potentially, this blows everything away. If the energy blocked by increasing CO2 is merely escaping Earth through emissions from another gas in the atmosphere, like say, the dominant greenhouse gas, water-vapor, then could this explain why the effect of Co2 has been exaggerated in the conventional models?

No.

Scenario: You have CO2 in the atmosphere and it re-radiates infrared in various bands. Now you would need something else in the atmosphere which had absorption at the same set of infrared frequencies. Suppose you did. When it absorbs, then it also re-radiates back isotropically, just like the CO2, thereby warming the surface. You just move it around. And besides, if this water vapor were able to absorb re-emitted infrared from CO2, then it would also absorb (the much larger quantity of) thermal infrared coming up from the ground in the first place (photons are photons, physics of atoms is the same), in other words, it would be a greenhouse gas! Certainly the effect from absorbing the primary thermal flux back up is going to be larger than a greenhouse effect from gas 2 on the greenhouse effect from gas 1 since greenhouse feedback is less than the primary heat flux up.

You get LESS greenhouse effect by having LESS absorption in everything. Saying that some parts of absorption haven't been taken into account hardly gets you off the hook, rather it makes the hook bigger!

It's all part of the water vapor feedback, which is a known and standard part of the atmospheric models.

And finally his idea that certain direct warming of the troposphere from CO2 infrared emissions isn't in the model but should be (a fact which I doubt) wouldn't necessarily result in less global warming, it could easily be more: if the change results in a model of a warmer atmosphere then potentially more clouds would clear up and since clouds reflect incoming radiation strongly, that could result in a higher overall temperature given fewer clouds.

You see you have to look at all of the physics, not just cherry pick a few bits here and there.

Anyway, if he's serious he should write in an atmospheric physics journal and be looked over by experts who really know the details of how everything works.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Still doesn't change the fact: Global Warming = more habitable zones for people to live. More places to grow crops. Global Cooling: We all gonna die.

More places to grow crops? So we can destroy the world a bit more.
The global warming trend and droughts are imo caused by bad agriculture, not so much co2 and other 'pollutants'.
Learn how to grow crops naturally and a lot of world problems will vanish.

Why would we all die of global cooling? It happened before and to me it seems the world doing quite alright, in terms of life diversity.

Deforestation is an important factor in global climate change

www.climateandweather.net...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Sorry but you are wrong.

Take the time to actually research the science behind AGW and not make some blanket statement based on flawed reasoning.

Didn't you just earlier mention something about casting doubt without providing any valid reasons?

Where are your valid reasons?
If you subscribe to the "butterfly effect", where something small can have a large influence, you can't right out-of-hand discount what happens to heat and air currents that are not the result of climate, but rather are created at the surface of the planet.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
You are missing out of the radiative forcing of CO2 which results in warming, aka the greenhouse effect.

Please do yourself a favor and look into college level studies on the global warming, man made climate change. This will require more than an elementary understanding of science.

... and I don't recall any of those studies accounting for the millions of cars on the road daily, taking ambient temperature air in and releasing gasses consisting of O2, CO2, HC, NOx and other gasses and particulates at temperatures 25-100F degrees above ambient through their tailpipes, nor the heat released from the cooling system and radiated from the engine blocks of said vehicles, exiting into the atmosphere heated well in excess of ambient.
Where does that heat go?

A wildfire of a few acres can heat the air down wind several degrees before turbulence distributes the heat around enough to not be noticed.

a reply to: paradoxious
Please read some of the other climate threads. Plenty of evidence to support AGW, if one chooses to look at the data and science. I have debated both sides ofvthis, looked at the data and science and have determined that AGW is backed by good science.

Im tired of the same old song and dance from the crowd who simply cannot accept the science behind AGW.

That said, I did provide a link that casts well deserved doubt about anything joanenova puts out.

I'm hypothesizing based on the principles of the behavior of a mixture of gases and liquids in a container. The earth's surface and atmosphere are a really big container, sure, but those basic principles will still apply, subject to local variations of course.

Any mixture of gases and liquids in a container will reach an equilibrium. Removing some of the oxygen from the mixture of gases in the container and adding water vapor and carbon dioxide to that mixture will shift the saturation point of equilibrium for those gases in that container. This is simple chemistry. Sorry guys, the gas laws still apply.

Something has to take the place of the oxygen that was removed from this mixture of gases in the container. I would think that it would mostly be the carbon dioxide and water vapor that is introduced into the container during the same reaction that removed the molecular oxygen from the container.

What is it, then, that I am missing in my analysis that makes my approach so wrong? I'm listening.

originally posted by: CB328
Deforestation is an important factor in global climate change

www.climateandweather.net...

not only that, wrong reforestation might be equally important or even more.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

so if any mixture of gasses put into a container will reach an equilibrium, removing some of the gasses shouldn't cause any problems because it still stays 'any mixture' and will reach equilibrium?

originally posted by: mbkennel

The amount of water in the oceans is so overwhelmingly larger that the amount of water vapor in atmosphere is in weather equilibrium with ocean. And that amount of water vapor depends on the temperature.

Okay I see your point. Well, that may be so. I'll admit I'm no expert on the topic, so perhaps you are right on this point. Do you know of any threads where the science is well debated that you could refer me to, or papers that discuss the technical aspects of this topic that you could recommend?

originally posted by: mbkennel

That's preposterous.

The mechanical energy (and direct heat energy) from fossil fuel powered machines is completely insignificant next to the forces of planetary climate and weather.

Disagree. Machine generated heat is not nothing. Heat transfers. Insignificant? Perhaps in the larger heat equation, man-made machine-generated heat may be minor, but I am doubtful of your assessment that it is completely insignificant.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie
mbkennel has a wealth of information on this topic, good on you for seeking more information.

The atmosphere on this planet is dynamic with many layers, constantly moving, encounters uneven heating, ect...

That said, comparing the atmosphere to gasses in a stagnant closed system is just simply not a scientific way of examaning the behavior of the atmosphere.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

so if any mixture of gasses put into a container will reach an equilibrium, removing some of the gasses shouldn't cause any problems because it still stays 'any mixture' and will reach equilibrium?

The mixture of gasses will reach a new equilibrium of saturations. Other gasses will take the place of the oxygen that was removed, whether it's more h2o, more co2, more co, more nox, or something else. I would guess that it would end up being an equilibrium of concentrations consisting of higher levels of the gasses that were introduced when the oxygen was removed. It may be as mbkennel says, though, in that the water vapor saturation level remains fairly constant. Cause any problems? I dunno. Personally I'm more worried about the pollutants that we are constantly introducing into our environment than the co2. I think we'll solve the carbon problem before it kills us. At least, I hope we do.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
mbkennel had a wealth of information on this topic, good on you for seeking more informstion.

The atmosphere on this planet is dynamic with many layers, constantly moving, encounters uneven heating, ect...

That said, comparing the atmosphere to gasses in a stagnant closed system is just simply not a scientific way of examaning the behavior of the atmosphere.

Disagree. It is a large container, surely, but still a container.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie
A container where the fluid(air) is heated unevenly, has many layers that behave differently, that is constantly moving, and among other things interacts with an ocean of water.

Air in a closed jar is not an appropriate model for this planets atmosphere.

That said, a jar of air with more CO2 will trap heat inside more than a jar with less CO2. This experiment can easily confirmed in closed jars. Research radiative forcing and CO2 if you want some insight as to why CO2 traps heat and contributes to the green house effect.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
A container where the fluid(air) is heated unevenly, has many layers that behave differently, that is constantly moving, and among other things interacts with an ocean of water.

Air in a closed jar is not an appropriate model for this planets atmosphere.

That said, a jar of air with more CO2 will trap heat inside more than a jar with less CO2. This experiment can easily confirmed in closed jars. Research radiative forcing and CO2 if you want some insight as to why CO2 traps heat and contributes to the green house effect.

Then rising temperatures which leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere if we go with mbkennel's assesment that water vapor concentration in the atmosphere is primarily a function of temperature. More water vapor means more clouds.

originally posted by: paradoxious

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
You are missing out of the radiative forcing of CO2 which results in warming, aka the greenhouse effect.

Please do yourself a favor and look into college level studies on the global warming, man made climate change. This will require more than an elementary understanding of science.

... and I don't recall any of those studies accounting for the millions of cars on the road daily, taking ambient temperature air in and releasing gasses consisting of O2, CO2, HC, NOx and other gasses and particulates at temperatures 25-100F degrees above ambient through their tailpipes, nor the heat released from the cooling system and radiated from the engine blocks of said vehicles, exiting into the atmosphere heated well in excess of ambient.
Where does that heat go?

Ah, now this is an instructive point. You're in introductory physical science 101 tutorial. How would you go about answering, roughly, this question?

What is the total fossil fuel energy combustion per year? Start with that number. Divide by the surface area of the Earth and number of seconds in each year. Compare to the overall heat flux (averaged ove rlatitude, day & night etc) which I think is around 240 W/m^2.

What is the relative contribution from fuel burning vs climate?

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
More water vapor means more clouds.

Potentially yes but remembet, clouds are condensed water, vapor is dissolved water and is clear. When clear it's net heating (greenhouse effect), when it condenses (clouds) it's reflects more visible light and so cools. It's quite complicated, there is all of that meterology & thermodynamics business. It's been a big part of climate research for 30 years at least.