Increases in CO2 - Causes Cooling

[jem]

Piezoe.... I am not capable of stating where the net effect is warming or cooling and I don't think anyone is right now. They have more educated guesses... but I think they are just starting to learn the science.

I do think some of the cooling comes from bouncing IR and other energy back into space... the same just and the lower atmopshere it bounces some energy all around back to earth.

I think the idea is that it captures the energy then emits some of the IR energy and other energy of the sun. Instead of bouncing it in all directions and warming up the earth... in the upper atmosphere it bounces it back into space.

Here is the graph from the NASA study showing how the energy of a solar flare was bounced back into space. by the 2 very powerful coolants. (nasa called them that.)

I can tell you that some studies have shown that as you add more co2 the warming impact decreases logarithmically.

I have not read the same about the cooling effect.


I would be willing to bet at some point... adding co2 would create less warming than cooling. We might not be there yet... but it only makes sense that it could do more shielding than warming.

But, this really goes back to the point. Science really does not know if man made co2 is warming, cooling or doing nothing.





http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/05/tom-quirk-global-temp-grp-blog.jpg

Jem it is important to recognize the difference between the effect of these gases in the outer reaches of the atmosphere and their effect near the earths surface. It is true that these gases have a shielding effect in the outer atmosphere, but their affect is different near the earths surface. They don't act as a greenhouse gas in the outer atmosphere where they instead act as a shield against incoming ir radiation from the sun, as you have pointed out. They would also, in the outer atmosphere, absorb some uv in the vacuum uv region. I am led to believe, by the experts, that on balance their net effect is slightly warming.

Jem it is important to recognize the difference between the effect of these gases in the outer reaches of the atmosphere and their effect near the earths surface. It is true that these gases have a shielding effect in the outer atmosphere, but their affect is different near the earths surface. They don't act as a greenhouse gas in the outer atmosphere where they instead act as a shield against incoming ir radiation from the sun, as you have pointed out. They would also, in the outer atmosphere, absorb some uv in the vacuum uv region. I am led to believe, by the experts, that on balance their net effect is slightly warming.

 

[piezoe]

...

I can tell you that some studies have shown that as you add more co2 the warming impact decreases logarithmically.

I have not read the same about the cooling effect.


http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/05/tom-quirk-global-temp-grp-blog.jpg

Jem, as a scientist I am happy to say that I believe this is very much on the right track. The warming due to the greenhouse effect should decrease logarithmically with CO2 increase. ...

This is a logical outcome of the way transmittance is related to pathlength and concentration. It is a little more complicated in the case of the atmosphere, because concentration decreases with altitude (pathlength), but intuitively this relationship seems correct to me. My impression is that you studied law rather than science. If that is correct, let me say I am very impressed with your ability to follow the science.

Here is a little science tidbit. I was intrigued by Salby's mention of CO2 diffusion in ice. I was once an expert in diffusion, it was long ago, and have published in that area. When Salby mentioned this, I immediately wondered where he got his diffusion coefficients. Or permeabilty, which is diffusion coefficient times solubility. I didn't think it was known. The ice core data assumes that diffusion is negligible. I recently turned up a 2008 paper which looked at diffusion of CO2 in ice. What I learned is that it is a very complicated issue and that it is very risky to neglect diffusion in the core interpretation. Probably the up/down pattern we see in historical CO2 atmospheric record from the core data is correct, but the inferred value of atmospheric CO2 could be quite far off. This is something Salby hinted at. What we would see if there is a sizable diffusion correction needed is that the estimates for atmospheric CO2 from core data would be too low. Remember that Salby said they could be up to 15 times too low!. Diffusion is always from higher to lower concentrations so the effect, if there is one, would always be to smooth out the CO2 concentration record, de-emphasizing the concentration peaks and boosting the vallies.

 

[futurecurrents]

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory ofgreenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

 

[Lucrum]

Jem, as a scientist I am happy to say that I believe this is very much on the right track. The warming due to the greenhouse effect should decrease logarithmically with CO2 increase. ...

This is a logical outcome of the way transmittance is related to pathlength and concentration. It is a little more complicated in the case of the atmosphere, because concentration decreases with altitude (pathlength), but intuitively this relationship seems correct to me. My impression is that you studied law rather than science. If that is correct, let me say I am very impressed with your ability to follow the science.

Here is a little science tidbit. I was intrigued by Salby's mention of CO2 diffusion in ice. I was once an expert in diffusion, it was long ago, and have published in that area. When Salby mentioned this, I immediately wondered where he got his diffusion coefficients. Or permeabilty, which is diffusion coefficient times solubility. I didn't think it was known. The ice core data assumes that diffusion is negligible. I recently turned up a 2008 paper which looked at diffusion of CO2 in ice. What I learned is that it is a very complicated issue and that it is very risky to neglect diffusion in the core interpretation. Probably the up/down pattern we see in historical CO2 atmospheric record from the core data is correct, but the inferred value of atmospheric CO2 could be quite far off. This is something Salby hinted at. What we would see if there is a sizable diffusion correction needed is that the estimates for atmospheric CO2 from core data would be too low. Remember that Salby said they could be up to 15 times too low!. Diffusion is always from higher to lower concentrations so the effect, if there is one, would always be to smooth out the CO2 concentration record, de-emphasizing the concentration peaks and boosting the vallies.

I have to admit, sometimes I get the impression you actually know what you're talking about.

 

[Lucrum]

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory ofgreenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

OTOH at NO time have I EVER had the impression you know what you're talking about.

 

[jem]

Piezoe I am an attorney but I I loved physics and AP physics in high school. I was just not willing to work my way through the math at the time so I did not go into science in college.

 

[futurecurrents]

Piezoe I am an attorney but I I loved physics and AP physics in high school. I was just not willing to work my way through the math at the time so I did not go into science in college.

Then you may be interested to see what the top physics organization in the US says about AGW.

• American Physical Society
• "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
  

 

[Lucrum]

...."The evidence is incontrovertible....

BULLSHIT!

 

[jem]

Lets talk science. How come you or they don't produce any science showing man made co2 causes warming... ever.

if you wish to talk individuals... I am going with these rocket scientists.

.




March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

1. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
2. /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
3. /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
4. /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
5. /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
6. /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
7. /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
8. /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
9. /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
10. /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
11. /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
12. /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
13. /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
14. /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
15. /s/ Anita Gale
16. /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
17. /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
18. /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
19. /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
20. /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
21. /s/ Thomas J. Harmon
22. /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
23. /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
24. /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
25. /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
26. /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
27. /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
28. /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
29. /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
30. /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
31. /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
32. /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
33. /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
34. /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
35. /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
36. /s/ Tom Ohesorge
37. /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
38. /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
39. /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate, 40 years
40. /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
41. /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
42. /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
43. /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
44. /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
45. /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
46. /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
47. /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
48. /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
49. /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
50. /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/10/...a-into-a-laughing-stock/#sthash.STplQlar.dpuf

Piezoe I am an attorney but I I loved physics and AP physics in high school. I was just not willing to work my way through the math at the time so I did not go into science in college.

Then you may be interested to see what the top physics organization in the US says about AGW.

• American Physical Society
• "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

 

[jem]

1. you are citing 2007 garbage... things have changed.

According to the American Physical Society, “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion” of a global warming crisis.


2. I see you also citing the AMS. Well that was old crap too.


Barely half of American Meteorological Society meteorologists believe global warming is occurring and humans are the primary cause, a newly released study reveals. The survey results comprise the latest in a long line of evidence indicating the often asserted global warming consensus does not exist.

The American Meteorological Society, working with experts at George Mason University and Yale University, emailed all AMS members for whom the AMS had a mailing address (excluding associate members and student members) and asked them to fill out an online survey on global warming. More than 1,800 AMS meteorologists filled out the survey, providing a highly representative view of scientists with meteorological, climatological, and atmospheric science expertise.

The central question in the survey consisted of two parts: “Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?” Answer options were:

Yes: Mostly human

Yes: Equally human and natural

Yes: Mostly natural

Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]

Yes: Don’t know cause

Don’t know if global warming is happening

Global warming is not happening

Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human. The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.

Importantly, the survey addressed merely one of the necessary components of a human-induced global warming crisis. The survey did not ask whether temperatures are warmer than those of the Medieval Warm Period or other recent warm periods, did not ask whether temperatures are warming at a rapid pace, did not ask whether recent warming has been harmful or beneficial and did not ask whether transforming our energy economy would stop global warming or pass a cost/benefit test. Certainly, many of the 52 percent of meteorologists who believe humans are primarily responsible for some warming would nevertheless question some of these other necessary components of a human-induced global warming crisis.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...estroys-the-global-warming-climate-consensus/