NOAA busted re-writing temperature History.

[lost_shaman]

On 5/1/2018 at 9:16 AM, Doug1o29 said:

First, the lowest CO2 level that I know of was from the Vostok Ice Core which produced a record low of 191 ppm at 150,330 YBP.  CO2 has never been down to 180 ppm.  Almost, but not quite.

From Vostok, 18,000 YBP a CO2 concentration of ~180 ppmv. See Petit et al. 1999 NATURE |VOL 399 |3 JUNE 1999

[Doug1029]

On 5/4/2018 at 10:50 PM, lost_shaman said:

From Vostok, 18,000 YBP a CO2 concentration of ~180 ppmv. See Petit et al. 1999 NATURE |VOL 399 |3 JUNE 1999

Thanks.  That's not on my list.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

21 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Thanks.  That's not on my list.

 

You are welcome but you should know this considering that "we" have discussed  CO2 levels being very low and approaching extinction levels before.

[Doug1029]

On 4/24/2018 at 12:18 AM, lost_shaman said:

See now you are either making things up or deliberately confusicating  the FACTS!

Reinhardt completely agreed with the CO2 increase, he also completely agreed with the amount of warming over the time period. He also said unequivocally that the amount of warming could not be attributable to that CO2 increase! He said that CO2 increase amounts to ~ 0.12 K of the 1 K increase in warming over the time period. 

Please try to understand the discussion we are attempting to have here Doug. 

 

Again, you are completely off your rocker Friend! Let me note again that just a simple 2% annual fluctuation in Earth's albedo equates to 7 w/m2 which completely dwarfs any impact that CO2 can possibly have and that amount of heating or cooling is what effects Water Vapor which also dwarfs any effect CO2 has in terms of heating the lower Atmosphere or surface temperatures! 

This is an example of using the wrong model.  A ratio-proportion can be made to work in such situations:  just subtract the starting conditions from each variable.  Use the CHANGE in [CO₂] over the CHANGE in time.  That way, you won't embarrass yourself with rants like this.

Doug

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

You are welcome but you should know this considering that "we" have discussed  CO2 levels being very low and approaching extinction levels before.

Something bothers me about that 180 ppm figure.  As I recall, there was another reading taken about 250 years earlier that showed a level above 190 ppm.  That's awful close together for two such readings under natural conditions.  I'll see if I can find the reference.

Something we need to remember when trying to attribute changes in temps to changes in [CO₂] over time spans of thousands of years:  the Milankovitch Cycles.  They are a major driving force behind climate changes and the advance and retreat of glaciers over geologic time spans.  But over shorter periods, like a century, can be ignored.  They would distort Rheinhart's results pretty badly if they were being used on ice core data over thousands of years, but would have little effect during the twentieth century.  We need to subtract out their effects before trying to conclude anything.

 

It's official:  I'm starting the carbon sequestration project.  First step is to update data on 350 plots.

Doug

Edited May 8, 2018 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

On 5/4/2018 at 10:50 PM, lost_shaman said:

From Vostok, 18,000 YBP a CO2 concentration of ~180 ppmv. See Petit et al. 1999 NATURE |VOL 399 |3 JUNE 1999

The threshold level of [CO₂] needed to support photosynthesis is between 50 and 100 ppm (Moss 1962), depending on species, about 60 ppm for elderberry.  180 ppm is still a long way from critical.

Doug

Moss, D. N.  1962.  The Limiting Carbon Dioxide Concentration for Photosynthesis.  Nature 193, 587.

 

Yes.  There's a fee for accessing the article.  Use your state university links for a free copy.

Doug

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

The threshold level of [CO₂] needed to support photosynthesis is between 50 and 100 ppm (Moss 1962), depending on species, about 60 ppm for elderberry.  180 ppm is still a long way from critical.

Doug

Moss, D. N.  1962.  The Limiting Carbon Dioxide Concentration for Photosynthesis.  Nature 193, 587.

 

Yes.  There's a fee for accessing the article.  Use your state university links for a free copy.

Doug

P. S.:  I just noticed:  all tests into the CO2 threshold have been done on C3 plants.  What's going on with the others?  C4 plants do CO2 loading; that might have a major effect.  There's a research project for you, LS.  Determine the threshold for C4 grasses.  If you were to conduct and publish four or five papers on climate-related topics, you wouldn't need advanced degrees.  Your research would be your credentials.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

19 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

P. S.:  I just noticed:  all tests into the CO2 threshold have been done on C3 plants.  What's going on with the others?  C4 plants do CO2 loading; that might have a major effect.  There's a research project for you, LS.  Determine the threshold for C4 grasses.  If you were to conduct and publish four or five papers on climate-related topics, you wouldn't need advanced degrees.  Your research would be your credentials.

Doug

My first reaction would be to say C4 plants are largely consumed and therefore mostly carbon neutral and or grow sparsely in arid  regions and have minimal effect.

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

My first reaction would be to say C4 plants are largely consumed and therefore mostly carbon neutral and or grow sparsely in arid  regions and have minimal effect.

C3 plants are also largely consumed.  But if C4 plants have a different CO2 threshold, they would respond differently at low CO2 concentrations.  There's a project in progress to map the Great Plains/forest boundary during the Younger Dryas by measuring the C14/C13 ratio in soils of that age.  That would be at CO2 levels around 190 to 200 ppm.  The C3/C4 balance might affect that.  Anyway, something to think about.

Doug

[bmk1245]

On 4/21/2018 at 10:49 PM, lost_shaman said:

I have no idea the way you've worded that question. However here are a couple of examples of the overestimation which is what was said to be attempted in the Paper... Bold emphasis mine.

 

Sorry for that late response, I expected you will see the flaws in Reinhart's "paper". You may already have noticed that he used all lines from HITRAN (kinda smokescreen - flee can kick your balls) yet he deliberately avoids line broadening impact. Sure, he do mentions that, yet he fails to mention what values he used in his estimations.

[lost_shaman]

On 5/12/2018 at 3:09 PM, bmk1245 said:

Sorry for that late response, I expected you will see the flaws in Reinhart's "paper".

I don't see flaws. Maybe you can elluciate us?

 

On 5/12/2018 at 3:09 PM, bmk1245 said:

Sure, he do mentions that, yet he fails to mention what values he used in his estimations.

Again, could you cite exact "flaw" in Reinhardt's Paper?

[lost_shaman]

On 5/13/2018 at 10:20 PM, lost_shaman said:

I don't see flaws. Maybe you can elluciate us?

Guess not?

 

On 5/13/2018 at 10:20 PM, lost_shaman said:

Again, could you cite exact "flaw" in Reinhardt's Paper?

Guess not?

 

Maybe if Doug and other Alarists would spend more time studying CO2 instead of trying to read tree rings and other proxies that they don't fully understand they might begin to truly understand the "Earth's not melting" truth they seem to reject out of hand! Ask an "Alarmist" how CO2 heats the top meter of Earth's surface (where the land thermometers are situated) and you will get a dozen answers from a dozen "Alarmist"! 

First, these thermometers are very close to the ground where humidity (water vapor) is dominating, evaporation cools the top meter of the Atmosphere, condensation warms this layer, and latent Humidity in this layer is also a warming factor many times stronger than CO2 could ever dream of doing. 

"Alarmists" might tell you that CO2 warms the atmosphere and this creates a feedback that means more Humidity which is what actually warms the surface. What actually happens is that more water vapor rises, condenses (which helps maintain warmth and further rising) until the cooler air higher in the Troposphere  cools this warm humid air and this causes Clouds and or also rain/storms. These latter both lead to cooling as clouds reflect heat back to space and rain and storms are cooling events. This is a simple example of the water cycle. It then repeats and due to some many other environmental factors we end up with natural variability that is dominating the Climate. 

When it comes to CO2 the Earth's Atmosphere is already saturated at sea level at 10 meters. That means all Longwave Radiation that CO2 can absorb, it is totally absorbed within 10 meters at current levels. If you double CO2 then the saturation at sea levels would be 5 meters. Scary huh?

No it's not Scary!!! The Earth as a Blackbody only emits a certain amount of Longwave Radiation, and if the Temperature of Earth warms then the Blackbody radiation spectrum Earth emits shifts toward shorter wavelengths which means less LWR is available for CO2 to absorb. In the meantime the saturation of CO2 at 10 meters means the Blackbody radiation from Earth's surface continues further away from the surface minus the amount saturated in the first 10 meters. That is because all the LWR that CO2 can absorb will have been absorbed within that 10 meters. 

Now the "Alarmist" will tell you more CO2 will mean more LWR directed back towards the Earth. But wait!!! If the blackbody radiation is saturated from the Surface up then how does the "'Alarmist" explain surface heating from down welling LWR? 

That small amount of heating by CO2 in the lower Troposphere again does nothing but add to convection rising that air higher to be cooled. By the way. 

For example Deserts are notorious for geting cool at night. It because of a lack of humidity and certain clouds, nothing to do with CO2 because CO2 is well mixed and present in Deserts at the same levels. 

[Doug1029]

7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Guess not?

 

Guess not?

 

Maybe if Doug and other Alarists would spend more time studying CO2 instead of trying to read tree rings and other proxies that they don't fully understand they might begin to truly understand the "Earth's not melting" truth they seem to reject out of hand! Ask an "Alarmist" how CO2 heats the top meter of Earth's surface (where the land thermometers are situated) and you will get a dozen answers from a dozen "Alarmist"! 

First, these thermometers are very close to the ground where humidity (water vapor) is dominating, evaporation cools the top meter of the Atmosphere, condensation warms this layer, and latent Humidity in this layer is also a warming factor many times stronger than CO2 could ever dream of doing. 

"Alarmists" might tell you that CO2 warms the atmosphere and this creates a feedback that means more Humidity which is what actually warms the surface. What actually happens is that more water vapor rises, condenses (which helps maintain warmth and further rising) until the cooler air higher in the Troposphere  cools this warm humid air and this causes Clouds and or also rain/storms. These latter both lead to cooling as clouds reflect heat back to space and rain and storms are cooling events. This is a simple example of the water cycle. It then repeats and due to some many other environmental factors we end up with natural variability that is dominating the Climate. 

When it comes to CO2 the Earth's Atmosphere is already saturated at sea level at 10 meters. That means all Longwave Radiation that CO2 can absorb, it is totally absorbed within 10 meters at current levels. If you double CO2 then the saturation at sea levels would be 5 meters. Scary huh?

No it's not Scary!!! The Earth as a Blackbody only emits a certain amount of Longwave Radiation, and if the Temperature of Earth warms then the Blackbody radiation spectrum Earth emits shifts toward shorter wavelengths which means less LWR is available for CO2 to absorb. In the meantime the saturation of CO2 at 10 meters means the Blackbody radiation from Earth's surface continues further away from the surface minus the amount saturated in the first 10 meters. That is because all the LWR that CO2 can absorb will have been absorbed within that 10 meters. 

Now the "Alarmist" will tell you more CO2 will mean more LWR directed back towards the Earth. But wait!!! If the blackbody radiation is saturated from the Surface up then how does the "'Alarmist" explain surface heating from down welling LWR? 

That small amount of heating by CO2 in the lower Troposphere again does nothing but add to convection rising that air higher to be cooled. By the way. 

For example Deserts are notorious for geting cool at night. It because of a lack of humidity and certain clouds, nothing to do with CO2 because CO2 is well mixed and present in Deserts at the same levels. 

Post #358

[bmk1245]

On 5/14/2018 at 6:20 AM, lost_shaman said:

I don't see flaws. Maybe you can elluciate us?

 

Again, could you cite exact "flaw" in Reinhardt's Paper?

Sorry, yes, I can elucidate: Reinhardt do not explains what value of line broadening (change of it over the height) he is using.

[bmk1245]

On 5/17/2018 at 11:31 AM, lost_shaman said:

Guess not?

 

Guess not?

 

Maybe if Doug and other Alarists would spend more time studying CO2 instead of trying to read tree rings and other proxies that they don't fully understand they might begin to truly understand the "Earth's not melting" truth they seem to reject out of hand! Ask an "Alarmist" how CO2 heats the top meter of Earth's surface (where the land thermometers are situated) and you will get a dozen answers from a dozen "Alarmist"! 

First, these thermometers are very close to the ground where humidity (water vapor) is dominating, evaporation cools the top meter of the Atmosphere, condensation warms this layer, and latent Humidity in this layer is also a warming factor many times stronger than CO2 could ever dream of doing. 

"Alarmists" might tell you that CO2 warms the atmosphere and this creates a feedback that means more Humidity which is what actually warms the surface. What actually happens is that more water vapor rises, condenses (which helps maintain warmth and further rising) until the cooler air higher in the Troposphere  cools this warm humid air and this causes Clouds and or also rain/storms. These latter both lead to cooling as clouds reflect heat back to space and rain and storms are cooling events. This is a simple example of the water cycle. It then repeats and due to some many other environmental factors we end up with natural variability that is dominating the Climate. 

When it comes to CO2 the Earth's Atmosphere is already saturated at sea level at 10 meters. That means all Longwave Radiation that CO2 can absorb, it is totally absorbed within 10 meters at current levels. If you double CO2 then the saturation at sea levels would be 5 meters. Scary huh?

No it's not Scary!!! The Earth as a Blackbody only emits a certain amount of Longwave Radiation, and if the Temperature of Earth warms then the Blackbody radiation spectrum Earth emits shifts toward shorter wavelengths which means less LWR is available for CO2 to absorb. In the meantime the saturation of CO2 at 10 meters means the Blackbody radiation from Earth's surface continues further away from the surface minus the amount saturated in the first 10 meters. That is because all the LWR that CO2 can absorb will have been absorbed within that 10 meters. 

Now the "Alarmist" will tell you more CO2 will mean more LWR directed back towards the Earth. But wait!!! If the blackbody radiation is saturated from the Surface up then how does the "'Alarmist" explain surface heating from down welling LWR? 

That small amount of heating by CO2 in the lower Troposphere again does nothing but add to convection rising that air higher to be cooled. By the way. 

For example Deserts are notorious for geting cool at night. It because of a lack of humidity and certain clouds, nothing to do with CO2 because CO2 is well mixed and present in Deserts at the same levels. 

Jeez, LS, calm down...

OK, LS, jackals already invading Lithuania (and the rest of Europe), freaking pests (none-seen before) mauling pine forests (I remember reading that Czechs already lost 3rd of their spruce/pine forests), and many more...

[bmk1245]

LS, sorry, I forgot to post graph regarding broadening. 

(Craig F. Bohren et al, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation, 2006, Wiley-VCH; page 105, figure 2.20)

Thats for water absorptivity, but the same applies to CO₂ as well. As you can see, issue is not that simple, but Reinhardt, for some reason, avoids that. In nowhere do he mentions how he treated broadening.

BTW, despite his works in solid state physics, atmospheric science ain't his horsie.

[lost_shaman]

On 5/18/2018 at 11:30 AM, bmk1245 said:

Sorry, yes, I can elucidate: Reinhardt do not explains what value of line broadening (change of it over the height) he is using.

Sure he does...

Quote

The atmosphere exhibits a strong pressure and temperature dependence with the height above sea level, x. The absorption strength strongly depends on the resulting large CO2 concentration variation. To keep the calculation manageable, we make a number of additional simplifying assumptions. Firstly, we consider an isothermal atmosphere of T = 288 K with an exponential barometric pressure dependence. The characteristic barometric height at which the pressure falls to 1 / e compared to that at sea level is x0 = 7996 m 8 . The constant temperature assumption is contrary to experience. It tends to overestimate the absorption, because the temperature decreases for all x < 12 km. Reduced temperatures imply decreased ground state probabilities and reduced absorption. Secondly, the half widths of the absorption lines include collision and Doppler broadening. These values are also reduced at high atmospheric levels. This fact again leads to a slight overestimation of the absorption. We approximate the CO2 absorption for a given line by α(x, uj) = α0(uj) exp(– x / x0), (5) where α0(uj) represents the absorbance of the line j at sea level.

 

 

 

[bmk1245]

6 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Sure he does...

 

 

 

He is using simplest exponential dependence (vs height), without broadening dependence versus height. Thats not the case, as is obvious from the pic I posted earlier. Did he used HITRAN values at x₀? If so, he hugely underestimated absorption.

[lost_shaman]

On 5/19/2018 at 6:09 PM, bmk1245 said:

He is using simplest exponential dependence (vs height), without broadening dependence versus height. Thats not the case, as is obvious from the pic I posted earlier. Did he used HITRAN values at x₀? If so, he hugely underestimated absorption.

No that is not what he is saying. He is basically saying that at height there are less molecules for excited CO2 molecules to bump into therefore there is LESS heat because more Longwave radiation is radiated into space as opposed to exciting more CO2 molecules that go around bumping into the molecules that don't absorb longwave radiation. 

Where you "Alarmist" go wrong is thinking CO2  re-emits large amounts of LW radiation back to the surface and this warms the surface but that is not truely how vit works due of simple things ongoing like convection just to name one powerful limit on your flawed understanding of Climate.

[bmk1245]

5 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

No that is not what he is saying. He is basically saying that at height there are less molecules for excited CO2 molecules to bump into therefore there is LESS heat because more Longwave radiation is radiated into space as opposed to exciting more CO2 molecules that go around bumping into the molecules that don't absorb longwave radiation. 

Where you "Alarmist" go wrong is thinking CO2  re-emits large amounts of LW radiation back to the surface and this warms the surface but that is not truely how vit works due of simple things ongoing like convection just to name one powerful limit on your flawed understanding of Climate.

Ok, what broadening values did he used?

[lost_shaman]

19 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Ok, what broadening values did he used?

Why don't you look that up and when you find it then explain how this relates to what Reinhardt is saying?

I personally have no problem with what he said on that issue so why should I spend my time looking for something I don't have a problem with while you feel may be wrong? 

While you are busy doing your own homework and I am busy living my life think about this, the "broadening" you are talking about is the "broadening" on either side of a Molecules absorption "peak". So for example with CO2 the 15um long wave absorption peak is where CO2 really gets a good KICK. "Broadening" means that at say 14.5um long wave photon has to travel a non negligible distance further through the atmosphere to potentially be absorbed by a CO2 Molecule, but that also if it does hit a CO2 Molecule it will impart a non negligible amount of less Energy than a 15um photon would.

So your idea that Reinhardt is ignoring "broadening" is false and he explains shortly how this is a cooling phenomena. 

Also when photons are re-emitted they tend to shift to lower wavelengths which would mean less energy for the next CO2 Molecule to reabsorb. These are not like ping pong balls that can go back in forth forever, they lose energy and CO2 can no longer absorb them.

Then you also have the fact that most heating from CO2 that has absorbed a say 15um photon loses its energy when it collides with a non radiative air Atom or Molecule. CO2 loses its energy when one of its excited states collides with Nitrogen or O2 (or anything else) which will impart energy to the Nitrogen or Oxygen but the CO2 Molecule loses energy and can not re-emit a photon any longer. At Sea level and in the Troposphere collisions happen faster than CO2 re-emissions. This contributes a small amount of convection, so a small ppmv of CO2 does warm the Atmosphere but this effect is not linear it is logarithmic and the heating from CO2 has largely already occurred and adding more will cause less and less heating. 

 

 

[lost_shaman]

On 5/17/2018 at 11:21 AM, Doug1o29 said:

Post #358

Well Doug I'm not the only one around who understands what Reinhardt is talking about and you still need to understand the physics behind all this as Derek has discussed with you as well.

Let me quote a short paragraph from an article on WUWT posted today that agrees what I've been recently saying and is also in line with Rienhardt's Paper.

Quote

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/25/climatic-distortions-due-to-diminutive-denominators/

 

Once a molecule absorbs a photon, it gains energy and goes into an excited state; until that energy is lost (via re-radiation or collisions), that molecule won’t absorb another photon. A consequence of this is that the total absorption by any gas gradually saturatesas the amount of that gas increases. A tiny amount of a gas absorbs very effectively, but if the amount is doubled, the total absorption will be less than twice as much as at first; and similarly if doubled again and again. We say the absorption has logarithmic dependence on the concentration of the particular gas. The curve of how total absorption falls off varies according to the exponential function, exp (-X/A), where X is the amount of a gas present [typically expressed in parts per million, ppm], and A is a constant related to the physics of the molecule. Each gas will have a different value, denoted B, C, D, etc. Getting these numbers within + 15% is considered pretty good.

Thomas P. Sheahen

 

[Doug1029]

On 5/25/2018 at 10:56 PM, lost_shaman said:

Well Doug I'm not the only one around who understands what Reinhardt is talking about and you still need to understand the physics behind all this as Derek has discussed with you as well.

Let me quote a short paragraph from an article on WUWT posted today that agrees what I've been recently saying and is also in line with Rienhardt's Paper.

 

I think bmk1245 may have found the answer to why Rheinhardt's paper flunked peer review - technical errors.  Shame neither of us caught that.  And that's why papers that aren't peer reviewed are not usually quoted in professional journals.

As for Antony Watts:  if that's your source of climate info, you are never going to make an effective argument.  Start citing some real papers.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

On 6/4/2018 at 8:14 AM, Doug1o29 said:

I think bmk1245 may have found the answer to why Rheinhardt's paper flunked peer review - technical errors.

What technical errors? Please cite these and explain what you think is erroneous.

[Doug1029]

4 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

What technical errors? Please cite these and explain what you think is erroneous.

His treatment of broadening.  CO₂ absorption is not the same throughout the spectrum.  Rheinhardt treats it as if it is the same.  That's what you and Derek accused me of doing.

I note that you're not arguing that it didn't fail peer review.  And in all honesty, that might not have been the reason.

Doug

Edited June 11, 2018 by Doug1029