Jurik Moyenne Mobile Calcul

Invité essai par Andy May Cette version corrige une erreur dans la concentration moyenne de vapeur d'eau dans l'atmosphère. L'atmosphère sèche de la Terre est de 78 atomes d'azote, 21 d'oxygène et 0,9 d'argon. Ce ne sont pas des gaz à effet de serre et ils totalisent 99,9, laissant peu d'espace pour les gaz à effet de serre méthane, dioxyde de carbone et vapeur d'eau. La quantité de vapeur d'eau dans l'atmosphère varie beaucoup avec l'altitude et la température. À basse altitude et à des températures élevées (supérieures à 30 ° C ou 86 ° F), l'océan peut atteindre 4,3 ou plus de l'atmosphère et est moins dense que l'air sec, ce qui provoque sa montée. Il s'élèvera jusqu'à ce que la température soit suffisamment basse pour qu'il se condense à un état liquide ou solide et forme des nuages, de la pluie ou de la neige. La quantité de vapeur d'eau dans l'air chute à très près de zéro lorsque les températures sont inférieures à -10.0C. Ainsi, le volume moyen de vapeur d'eau dans l'atmosphère totale est variable et habituellement entre 1 et 2. Donc, à l'exclusion de l'azote, de l'oxygène, de la vapeur d'eau et de l'argon, il nous reste 0,1 pour tout le reste. La vapeur d'eau est un puissant gaz à effet de serre radiatif et où la concentration est élevée, sur les océans tropicaux, elle a un effet de serre radiatif important. Mais, sur terre et dans les latitudes plus froides, il n'y en a pas assez pour avoir un effet significatif. Le dioxyde de carbone représente 0,04 de l'atmosphère terrestre et est plus uniformément réparti que la vapeur d'eau. Presque tout l'effet de serre radiatif dans les zones de séchage est dû au dioxyde de carbone, avec une petite contribution du méthane. Le méthane représente environ 0,00018 de l'atmosphère en moyenne, il est distribué de manière inégale comme la vapeur d'eau. Sur les zones marécageuses avec beaucoup de végétation ou sur les fermes, il peut être élevé. Sur la plus grande partie de la Terre, il est essentiellement nul. Le méthane est très réactif et est éliminé de l'atmosphère rapidement après qu'il est libéré. Le dioxyde de carbone, la vapeur d'eau et le méthane sont les principaux gaz à effet de serre radiatifs dans l'atmosphère. Il existe d'autres gaz à l'état de traces, comme le néon, le krypton et le xénon, mais ils ne sont pas des gaz à effet de serre. Le GIEC (WG1 AR5) aime ajouter du N 2 O (oxyde nitreux ou gaz de rire) à la liste des serres. Il s'agit d'un gaz émis par les océans, les sols, les engrais et la biomasse brûlante. Il est présent dans l'atmosphère en très faibles concentrations (0,000032) et est très réactif. C'est un carburant de fusée et un additif d'essence de voiture de course, après tout. Cette volatilité se traduit par une très courte durée de vie dans l'atmosphère, de sorte qu'il est difficile de comprendre comment elle pourrait avoir beaucoup d'effet de serre. En outre, même l'IPCC admet à la page 468 de WG1 AR5, l'azote ajouté augmente les puits de CO2 naturels (augmente essentiellement la croissance de la plante) de sorte que l'effet net de L'oxyde nitreux peut être de réduire l'effet de serre. Ce poste sera axé sur le CO 2. Le dioxyde de carbone est émis lorsque les animaux et certains microbes respirent, des océans (qui contiennent 93 du dioxyde de carbone sur Terre) et quand les usines ou les combustibles fossiles sont brûlés. Dans les années 1990, les émissions de combustibles fossiles représentaient environ 3% du dioxyde de carbone entrant dans l'atmosphère selon l'EPA. Environ la moitié des émissions de combustibles fossiles ont été absorbées par l'environnement. Les émissions de CO2 ont surtout été absorbées par les océans, les plantes terrestres et les algues marines. Plus de dioxyde de carbone dans l'atmosphère est un engrais puissant, pour une illustration dramatique de l'effet, voir cette courte vidéo youtube. La figure 1 montre l'impact du dioxyde de carbone supplémentaire sur les pins dans des conditions contrôlées. Les quatre niveaux de CO2 testés sont, de gauche à droite, 385 ppm, 535 ppm, 685 ppm et 835 ppm. Figure 1 (Arbres de pin cultivés à la concentration ambiante de CO 2 et trois concentrations plus élevées de CO2 dans des conditions contrôlées, source) Le dioxyde de carbone supplémentaire amène les plantes à produire moins de pores stomatiques par unité de surface foliaire. Les pores stomatiques (ou stomates) sont la façon dont les plantes respirent le dioxyde de carbone et perdent de l'eau et de l'oxygène dans l'air. Moins de stomates signifie moins de perte d'eau due à l'évaporation, moins de sensibilité à la pollution, et plus de résistance à la chaleur et au froid. Il ya des preuves convaincantes que la concentration croissante de dioxyde de carbone dans l'atmosphère est une cause primaire d'écologisation récent observé de la Terre. Les données satellitaires montrent que la Terre est maintenant plus verte que dans les années 1980 de 6 à 13. Le Dr Ranga Myneni (Université de Boston) estime une augmentation de 14 dans la productivité de l'écosystème au cours des 30 dernières années. Le rapport WG1 AR5 du GIEC discute de l'effet de la fertilisation du CO2 à la page 502. Ils estiment que l'écologisation de la Terre, due au réchauffement et au CO2, est de 6. Ceci est à l'extrémité basse des estimations publiées. Sur la même page du rapport, ils disent: Ainsi, avec une grande confiance, l'effet de la fertilisation du CO 2 entraînera une amélioration de la productivité nette primaire des centrales nucléaires, mais des incertitudes importantes demeurent quant à l'ampleur de cet effet (Phillips et al. 1998), due en partie à l'augmentation du CO2. La figure 2 montre les taux de croissance de la forêt tropicale pour les régions plus sèches et plus humides dans le parc national de Kakadu d'Australias. La figure 2 est de Banfai et Bowman (2006). Leur étude aérienne du parc national Australias Kakadu a révélé que la forêt tropicale a augmenté de 28,8 entre 1960 et 2004. Cette expansion est principalement due à des précipitations supplémentaires. Mais, plus important encore, ils ont constaté que les zones de séchage du parc ont augmenté de 42, alors que les zones humides ont augmenté de seulement 13. L'augmentation des zones de séchage était conforme à l'augmentation globale du CO2. La figure 3 montre l'écologisation du Sahel africain de 1982 à 2003. Les valeurs de NDVI cartographiées dans la figure 3 sont l'indice de végétation de différence normalisée. Il a été calculé par Herrmann, et al. (2005) et ont constaté que: la pluviométrie apparaît comme le facteur causal dominant dans la dynamique de la végétation verdoyante dans le Sahel, mais la verdure de la végétation était au-delà de ce qui serait attendu de la seule récupération des conditions pluviométriques. Le réchauffement que nous avons connu au cours des 130 dernières années a également eu un effet positif sur la vie végétale. Le réchauffement de la planète permet aux plantes de se déplacer plus au nord et au sud, en élargissant la zone végétalisée. Le fait que les plantes poussent plus efficacement, sont plus résistants aux températures extrêmes, et avec moins d'eau leur permet d'empiéter dans les zones qui étaient auparavant déserts improductifs. Il existe de nombreuses études évaluées par des pairs soutenant l'écologisation de la Terre en raison de l'augmentation du dioxyde de carbone et des températures plus chaudes. Vous pouvez trouver une bonne bibliographie et une discussion de la littérature dans Dr. Craig Idsos excellent livre en ligne L'état de la terre biosphère terrestre. La figure 4 illustre l'effet du CO2 supplémentaire et des températures plus chaudes sur les feuilles de tremble de grande dent. Sur la figure 4, remarquez que la température de pointe de productivité augmente de 25 ° C à 36 ° C à la concentration de CO 2 plus élevée. Comme indiqué plus haut, le CO2 supplémentaire signifie moins de stomates dans la feuille et une plus grande résistance à la sécheresse et aux températures extrêmes. Une des raisons pour lesquelles le réchauffement climatique est peu susceptible de réduire la productivité des plantes est que la productivité de la plante augmente avec l'augmentation du CO2 et la température optimale de la productivité augmente également. Un fait critique que le Dr Idso évoque est que: Les terres terrestres étaient une source nette de CO 2 - carbone dans l'atmosphère jusqu'en 1940 environ. À partir de 1940, la biosphère terrestre est devenue, en moyenne, un puits de plus en plus grand Pour le carbone CO 2. Au cours des 50 dernières années, l'absorption mondiale de carbone a doublé, passant de 2,40,8 milliards de tonnes en 1960 à 5,00,9 milliards de tonnes en 2010. Cela est également reconnu par le GIEC dans le WG1 AR5, à la page 486, tableau 6.1. Mais, le GIEC rapporte des chiffres beaucoup plus faibles (2,7 milliards de tonnes pour 2011) pour le puits de CO2 de la biota terrestre. Même le nombre inférieur est important car il montre que l'absorption de CO 2, par les plantes, augmente à mesure que le CO 2 disponible augmente. Comme le montrent le livre et les références, l'écologisation de la planète est due, en partie, à l'augmentation du CO 2 et des températures plus chaudes. En fait, on peut montrer que l'augmentation du CO2 et du réchauffement climatique ont profité au monde et à l'humanité. Cet avantage net pourrait se poursuivre jusqu'en 2080, même en utilisant le pire scénario de réchauffement climatique du GIEC. D'après le Rapport du GIEC sur le WG1 AR5 (page 472), en moyenne, les molécules de CO 2 sont échangées entre l'atmosphère et la surface tous les quelques années. Seule une infime fraction (2) du CO 2 total sur Terre est dans l'atmosphère. La plupart sont stockés dans les océans (93) ou dans les sols et les plantes terrestres (5). Ainsi, le fait que les terres et les océans absorbent plus de CO 2 que par le passé est important. Peut-être que l'absorption du CO2 par les terres et les océans ralentira à l'avenir, comme le suggère le GIEC, mais cela n'a pas été démontré ou observé à ce jour, sauf lorsque les nutriments vitaux sont insuffisants. Le GIEC G1 AR5 déclare plus tard, de façon alarmante, sur la même page (472), que l'élimination de tout CO 2 émis par l'homme prendra quelques centaines de milliers d'années. Cette affirmation n'est étayée que par des preuves géologiques de l'événement Thermal Maximum Paleocène-Eocène il y a 55 millions d'années, lorsque la température de surface moyenne était de 22 ° C et que la concentration atmosphérique moyenne de CO2 était de 800-1000 ppm. Leur logique est compliquée et difficile à suivre, mais ils semblent dire que le CO 2 n'est pas allé jusqu'à ce qu'il soit pris par les roches. Ils ignorent complètement l'augmentation probable du biota océanique et terrestre qui se produira en raison du CO 2 supplémentaire. En outre, pourquoi supposent-ils que le dioxyde de carbone enlevé de l'air et stocké dans les plantes est toujours un problème Cela n'est pas expliqué et je trouve leurs arguments peu convaincants. En conclusion, le CO 2 supplémentaire présente des avantages qui n'ont pas été pleinement pris en compte par le GIEC. En faisant une analyse de l'impact du réchauffement planétaire dû aux émissions de combustibles fossiles, les avantages estimés du CO2 supplémentaire et les problèmes estimés doivent être pris en compte. Le CO2 est un gaz à effet de serre, mais son effet net sur les températures mondiales et sur l'humanité est inconnu. Le CO2 a augmenté à un rythme beaucoup plus élevé dans ce siècle que dans la dernière partie du siècle précédent. Jusqu'à présent ce siècle, il a augmenté de 2,1 ppmyear contre 1,5 ppmyear précédemment (voir les pentes de la figure 5, qui sont en ppmyear), mais les températures ont augmenté plus lentement dans ce siècle (.0165Cyear maintenant versus .0188 Cyear précédemment, figure 6). La figure 5 présente les valeurs moyennes annuelles de dioxyde de carbone de l'Observatoire Mauna Loa, les données proviennent de la NOAA. La figure 6 montre les anomalies annuelles de la température médiane de l'ensemble global HADCrut 4.5, les données proviennent ici. J'ai délibérément inclus 2016 à Octobre pour capturer le récent El Nino, puisque la tendance pour le siècle précédent comprend le 1998 El Nino. Il faut se demander si le CO 2 est le principal moteur du réchauffement planétaire, pourquoi le taux d'augmentation de la température diminue-t-il lorsque le taux d'augmentation du CO 2 augmente? Comparer deux tendances consécutives de 17 ans n'est pas, à proprement parler, En comparant deux tendances climatiques, la période est trop courte. Mais il n'y a certainement aucune raison impérieuse de dépenser des milliards de dollars dans une tentative inutile de réduire nos émissions de dioxyde de carbone en fonction des preuves dont nous disposons aujourd'hui. Il ressort clairement des photos qu'il existe une corrélation inverse entre le niveau de CO2 et la hauteur de l'homme qui détient le signe. La tendance suggère que par le temps CO2 frappe 1000ppm il sera moins de 128243 grand. Oh mon Cet effet catastrophique doit être mieux compris avant qu'il ne soit trop tard. S'il vous plaît faire un don maintenant comme plus d'étude est nécessaire. 8220La quantité de vapeur d'eau dans l'air chute à très près de zéro lorsque les températures sont inférieures à 0C8221 8212 Est-ce vrai? Certes, il est plus faible qu'à un 70F doux, mais la pression de vapeur tombe à 25 à 32F vs 70F. C'est 8282s faible, mais pas proche de zéro. Il ya une raison pour laquelle la glace sublime souvent plutôt que fond. Quand nous aurons des pressions beaucoup plus basses dans la haute atmosphère, je pense que cela pourrait être un peu plus élevé en pourcentage. Il semble qu'il y ait souvent assez d'eau pour former des nuages. Ils soulignent toujours comment l'air était sec et froid pendant l'âge glaciaire. Je suppose 8220close à zero8221 est une question d'opinion. Si vous préférez, substituer -20C où l'humidité absolue est très faible. Le point est le même. 8221 Ainsi, à l'exclusion de l'azote, de l'oxygène, de la vapeur d'eau et de l'argon, il nous reste 0,1 pour tout le reste. Puisque vous parlez de 100 de l'atmosphère, et de l'air sec, une fois que vous ajoutez la vapeur d'humidité, vous avez plus de 100. Sans doute, il n'y a pas de limite à la quantité de vapeur d'eau qui peut être ajoutée, Rien d'autre car sa pression partielle est déterminée par la température plutôt que par le volume, comme dans le cas des autres gaz quasi-condensables. George Hebbard a écrit: Sans aucun doute, il n'y a aucune limite à la quantité de vapeur d'eau qui peut être ajoutée I8217m heureux de discuter avec cela. Une fois que vous atteignez l'humidité relative, vous pouvez sursaturer de l'air jusqu'à bien plus longtemps dans l'air pur, mais si vous êtes près du sol, vous obtenez la rosée ou le gel, et si vous avez des noyaux de condensation nuage, vous obtenez des nuages. Ce sont des limites que vous pouvez voir presque tous les jours dans la plupart des coins du monde. Il n'y a pas de limite à la quantité de vapeur d'eau qui peut être ajoutée (à l'atmosphère), et il ne se propage pas autre chose George, George, George, George, mieux vous prenez quelques respirations profondes, asseyez-vous. Et ensuite réfléchir à ce que vous avez dit plus haut. La molécule de vapeur d'eau (H2O) est un feller assez grand comparé aux autres gaz atmosphériques. Et même si c'est une molécule légère,. Il est toujours aussi un intimidateur et évacuer les autres gaz que sa quantité atmosphérique ppm augmente. Dans les discussions météorologiques, cet effet d'éviction dû à l'afflux de molécules de vapeur d'eau (H2O) est désigné sous le nom de zone de basse pression. Il a dit ci-dessous -10 deg. C NON inférieur à 0 deg. C. Comment diable avez-vous couper et coller ce que vous avez cité et obtenir le mauvais numéro. Un calculateur en ligne donne ces résultats: À 68F 100RH 1ATM, humidité absolue 103 grains H2O pour 1 livre d'air, et à -20F 100RH 1ATM, humidité absolue 2,44 grains H2O pour 1 livre d'air. Étonnamment: Prenez un désert à 105F 10RH 1ATM, humidité absolue 22.8 grlb Y at-il des plantes qui réagissent négativement à des niveaux plus élevés de CO2 Y at-il des plantes qui réagissent positivement, mais pas aussi fortement que d'autres plantes et peuvent donc sortir-concurrencé par les autres Les changements majeurs dans la croissance des plantes impliquent des changements dans des écosystèmes entiers, certains animaux végétaux étant plus adaptés à ces changements que d'autres et des conséquences peu claires. Certains pourraient prospérer, certains pourraient se débattre. Comment peut-on évaluer s'il est bon ou mauvais globalement Dans Général C3 type LUV CO2 et la plupart réagissent avec forte croissance C4 type de plantes (qui a développé un processus interne supplémentaire pour faire face à la très faible teneur en CO2 au cours des 100 000 dernières années) don8217t Répondre aussi rapidement. Le CO2, l'H2O et l'énergie de type solaire fournissent TOUTE LA VIE SUR LA TERRE (sauf quelques cyanobactéries) ps. Si vous voulez avoir un bon aperçu des effets du CO2 sur les différentes plantes allez ici pps. Donnez-vous plusieurs mois au moins, pour lire toutes les études. -) Il y a aussi les plantes CAM. CAM a évolué de manière convergente à de nombreuses reprises. Il se rencontre dans au moins 16 000 espèces (environ 7% des plantes), appartenant à plus de 300 genres dans environ 40 familles. C'est probablement une sous-estimation considérable. Il se trouve dans les quillworts (familles de mousses de club), fougères et dans Gnetopsida (une division des gymnospermes), mais la grande majorité des plantes utilisant CAM sont des angiospermes (plantes à fleurs). Les premières plantes C4 ont évolué à partir de plantes C3 il ya environ 30 millions d'années, pendant l'époque Oligocène, quand de plus en plus frais, le temps sec a contesté la survie de nombreuses plantes. Les plantes C4 sont devenues écologiquement significatives il ya environ six millions d'années, au cours de l'époque Miocène, lorsque le climat plus sec a réduit les forêts et leur environnement ombragé sous le canopée, conduisant ainsi de nombreuses herbes dans des habitats plus ouverts. L'analyse génétique des plantes C4 montre leurs voies caractéristiques et les changements anatomiques de la feuille ont évolué indépendamment sur jusqu'à 40 occasions différentes dans différentes familles de plantes C3, facilité par le fait que beaucoup de ces altérations étaient directement liées à la photosynthèse et impliquaient des variations dans les voies déjà existantes . La pression évolutive pour conserver l'eau était (et est encore) énorme. Par exemple, les graminées C3 et C4 apparentées ont des pertes d'eau très différentes, les graminées C3 perdant environ 800 molécules d'eau par molécule de CO2 fixées, contre moins de 300 pour les graminées C4. En d'autres termes, en conservant l'eau, les graminées C4 peuvent pousser plus longtemps dans des environnements plus secs. En fait, malgré leur évolution convergente récente, les plantes C4 représentent environ cinq pour cent de la biomasse végétale de la planète, tout en ne constituant que trois pour cent des espèces végétales. Tous sont des angiospermes, et la plupart sont des monocotylédones. Et pourtant, en dépit de leur relative rareté, les plantes C4 représentent environ 30 de la fixation du carbone terrestre. BTW, je vote bon CO2. Quatre cents ppm est bon 800 serait mieux et 1200 ppm le meilleur de tous, pour les plantes et autres êtres vivants. Malheureusement, nous n'aurons probablement pas pu atteindre 600 ppm au cours du prochain siècle, si jamais dans la vie de notre espèce. Les niveaux réels de serre de 1000 à 1300 seraient idéaux. Malheureusement, nous ne pourrons probablement atteindre que 600 ppm au cours du prochain siècle, si jamais dans la vie de notre espèce. 600 ppm est disponible en ce moment sous un dais forestier. Hadi Dowlatabadi dans un débat d'une heure avec Richard Lindzen. Regardez 22-24: 30 min, (2 12 minutes) Débat canadien: L'ordre du jour avec Steve Paikin: Climat I: Le débat est-il trop long? Je ne connais aucun de ceux qui réagissent négativement à des niveaux plus élevés de CO2, . Le Dr Craig Idso a une base de données très complète qui répertorie les résultats des tests pour des milliers de plantes ici: co2science. orgdataplantgrowthplantgrowth. php rire, ressemble à nous collé le lien CO2science exactement au même moment :-) J'aurais dû mentionner que Sherwood Idso et Keith Idso travaille également sur la base de données CO2Science. Leurs publications sur le site sont excellentes et bien étudié ainsi. Et il faut encore noter qu'en 1992, Al Gore a détruit tout le travail de Sherwood Idso8217s et a insinué que tout ce qu'il a dit était des mensonges acheté amp payé par l'industrie des combustibles fossiles (screencapture ici gelbspanfileswp-contentuploads20160192-Hearing-WFA-Idso. Jpg). Ce qui nous amène à travers 20 ans de 8220 la science est réglée don8217t écouter les sceptiques, they8217re crooks8221, jusqu'à l'événement today8217s de Trump réunion avec Al Gore, où le conseil avisé de membres particuliers de transition Trump8217s personnes peuvent avoir conduit Trump de dire Gore, 8220you Mieux comprendre ce que votre stratégie de sortie est, pal.8221 Q1, no. Q2, oui, mais surtout pas par écosystème donc pas une préoccupation majeure au sujet des déséquilibres écologiques potentiels. Environ 95 de toutes les espèces végétales utilisent la photosynthèse C3. Ce sont ceux qui bénéficient le plus du CO2 élevé. Cela comprend pratiquement tous les arbres et arbustes si pratiquement tous les écosystèmes forestiers de tous types. 5 des espèces végétales ont évolué le plus 8216CO2 efficace8217 C4 photosynthèse. Les espèces de plantes C4 bénéficient encore d'un plus grand CO2, mais pas autant que les espèces C3 dans les expériences en serre et dans les parcours du Texas analysés par USFS (maise v. Mesquite), moins de la moitié en biomasse. Environ 60 de ces 8100 C4 espèces sont 8216grasses8217. Les seules quatre cultures C4 8216grassy8217 sont le maïs, la canne à sucre, le sorgho et le mil. Les deux derniers sont des cultures de base de base en Afrique au Sahel. Ditto maïs dans des endroits comme le Kenya, bien que la pluie MAM est encore très sous-optimale. L'avantage évolutif de C4 est principalement dans les écosystèmes de prairie semi-aride dont le Sahel en est un exemple. L'écologisation du Sahel est dû au fait que les arbustes ligneux C3 sont maintenant mieux en mesure de coexister avec les graminées C4. Il est intéressant de noter que cela fournit un net plus de nourriture, de fourrage et de carburant pour les habitants du Sahel. Les famines du Sahel ont en grande partie disparu, ils étaient une préoccupation majeure dans les années 19808217. Essay Carbon Pollution dans mon ebook Blowing Smoke a beaucoup plus de détails, des exemples et des notes de référence si vous voulez creuser plus loin. Bottom line, l'écologisation est bonne. Période. Pour TOUT changement dans les conditions il ya toujours des gagnants et des perdants dans le monde naturel. La question est de savoir comment elle affecte globalement. Et la réponse est qu'il augmente la productivité nette de l'écosystème. Il y a plus d'énergie à travers l'écosystème et cela augmente la biomasse végétale et animale. Un exemple. Au-delà de l'Europe, en plus de la tendance à l'augmentation du CO2, il ya eu une tendance à l'abandon des exploitations agricoles. Ces deux tendances ont contribué à une forte augmentation de la masse des forêts. Par coïncidence, sur l'Europe il ya eu une augmentation des oiseaux. Tous les groupes d'oiseaux n'ont pas été touchés de façon égale. Les oiseaux forestiers ont augmenté le plus, tandis que les oiseaux d'habitat mixte ont également augmenté. Cependant, les oiseaux des terres agricoles ont diminué. Une autre question est la migration. Les oiseaux résidents et les oiseaux migrateurs à courte distance (à l'intérieur des frontières européennes) ont beaucoup augmenté, alors que les oiseaux migrateurs à longue distance s'écrasent. Ceci est dû aux préoccupations environnementales dans les endroits où ils migrent, en Afrique et en Asie. Pendant que j'étais enfant, il y avait d'énormes troupeaux d'oiseaux dans le ciel. Comme j'ai grandi ils ont presque disparu, et seulement quelques oiseaux pourraient être vus à tout moment. Au cours des deux dernières décennies, il ya eu un retour, et maintenant les troupeaux de taille moyenne peuvent être vus à nouveau de temps en temps. Donc, en répondant à votre question, l'augmentation du CO2 a un effet bénéfique net important sur les écosystèmes, et on peut le constater dans toute étude menée dans des endroits où la dégradation de l'environnement a été contenue. Les biologistes des écosystèmes ont tendance à se concentrer sur la situation globale de l'écosystème, car il ya toujours des gagnants et des perdants dans le monde naturel. Les conservateurs ont cependant tendance à se concentrer sur une seule espèce et pensent qu'aucune quantité de ressources n'est trop pour dépenser pour sauver un rongeur endémique qui vit sur une barre de sable. Je suis très déçu par les groupes de protection de la nature qui ont perdu le foyer et au lieu de lutter contre la dégradation de l'environnement causée par l'homme, le plus grand danger pour la faune sur la planète, ils ont lancé une lutte contre le changement climatique. 8220 Ainsi, le volume moyen de vapeur d'eau dans l'atmosphère totale est très faible, environ 0,001 selon l'USGS. 8220 Non, environ 0,001 de toute l'eau dans le monde est dans l'atmosphère (par opposition à des endroits comme les rivières, les eaux souterraines, les océans et les calottes glaciaires). Water. usgs. goveduwatercycleatmosphere. html L'eau elle-même fait environ 1 de l'atmosphère. Oups, merci pour la correction. Je suppose que les autres pourcentages doivent de l'atmosphère sèche. Je vais vérifier plus en détail et faire une correction. Il y a 60 ans, lorsque le changement climatique a commencé, nous alimentions 3 milliards de personnes souffrant de famine. Aujourd'hui, nous nourrissons 7 milliards de personnes avec très peu de famine. C'est l'héritage du réchauffement climatique et du changement climatique. Les gens pensent que le changement climatique est un problème parce qu'ils pensent que la population est un problème. Pourtant, Greenpeace s'oppose à presque tous les grands progrès agricoles qui se sont produits, ils s'opposent à l'augmentation du CO2 atmosphérique, ils continuent à s'opposer à des technologies qui mèneront probablement à d'autres avantages. En fait, il est difficile de penser à des progrès réels que Greenpeace ne s'oppose pas. Mais les gens continuent à leur donner des fardeaux d'argent, et la BBC continue de leur donner temps d'antenne gratuit pour crier leurs opinions sans valeur. C'est un monde triste qui leur permet de toujours être classé comme un 8220charity8221. Plus le Times de NY a été pris en mettant les communiqués de presse de Greenpeace sur la page de couverture et les déguisant comme 8220news.8221 Parlez de fausses nouvelles Voir cet article par Myron Ebell: globalwarming. org20150227new-york-times-repeats-scurrilous-greenpeace-attack-on Les gens croient que le changement climatique est un problème parce qu'ils pensent que la population est un problème. La population est néanmoins un problème. Les espaces naturels se sont écrasés et les populations fauniques se sont écrasées en raison de l'expansion humaine. C'est ce qu'on appelle l'appropriation des ressources. Comme nous grandissons beaucoup moins est disponible pour le reste de l'espèce sur la planète. Il est appelé LIMITES. Les pourcentages de gaz à l'avant de l'artique sont pour l'air sec et pas pour l'atmosphère de la Terre qui contient en moyenne 1 à 2 H2O. La plupart du gaz dans l'atmosphère de la Terre est bien au-dessus de 0 degrés C. H2O va sublimer de la glace à l'atmosphère à des températures au-dessus de -40 degrés F donc il ya encore H2O dans l'air en dessous de 0 degrés Celsius. , H2O est si dominant que les autres gaz importent très peu. La réalité est que le changement climatique que nous vivons aujourd'hui est causé par le soleil et les océans sur lesquels l'humanité n'a aucun contrôle. Malgré le battage médiatique, rien ne prouve que le CO2 ait un effet sur le climat. Il n'existe aucune preuve de ce genre dans le dossier des paléoclimats. Il est prouvé que les températures plus chaudes entraînent plus de CO2 dans l'atmosphère et il est bien connu que les océans plus chauds ne peuvent pas contenir autant de CO2 que les océans plus froids. Rien n'indique que le CO2 additionnel provoque un réchauffement additinal. Il ya beaucoup de raisonnements scientifiques pour soutenir l'idée que la sensibilité au climat du CO2 est vraiment nulle. Si le CO2 a vraiment affecté le climat, on peut s'attendre à ce que l'augmentation du CO2 au cours des 30 dernières années ait provoqué une augmentation du taux de perte sèche dans la troposphère, mais cela n'a pas été le cas. La conjecture AGW dépend de l'existence d'un effet de serre rayonnant causé par les gaz dits à effet de serre avec des bandes d'absorption LWIR comme le CO2 et le H2O. Une vraie serre ne reste pas au chaud à cause de l'action des gaz de piégeage de la chaleur. Une vraie serre reste chaude car le verre réduit le refroidissement par convection. Il n'y a aucune preuve d'un effet de serre radieux dans une véritable serre. Il en est de même sur Terre. La surface de la Terre est 33 degrés C plus chaude que ce serait sans atmosphère parce que la gravité limite le refroidissement par convection. Il s'agit d'un effet de serre convectif et a été observé sur toutes les planètes du système solaire avec des atmosphères épaisses. L'effet de serre convectif, qui découle des premiers principes, tient compte de tous les 33 degrés C observés. Il n'y a aucun effet de serre radiant supplémentaire sur Terre, Vénus, ni n'importe où dans le système solaire. Parce que l'effet de serre rayonnant n'existe pas, la conjecture AGW n'est rien d'autre que la fiction. Pour ma part, les preuves ne montrent pas que le CO2 a un effet quelconque sur vous. Encore en attente de ce modèle de preuve gratuite. Pas même un effet sur la croissance des plantes. Le meilleur argument contre les heatunists que tout ou rien CO2 réchauffement est à mon avis le suivant: Bien sûr, nous pouvons prouver dans le laboratoire que le CO2 est un GES. Un peu moins sûr, mais encore assez solide de la science, nous pouvons montrer que les rétroactions absentes un doublage produit 1.1 (AR4) à 1.2 (Lindzen) ou 8216exactly8217 1.16C réchauffement (Monckton calcul en utilisant les valeurs acceptées au poste WUWT précieux) de chauffage. Pas d'inquiétudes à avoir. L'alarme provient de retours positifs. Ah, ceux-là sont TRES incertains. La différence entre le modèle ECS (3.2, Bode f 0.65) et l'ECS d'observation basé sur IPCC AR5 (Lewis et Curry 2014) 2x. Et nous savons, pour d'autres raisons supplémentaires, que les modèles ne peuvent pas être corrects et pourquoi (voir d'autres commentaires ailleurs sur les cellules de convection, les contraintes de calcul du modèle, le paramétrage et le réglage des paramètres). Alors annulez l'alarme, et profitez de l'écologisation. On pourrait à peine s'accorder plus, sauf que la science est si instable que les rétroactions nettes sont négatives, de sorte qu'au lieu de 1,2 ° C par doublement de CO2, l'effet effectif pourrait être de 0,0 à 1,0 ° C. Bien que je ne puisse pas prouver que vous avez tort, le poids de la preuve d'observation indique ECS est de 1,6, (ou, avec Stevens dernières contraintes d'aérosol, peut-être 1,5). Pas plus bas que 1 en dessous de 1,2C de rétroaction absente. La définition de la rétroaction négative implique le premier taux de variation dérivé de la rétroaction, et non la magnitude absolue de la fonction de rétroaction (qui doit être négative ou nous ne serions pas ici ayant cet échange). Une erreur de Monckton a également fait. Un changement négatif négatif plus faible avec la hausse du CO2 est un climat positif 8216feedback8217. Voir d'autres commentaires ailleurs pour plus de détails. À mon avis, toujours aller avec des arguments inattaquables qui gagnent le débat CAGW. ECS 1.6 signifie pas C dans CAGW. GAGNER Le vôtre est facilement attaquable. Bode net f est vraisemblablement 0,25-0,3, toujours positif mais peu instable. Très improbable qu'il soit inférieur à 1,0. De nombreuses raisons. Peut-être un poste distinct. Ou, lisez mes deux derniers ebooks. Aussi, note Monckton m'a désengagé sur ce problème de mathématiques de base après son troisième poste le plus récent. Voir ce fil de commentaire pour plus de détails. Vous avez peut-être raison. Toutefois, il est difficile de défendre le concept d'une seule ECS. Mettant de côté les différentes situations dans les âges, les époques, les époques et les éons, IMO juste le niveau de CO2 lui-même affecte la réponse de la température. Sans parler des conditions locales. Le CO2 additionnel de l'OMI dans des conditions tropicales chaudes et humides pourrait bien conduire à un refroidissement local plutôt qu'à un réchauffement. IMO dans le système climatique actuel plutôt que dans les conditions de laboratoire, la réponse à un doublement de 100 ppm à 200 ppm pourrait être, peut-être devrait-être, différente des effets climatiques de 200 à 400 ppm. Mettre de côté les effets des conditions locales. Mais je peux me tromper. On sait que ce résultat surprenant s'est produit, totalement inexplicable. Ristvan Il a été montré que les calculs de l'effet Plank sensibilité au climat du CO2 est éteint par un facteur de plus de 20 à grande parce que les calculs négligé que le doublement de CO2 diminuera légèrement le taux de décollement sec dans la troposphère qui est un effet de refroidissement. Pour que le climat ait été aussi stable que pour la vie, les retours doivent être négatifs. H2O n'est pas seulement un gaz à effet de serre avec des bandes d'absorption LWIR, mais aussi un liquide de refroidissement majeur dans l'atmosphère de la Terre en déplaçant l'énergie thermique de la surface de la Terre, qui est principalement une certaine forme de H2O, à où les nuages ​​se forment par la chaleur de vaporisation. Selon les modèles de bilan énergétique, plus d'énergie thermique est déplacée par H2O via la chaleur de vaporisation puis par rayonnement de bande d'absorption LWIR et convection combinés. Le fait que le taux d'écoulement mouillé est sensiblement inférieur au taux de décollement sec est l'éviction de l'effet de refroidissement H2O8217s. Y compris la rétroaction négative conduit la sensibilité climatique du CO2 à très près de zéro. Mais il faut aussi considérer qu'il n'existe aucune preuve réelle qu'un effet de serre rayonnant causé par l'absorption LWIR par les soi-disant gaz à effet de serre existe même. La sensibilité au CO2 dans l'atmosphère terrestre ne peut pas être déterminée par des tests de laboratoire. Elle ne peut être déterminée que par des données d'observation. Le paléo record ne supporte pas de sensibilité significative au CO2. Il ya tout à fait un peu de preuve pour suggérer que les températures d'aujourd'hui ne sont pas plus chaudes qu'elles ne l'étaient à la fin des années 1930searly 1940s. It is only the result of endless adjustments during the past 25 years that have resulted in a lowering of the 1930searly1940s temperatures, and a flattening of the drop in temperatures between 1940 and early 1970s. If the globe is no warmer today than it was in the early 1940s then it would mean that during the period in which 95 of all manmade CO2 emissions have taken place there has been essentially no warming at all. In the old engineer8217s definition of feedback, any positive feedback doesn8217t induce a runaway condition as long as the feedback is not gt 1. As the effect of CO2 on temperature is small (about 1.2C for 2xCO2) and the opposite effect is small too ( 16 ppmvC), the positive feedback is far too small to have a catastrophic runaway effect. Does that mean that there is zero effect As the lapse rate is extremely variable with weather and latitude, its effect is probably unmeasurable. What is measurable and is measured is that GHGs in their bands emit less IR to space 8211 in part redistributed over other wavelengths by a warmer earth 8211 and that backradiation IR in the CO2 and other GHG bands (water) increased over time. Not much, but as long as no energy can be destroyed, that adds to the earth8217s energy budget, whatever the other mechanisms. As Ristvan already said, taking extreme views doesn8217t help you in discussions with extreme warmistas and will convince nobody. Taking moderate viewpoints based on all what is known and unknown will be picked up by listeners who are searching for the truth8230 Ferdinand Engelbeen The positive feedback I am talking about causes positive exponentials to appear in the transiient response which is unstable. The idea has been that added CO2 causes warming which in turn causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more waming because H2O is also a greenhouse gas with LWIR absorption bands. The additional waming then causes even more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more warming which causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere and so on. Actually an increase in CO2 is not required to set this off. An increase in H2O itself which happens all the time would set off the chain reaction. If this really happened we would not be here. The reality is that H2O is really a coolant so adding H2O to the atmosphere lowers and not raises temperatures. This is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is less than the dry lapse rate allowing more heat eneregy to be transfered higher up in the atmosphere where it is radiated away from the Earth. There is also the issue of heat transport by phase change and the cooling effect of clouds. If more CO2 did actaully increase the insulating effects of the atmosphere then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. The dry lapse rate is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases. There is no runaway for a small positive feedback at all. All what happens is that the end temperature and CO2 level after a small positive feedback is slightly higher than without a feedback. In both cases plotted with a lag for CO2 after a temperature increase: The dry lapse rate is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases. If I may interpretate that sentence: The theory is from a very long time ago for me, but if that is true, then the small change in CO2 doesn8217t give a measurable change in heat capacity or pressure gradient. It does warm the surface by back radiation and it does warm 8211 in small part 8211 the lower troposphere by collissions, thus increasing the temperature of the full column (up to a few km), even if that is mainly from more convection8230 The lapse rate itself then doesn8217t make any difference in temperature trends, as there are (near) zero changes in heat capacity or pressure gradients over longer periods. The only changes in temperature then are from GHGs, solar, ocean currents,8230 Ferdinand, 8221 CO2 doesnt give a measurable change in heat capacity or pressure gradient. It does warm the surface by back radiation and it does warm in small part the lower troposphere by collisions8221 CO2 is said to have extremely low (10-3) emissivity. This can be thought of as the tendency to emit a photon (both back and forth) after it has absorbed one. This low emissivity argues that kinetic interactions are the dominant mode of energy transfer between CO2 and the mass of the atmosphere. Modtran considers the emissivity of the planet surface to be .98, nearly a perfect blackbody. Looking down in a tropical atmosphere Modtran sees the atmosphere also radiating as a blackbody decreasing in temperature by the lapse rate, a brick if you will, from half a meter to 400 meters. One can think of this first 400 meters as essentially an extension of the surface. At 400 meters you begin to see the first distortion of the down looking (upward radiating) blackbody curve in the CO2 fundamental bands. This is the first altitude where there is any indication of specific absorption by any greenhouse gas reducing the transmission of radiation upwards. The blue curve is looking up from the same elevation, and very surprisingly this view shows very intense absorption of back radiation in the same bands. According to Kirchhoff and its emissivity, CO2 radiation(in all directions)absorption x 10-3. Combine this thought with the nearly complete absorption of the 667.4 CO2 fundamental bend and its rotational henchmen within 1 meter at 400 ppm: You can get the impression that the first 400 meters of the atmosphere is a brick warmed by CO2 absorption of upwelling predominantly in the first meter above the surface. The surface radiation is extinguished in these bands and only 10-3 of it is passed upwards and outwards and downward as radiation. The rest is dissipated kinetically. However reasonable it may be to accept 1 degree sensitivity in discussions with alarmists, we must guard against 8220politicized8221 science writ skeptical. Real science demands a look at the physical mechanisms. They don8217t look promising for high sensitivity. Ferdinand Engelbeen A measure of how effective an insulator is, is how the insulator affects the temperature profile. The environmental or natural lapse rate is a measure of the insulating effects of the atmosphere. The increase in CO2 over the past 30 years has had no measureable effect on the lapse rate in the troposphere and hence no effect on the insulating effects of the troposphere. CO2 does not create heat energy so the only way it can affect climate is by changing the insulating effects of the atmosphere. Since that change has been zero the affects the changes in CO2 over the past 30 years on climate have been zero. Thanks for the update for my long time ago knowledge of radiation physics8230 Seems that in the discussions here is rather much controversy between distribution of the absorbed energy by collissions and re-emitting radiation8230 I suppose that it is a matter of probability of collisions in the time span before re-emission of a photon and the former is the dominant way at the higher pressure in the lower troposphere, while re-radiation gets more and more influence higher up8230 I don8217t understand what you mean: if CO2 doesn8217t measurably change the density or heat capacity of the atmosphere, it has no direct effect on the lapse rate, but as it heats up the (lower) atmosphere, it shifts the original temperature profile to a higher altitude. With a constant lapse rate the temperature of the surface then must go up8230 Don8217t you take the 8220insulation8221 by GHGs too literally Of course, temperature differences may increase convection and that can act as a negative feedback as warm air is ascending faster and thus radiate heat faster to space, and cloud formation also may help8230 There is no reason to use false arguments against the warmista8217s: no warmista says that the effect of GHG8217s in the atmosphere is the same as what happens in a real greenhouse, they use that only for comparison. The radiant greenhouse effect on earth was really measured in two ways: 8211 The increase of downwelling radiation by the increase of CO2 was measured in two places: Was here on WUWT, but don8217t find it back. 8211 The radiant effect was measured line by line in extreme detail for air with different mixtures of GHG8217s in laboratories. I used the same principle to detect traces of chlorine in a process exhaust8230 Any absorption of IR radiation means a temperature increase of that gas 8211 giving it enough time to collide with other - non-GHG - molecules before re-emitting a photon. 8211 Gravity as static element and convection as dynamic element do account for a part of the extra warming at ground level but GHGs add to that effect, as part of the absorbed IR energy is redistributed over the other molecules, thus increasing the local temperature and thus increasing the average convection. Or you are destroying energy8230 You cannot duplicate radiation absorption effects in the atmosphere in any laboratory. For starters, there is no laboratory on earth, save the earth itself, that is large enough to duplicate radiative absorption and re-emission, as it occurs in the atmosphere. Lab measurements usually do simple one dimensional absorption measurements, whereas in the atmosphere the processes are three dimensional. Satellite measurements of GHG bands show net transmission they do not measure absorption. The energy represented by a photon coming in from the Sun, spends time in 8 billion different surface and atmospheric molecules before it escapes back to space. And there is 16,029,162,711,741,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of those solar photons come in from the Sun every day. And there is 80,145,813,558,708,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 IR photons get released by the Earth each day back to space (yes there are more of them). 8 billion molecules times the above numbers calculated over 86,400,000,000 microseconds which is how fast these reactions take and 8230 Well the computer model that is able to calculate that would have to be very, very good as in. Which is why everything is still based on James Hansen8217s assumptions about how all the feedbacks magically take the initial incalculable warming and transforms it into another incalculable solution of 3.0C per doubling no matter how the climate scientists make up new formulations of it. A good absorber is also a good radiator. At the Earth8217s surface at 15 microns, on average a CO2 molecule will held an absorbed LWIR photon an average of.2 seconds before radiating it away. During that time that same molecule will interact with other molecules around a billion times, sharing energy with each encounter. In the Trosphere heat transport by conduction and convection dominate over heat energy transport by LWIR absorption band radiation. Detecting that certain gases absorb in the IR in certain bands is no real evidence that a radiant greenhouse effect exists. If adding CO2 did increase the insulating properties of the atmospheree then adding CO2 should cause an increase in the dry lapse rate but such is not the case. 8220Satellite measurements of GHG bands show net transmission8221 It depends on your definition of net transmission. If you mean photons that pass directly from the surface to space, then no. If you include photons re-emitted by GHG8217s high enough in the atmosphere that they were not absorbed by another GHG, then yes, but this is also measuring an indirect effect of absorption, which is re-emission and it8217s significant. When you do line by line Hitran line by line simulations, the primary product of the math is the optical depth per species. All of the absorption lines whose optical depth suggests that the probability of a photon passing from the surface to space is nearly 0 show significant energy in those absorption bands, indicating that those emissions happened higher up in the atmosphere. The attenuation is only more than 3db in the peak of the CO2H2O lines around 15u, but even there, it8217s only a little bit more, indicating that nearly half of what there would be without GHG absorption is still ultimately being emitted by the planet. Since this effect is seen in the clear sky and N2O2 can8217t emit photons in LWIR bands, the only place these photons can be coming from are the re-emissions of GHG molecules high up in the atmosphere after either colliding with other molecules or absorbing another photon. . 8220During that time that same molecule will interact with other molecules around a billion times, sharing energy with each encounter.8221 This is incorrect. The mechanism you are describing is prohibited by Schrdinger8217s wave equation which requires energy to be added to or removed from the state of an electron shell in indivisible bundles called quanta and the size of a quanta is the energy of an absorbedemitted photon. There8217s little, if any NET energy, transferred from an energized GHG molecule and the non GHG molecules in the atmosphere. The mechanism by which energy is 8216shared8217 is just as likely to add energy as it is to remove energy and every time energy is shared by a collision, a photon is emitted and only a tiny fraction of the captured energy is 8216shared8217. If it removes kinetic energy (cools), the photon will be a little higher than the frequency absorbed, while if it adds kinetic energy (warms), the photon frequency will be a little lower than the one absorbed. The basic mechanism is called collisional broadening and also works in the reverse, where a collision coincident with a photon can move the capture frequency up or down a small amount and a photon that otherwise would not be captured will be. You can think of is as a collision distorting the E-fields of the shared electrons in the CO2 molecule that can move the resonant frequency of the absorption band on either side of center depending on the relative orientation of the collision. Detecting that certain gases absorb in the IR in certain bands is no real evidence that a radiant greenhouse effect exists. I don8217t see any difference between what happens in the atmosphere and what happens in a CO2 laser. Energy in certain wavelengths is absorbed and re-emitted, enough to melt steel in the case of a laser and enough to warm the earth a little bit in the case of the atmosphere8230 Of course at the outer side of the atmosphere there are no mirrors to send the IR back, but the balance is a little more backradiation and a little less outgoing IR in the CO2 bands8230 co2isnotevil The primary energy tranafer when molecules at different temperatures collide is through conduction. 8220The primary energy tranafer when molecules at different temperatures collide is through conduction.8221 Correct. This happens by sharing translational momentum, but. the energization of a GHG molecule does not add to it8217s translational momentum. Quantum mechanics can be tricky and is not always intuitive, but the bottom line is that the energy of a quantum state change must be absorbed or released all at once, not a little bit at a time. When the wave function describing the electrons of a GHG molecule change state by absorbing and releasing photons, it8217s a quantum state change. Ferdinand Engelbeen The Earth8217s atmosphere is not configured as a CO2 laser. The Earths atmosphere is not configured as a CO2 laser. Indeed, as I said, there are no mirrors in the outer atmosphere to send IR back to earth, but the principle is the same: excitation and re-emitting. The point is that slightly more is emitted back to earth in the lowest air layers than is emitted to space in the upper part of the troposphere and higher. That is measured, thus adds to the other forces that gives us a livable temperature range8230 So you can8217t say that such effect doesn8217t exist or is (near) zero, only that it is small, much smaller than the climate models calculate8230 Ferdinand Indeed, as I said, there are no mirrors in the outer atmosphere to send IR back to earth henry says there is a mirror that sends back IR to earth: the moon take some time to read the Turnbull paper to understand that the CO2 is also cooling the atmosphere by mirroring radiation from the sun back to space, co2isnotevil If cooler CO2 molecules mix with a body of warmer non-greenhouse gas molecules the CO2 molecules will warm up due to the interation with the warmer molecules. The warmer molecules will radiate more in the IR than the cooler molecules. Yes, the radiation is quantisied as are electron states, and motion states such as rotation and vibration. Guantization effects are most important when there are relatively few gas molecules but in the troposphere there are always relatively many molecules. co2isnotevil December 5, 2016 at 7:24 pm Willhas, During that time that same molecule will interact with other molecules around a billion times, sharing energy with each encounter. This is incorrect. The mechanism you are describing is prohibited by Schrdingers wave equation which requires energy to be added to or removed from the state of an electron shell in indivisible bundles called quanta and the size of a quanta is the energy of an absorbedemitted photon. Not true, collisional quenching is the major mechanism for deactivation of the excited state of CO2 in the lower troposphere. The excited state is a ro-vibronic one where the excitation energy matches the energy of the exciting photon. There are many closely spaced rotational levels between that level and the ground state and the many collisions that occur during the radiative lifetime to the excited state certainly do chip away at that energy and transfer it to other molecules (O2 is a very effective quencher). In my experiments on the Laser Induced Fluorescence of OH I would often get only 1 of the absorbed energy back as signal, the higher the pressure of the gas the worse it got Check out collisional quenching, Stern-Volmer equation etc. 8220There are many closely spaced rotational levels between that level and the ground state and the many collisions that occur during the radiative lifetime to the excited state certainly do chip away at that energy and transfer it to other molecules8221 The conversion to rotational states (microwave) spreads out the higher energy absorption line (LWIR) on either side of resonance, thus acts in both directions where energy can be added to or removed from rotational states and in symmetrically equal amounts. Keep in mind that kinetic rotational degrees of freedom per the kinetic theory of gases will equalize independent of whether molecules are energized and even when in the 8216ground state8217, a molecule can be physically rotating. This kind of rotation is physically different from an EM rotation imposed on a molecules electron cloud after the electron cloud absorbs energy, where the protons and neutrons remain stationary as the electron clouds spins around it. Even in vibrational states, the individual nuclei move 10008217s of times less than the electron cloud owing to the relative mass differences between the nuclei and electrons. Another thing to keep in mind is that the more energy gets 8216chipped8217 away from an energized CO2 molecule, the further away it gets from the center of a specific absorption line and the more likely a spontaneous or collision induced photon emission will result, albeit at a frequency on one side or another of resonance. If collisional quenching were significant, we would see little energy in absorption bands from space, yet measurements show attenuation in absorption bands of only about 3db when nearly 100 of the photons emitted by the surface at a specific frequency will be absorbed by the atmosphere. This is consistent with half of the absorbed energy ending up emitted to space and the other half returning to the surface. There is a slightly larger attenuation in the 15u CO2H20 bands and this could be the result of collisional quenching, but it doesn8217t seem significant based on the entirety of the emitted spectrum. co2isnotevil CO2 can be warmed by a net absorbing electromagnetic radiation or by contact with warmer substances through thermal conduction. CO2 can also be cooled by a net radiation of electromagnet radiation or by contact with cooler substances through thermal conduction. Ça arrive. CO2 is not inert to heat transfer by conduction. Warmer CO2 will radiate more no matter how it becomes warmer. 8220Warmer CO2 will radiate more no matter how it becomes warmer.8221 Not exactly. Warmed CO2 molecules will radiate photons only if they are energized out of the ground state. Otherwise, they just bounce around with the other gas molecules and share energy according to the bulk rules describing the kinetic theory of gases. The two energy storage mechanisms that manifest temperature, one as E12mv2 (vvelocity) and the other as Ehv (vfrequency) are relatively orthogonal to each other even as photons and collisions can affect a temperature sensor equally. If the kinetic temperature (velocity) gets high enough, collisions can energize a CO2 molecule, but the translational kinetic energy must be many times larger than the excitation energy for this to have a significant probability of occurring. In the Earth atmosphere, the translational kinetic energy of CO2 molecules is about the same as the energy of an LWIR photon, so the kinetic energy isn8217t large enough to cause significant vibrational state transitions. The colliding molecule would need to slow down to zero, or even less than zero, to provide enough energy to excite a CO2 molecule. This process is potentially reversible, but again only becomes a significant factor at energies beyond those ordinarily found in the atmosphere. The same is true for collisional broadening and dynamic quenching. The energies of atmospheric gas molecules are not high enough for these effects to be significant. Ferdinand Engelbeen on December 5, 2016 at 3:36 pm The increase of downwelling radiation by the increase of CO2 was measured in two places: Was here on WUWT, but dont find it back. Maybe you mean this 11 year experiment in Oklahoma and Alaska First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface Dan Krotz February 25, 2015 About 0.2 Wm2decade How8217s does this seemingly small amount of forcing compare to changes in convection There is no need for sceptics to agree among themselves to counteract CAGW. To force each other to believe the same counter argument seems as unscientific as the warmist need to have 97 toting the party line. This has been probably the most enjoyable and interesting thread I have read on WUWT, a scientific debate not a sycophantic support group. CO2 is an essential trace gas in the atmosphere on which all life depends. So it must be good. Unless you8217re one of the left wing global warming alarmists, then it8217s pollution and the devil gas. Decades ago, we had only primitive monitors displaying only in black and white. Then they moved up to 16 grey shades, then up to 256 colours, and today most of them operate with over 16 M of them. Maybe some day you manage at least to differentiate your meaning from black and white up to a grey scale. Thanks for this analysis but I am confused as I am certain I have read on this site articles suggesting water vapour averages about 1 of the atmosphere whereas Andy May says it averages 0.001 less than CO2 at 0.04 Second query following the above The theory of enhanced global warming suggests increasing atmospheric temperatures claimed to be forced by increased atmospheric CO2 enables the atmosphere to hold more water vapour which as a significant GHG gives a feedback effect multiplying atmospheric warming My query is if water vapour is only at 0.001 globally of the atmosphere how would say a 10 increase in that low percentage have any discernable effect on global temperatures Any explanations would be appreciated Thanks, I think I got the percentage of water vapor wrong, I8217ll check it out and make the correction. Thomho. google up the word 8221 clouds 8220. Increased atmospheric water results in cooling, NOT warming. One would think so, but they claim that clouds at night warm the planet. Thanks George Two points in reply My basic question was on the right track as Andy conceded his 0.001 for atmospheric water vapour was wrong and he has since corrected it. Second my point about effect of supposed increased wv is just an iteration of the standard global warming line as a means of testing Andy8217s initial figure for atmospheric wv But re clouds what I have read is whether they warm or cool depends on height of the clouds The agw meme supposed warming from wv thus acting as positive feedback to the initial forcing from increased CO2 The IPCC AR5 has some unsatisfactoryly contradictory remarks about the effects of clouds along the lines that overall they act to reinforce initial increases in warming, although the effect of low level clouds is uncertain. This leaves me asking how could the IPCC be so certain about the overall warming impact of all clouds given they were uncertain about the impact of some part of the whole ie low level clouds The effects of CO2 are an example of just how cost-benefit calculations can be skewed in the climate debate. If one decrees that only the potential negative effects are to be counted, one gets the position of the current US EPA. That sort of special pleading is politics all the way down. Quote: Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04 of the Earths atmosphere and is more evenly distributed than water vapor. I know it is not the main point of the article, but how even is the distribution of CO2 For example if it is around 400ppm at Mauna Loa, what is the levels at Los Angeles and Antartica Between Barrow, Alaska, near the North Pole and the measurements at the South Pole is the difference less than 10 ppmv, including a - 8 ppmv change at Barrow due to seasonal changes. In La Jolla Pier, near San Diego where Scripps measures since long, similar levels are found, but midst LA you can find 600 ppmv and more during rush hour8230 That is only in the first few hundred meters over land where cars, factories and vegetation have a huge impact. Higher over land and everywhere over the oceans, the distribution is within - 2 of full scale, which is quite nice, as one need to take into account that some 20 of all CO2 in the atmosphere is going in and out over the seasons8230 Lots of data of CO2 and other gases for a lot of stations at: esrl. noaa. govgmdccggiadv Much obliged Ferdinand. I8217ve got to say that if human processes dominate the production of CO2 then I find the even distribution surprising. I would have expected, for example, that CO2 levels in the northern hemisphere would be higher than in the southern hemisphere. I would have expected level to be higher in say China and Europe than in Antarctica and the Arctic too. I live and learn (slowly). CO2 appears fairly well mixed at high altitudes, but poorly mixed at low altitude. So that begs a number of questions: At what altitude does the majority of the DWLWIR come from Can we detect more DWLWIR in areas where CO2 is locally measured at say 600ppm compared to an area which has CO2 at say 400ppm Can we detect this extra DWLWIR actually warming something, eg in two adjacent areas one which has CO2 locally measured at 400 ppm and the other adjacent area say at 600ppm Where is the experimental evidence You are welcome8230 If you measure CO2 locally over land, you can find a lot of increase at night under an inversion layer without much wind: CO2 from soilplant respiration gives a spectacular (500-600 ppmv and higher) increase that is not mixed with the rest of the atmosphere. Add to that the early morning traffic and you have a second peak. See Fig.12 from Diekirch, Luxemburg: meteo. lcd. lupapersco2patternsco2patterns. html During the day, photosynthesis starts to work and CO2 levels drop, but less than what can be expected as at the same time the warming soil gives more turbulence in the atmosphere and more air from the 8220bulk8221 atmosphere is mixing in. CO2 levels in the NH are indeed higher in the NH: It takes time to mix any extra CO2 into higher altitudes and travelling from the NH to the SH is an extra hindrance8230 Total human production remaining in the atmosphere is about 2 ppmvyear or 0.01 ppmvday. Even with the best satellites it will be a hell of a job to detect that in only the main industrial areas8230 You can use Modtran for a theoretical view. I have done that with 1000 ppmv CO2 up to 1000 meter high. The net 8211 theoretical 8211 result is an increase of less than 0.1C. Thus simply undetectable for - much - lower concentrations below 1000 meter8230 You need the full 70 km air column to have any measurable 8211 theoretical 8211 effect: 1.2C for an increase from 280 to 560 ppmv8230 The article is well-intentioned. There is a basic mistake in the text that should be corrected. 8220The Earths atmosphere is 78 nitrogen, 21 oxygen and 0.9 argon. These are not greenhouse gases and they total 99.9, leaving little space for the greenhouse gases methane, carbon dioxide and water vapor.8221 Those numbers refer to the dry atmosphere not the atmosphere as it is. Water vapour on average is 0.4 of the total volume on a ppm (volumetric) basis: 4,000 ppm(v). H2O vapour is 1 (10,000 ppm) at low altitude where we live. That is why the GHG effect of water vapour is so strong. The atmosphere is 0.04 CO2 and 1 H2O at sea level, on average, with the H2O going as high as 4 8216locally8217 (40,000 ppm). This makes very wet air significantly lighter than dry air so it rises vertically without having to be warmer. because of the buoyancy effect. When the water vapour content rises obviously it dilutes the other gases which remain in the same relative proportions. Locally, CO2 from combustion may rise above 1100 ppm, for example, during winter in a city sited in a valley in a cold climate experiencing an inversion (which can happen daily in such circumstances). Apart from being a far more powerful GHG than CO2, water vapour also occurs in far greater concentrations. You are correct. I just fix the error. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant emit di-hydrogen monoxide, they can. Its just that it will bankrupt them because theyre going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas thats being emitted.8221 8211 source: 2008 POTUS candidate Obama 8212821282128212821282128212- In this case, his ignorance is our bliss. It8217s more the case that his lack of integrity has sold US out. The real elephant is the unspoken property CO2, CH4, H2O O3, all share with each other: they are thermoelectric. Not only are they GHGs but they generate electricity from their thermal vibrational behaviour with a device called a thermopile. Is this a coincidence No, this is a major mistake in science. There has been a major oversight 8211 the greatest in the history of science 8211 and when I get round to it, I will write it up in full ( I have already made a start, but I keep adding to it it will mean radiation theory (emissivity) will have to go). It is as if we are colour blind to non thermoelectric radiation. O2 and N2 are non thermoelectric, that8217s what makes them special, they don8217t show, but they do vibrate, they have quantum predicted spectra lines (at 1556 and 2340cm) and they too have an instrument that detects their vibrational behaviour, it8217s called Raman spectroscopy. If N2 didn8217t vibrate at 2340 the CO2 laser would not operate (as the N2 is excited or heated to pump the CO28217s 2349cm band) By the way, CO2, CH4, H2O O3 all have Raman spectra lines too, that8217s why NASA use Raman spectrometers on their space probes and LIDAR instruments. If you don8217t believe me, check my claims, its all out there. No spoilers Can8217t wait for the full write up. 8220To get 4.3 water vapor one would need fully saturated air at 38C or 50C air at 55 relative humidity. 8221 It is routinely above 40C in Jakarta, Indonesia and raining (gt100 RH). In India the same occurs in multiple places. Vietnam, Thailand, the list goes on. I have no problem believing that the H2O vapour content is above 40,000 ppm in Jakarta. It is one of the worst places I have been for heat and humidity, and I get around. I hear from someone in the family that in Qatar the combination of 40-something temperatures and rain is not unknown. There is one reference I have which says the water temperature in that area is over 40C and there are corals that live at that temp. Jakarta8217s weather varies from 8216very humid8217 to 8216muggy8217. That is the annual range. jakarta. climatempshumidity. php Believe it or not, Singapore is even worse. Very humid all year, hot and often pouring with rain. But my personal experience of Jakarta tops SG. It can be absolutely unbearable downtown. Andy May: The highest dew point in Saudi Arabia was measured on 8 July 2003 at the King Abdulaziz Air Base at 13:00 hrs. and again at 16:00 hrs. I think these are an anomalous readings caused by an unusual micro climate near the sensor, perhaps due to jet exhaust, which can have up to 8 water vapor content because H2O is product of combustion of jet hydrocarbon fuels. I don8217t think the measurements are representative of the climatology of the area. For example, the highest dew point the day before was 81 F and the day after it was 73 F. There can be isolated pockets of air that have very high moisture content but not region has a climate with 4 water vapor content occurring on a regular basis. Crispin: I have visited to Jakarta, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, etc. probably more than 50 times in the past 25 years. It is a very hot and humid region but total water content is higher in the humid deserts of the Saudi peninsula. This is due to the fact that the surrounding seas are shallow so they heat up quickly and the fact that the temperature is higher than in the tropic, which are cooled by convention. 8220It is routinely above 40C in Jakarta, Indonesia and raining (gt100 RH).8221 Rain showers usually reduce the ambient humidity because air from higher altitudes is brought down with the rain. The higher-altitude air may have been at 100 relative humidity when it was at altitude but it8217s cold so it8217s total moisture content is low. When it mixes with near-ground air, the result is lower humidity. gt100 RH would be super saturation and that occurs only in very clean, usual high-altitude air, that lacks cloud nucleating particles. I8217ve seen conditions in New Orleans where the sun baked the asphalt streets then a rain shower blew over. When the rain contacted the hot asphalt, a fog of 8220steam8221 formed. The vapor content of that air was probably very high, but again, it8217s not representative of the regional climate. Andy May: I just noticed that you are the author of the article Thanks for the great contribution to WUWT. It8217s a great article. gt It is routinely above 40C in Jakarta, Indonesia and raining (gt100 RH). I concur with Thomas. From my weather station, large raindrop storms (especially thunderstorms), the rain starts cold enough and falls fast enough to reach the ground before saturating the low-level air. On radar images the echoes match the surface rain. The radars miss 1-2 thousand feet overhead due to distance and topography. On the other hand, snow falls so slowly and has such a large surface area that it rarely reaches the ground before the air saturates. The low water vapor pressure at low temperatures means that not much evaporation has to happen. I can generally tell from graphs of air temp and dewpoint when a snow storm started. Meanwhile, the radar images often show snow overhead for half an hour or so before I see it at ground level. I like to pass on snow starting events to the NWS people at Gray Maine and TV mets at NECN to give them a good idea of the dry edge width on the ground. It8217s well appreciated ground truth information. Climate radicals have indicated a desire to turn the clock back to 1750, when CO2 emissions were of course much lower. An inconvenient fact is that earth8217s population in 1750 was less than a billion. If we (now SEVEN billion strong) were to live as they did in 1750 (burning wood to stay warm, cook), any guess as to what CO2 levels would be today Van Baker on December 5, 2016 at 8:08 pm If we 8230 were to live AS THEY DID in 1750 (burning wood to stay warm, cook), any guess as to what CO2 levels would be today Well Van Baker8230 I think there is some simple answer to your question, by depicting some aspects of the pre-industrial era: 8211 no electricity plants of 1GWel level 8211 no big global industry, no cement plants 8211 no goods transport all around the world 8211 no motor driven cars, no big trucks, no trains, no motor driven ships, no airplanes. My guess you certainly won8217t accept: about 280 ppm . That doesn8217t mean I would 8220desire to turn the clock back to 17508221. Not at all. re: 8220In the 1990s fossil fuel emissions were about 3 of the carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere according to the EPA. 8221 True, but misleading. The natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption. The anthropogenic emissions were about 50 absorbed, increasing the ocean8217s acidity, and the land biosphere8217s carbon, and about 50 not absorbed, increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2. What you say is true. The point of the article is, why is that a problem Where is the evidence (excepting computer models that have yet to be validated) that increasing CO2 is a problem It does have many benefits. Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 This popular balance graphic and assorted variations are based on a power flux, Wm2. A W is not energy, but energy over time, i. e. 3.4 Btueng h or 3.6 kJSI h. The 342 Wm2 ISR is determined by spreading the average 1,368 Wm2 solar irradianceconstant over the spherical ToA surface area. (1,3684 342) There is no consideration of the elliptical orbit or day or night or seasons or tropospheric thickness, etc. This popular balance models the earth as a ball suspended in a hot fluid with heatenergypower entering evenly over the entire ToA spherical surface. This is not even close to how the real earth energy balance works. Everybody uses it. Everybody should know better. Technically, there is no absolute dividing line between the Earths atmosphere and space, but for scientists studying the balance of incoming and outgoing energy on the Earth, it is conceptually useful to think of the altitude at about 100 kilometers above the Earth as the top of the atmosphere. The top of the atmosphere is the bottom line of Earths energy budget, the Grand Central Station of radiation. It is the place where solar energy (mostly visible light) enters the Earth system and where both reflected light and invisible, thermal radiation from the Sun-warmed Earth exit. The balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere determines the Earths average temperature. The ability of greenhouses gases to change the balance by reducing how much thermal energy exits is what global warming is all about. ToA is 100 km or 62 miles. It is 68 miles between Denver and Colorado Springs. Thats not just thin, thats ludicrous thin. The GHEGHG loop as shown on Trenberth et. Al. is made up of three main components: upwelling of 396 Wm2 which has two parts: 63 Wm2 and 333 Wm2 and downwelling of 333 Wm2. The 396 Wm2 is determined by inserting 16 C or 279K in the S-B BB equation. This result produces 55 Wm2 of power flux more than ISR entering ToA, an obvious violation of conservation of energy out of nothing. That should have been a warning. 341 Wm2 enter ToA, 102 Wm2 are reflected by the albedo, leaving a net 239 Wm2 for ToA. 78 Wm2 are absorbed by the atmosphere leaving 161 Wm2 for the surface. To maintain the balance 160 Wm2 rise from the surface (0.9 residual in ground) as 17 Wm2 convection, 80 Wm2 latent and 63 Wm2 LWIR 160 Wm2. All power fluxes are now present and accounted for. The remaining 333 Wm2 are the spontaneous creation of an inappropriate application of the S-B BB equation violating conservation of energy. The 333 Wm2 upwellingdownwelling constitutes a 100 perpetual energy loop violating thermodynamics. There is no net energy left at the surface to warm the earth, there is no net energy left in the troposphere to impact radiative balance at ToA. The 333 Wm2, 97 of ISR, upwells into the troposphere where it is absorbedtrappedblocked by 0.04 of the atmosphere. Thats a significant heat load for that tiny share of atmospheric molecules and they should all be hotter than two dollar pistols. Except they arent. The troposphere is cold, -40 C at 30,000 ft, 9km, lt-60C at ToA. Depending on how one models the troposphere, average or variable density from surface to ToA, the S-B BB equation for tropospheric temperatures ranges from 150 to 250 Wm2. A considerable way from 333. But wait The GHGs reradiate in all directions not just back to the surface. Say a statistical 33 makes it back to the surface that means 50 to 80 Wm2. A long way from 333. But wait Because the troposphere is not ideal the S-B equation must consider emissivity. Nasif Nahle suggests CO2 emissivity could be around 0.1 or 5 to 8 Wm2 re-radiated back to the surface. Light years from 333. But wait All of the above really doesnt even matter since there is no net connection or influence between the 333 Wm2 thermodynamically impossible loop and the radiative balance at ToA. Just erase this loop from the graphic and nothing else about the balance changes. BTW 7 of the 8 reanalyzed (water board the data till it gives up the right answer) data setsmodels show more power flux leaving OLR than entering ASR ToA or atmospheric cooling. Trenberth was not happy. Obviously, those data setsmodels have it completely wrong because there cant be any flaw in the GHE theory. The GHE greenhouse analogy not only doesnt apply to the atmosphere, it doesnt even apply to warming a real greenhouse. Its the physical barrier that traps convective heat, not some kind of handwavium thermal diode. The surface of the earth is warm for the same reason a heated house is warm in the winter: Q U A dT, the energy flowheat resisting blanket of the insulated walls. The composite thermal conductivity of that paper thin atmosphere, conduction, convection, latent, LWIR, resists the flow of energy, i. e. heat, from surface to ToA and that requires a temperature differential, 213 K ToA and 288 K surface 75 C. The flow through a fluid heat exchanger requires a pressure drop. A voltage differential is needed to push current through a resistor. Same for the atmospheric blanket. A blanket works by Q U A dT, not S-B BB. Open for rebuttal. If you can explain how this upwellingdownwellingback radiation actually works be certain to copy Jennifer Marohasy. 8220This result produces 55 Wm2 of power flux more than ISR entering ToA, an obvious violation of conservation of energy out of nothing. That should have been a warning.8221 Yes, there8217s a problem, but COE is not violated since the origin of this extra flux is prior surface emissions which were captured and temporarily stored in the atmosphere by GHG8217s and clouds only to be returned to the surface at a later time. The problem is lumping in energy transported by matter with energy transported by photons. The 396 Wm2 of 8216upwelling8217 are the photon emissions of the surface consequential to its temperature. The 8216downwelling8217 includes the return of latent heat and thermals that also enter the atmosphere and this is energy transported by matter, which can8217t otherwise escape the planet. The only effect these have is on the surface temperature, but the effect of this is already accounted for by the 396 Wm2 of surface emissions, thus these components must have a net zero energy influence at the surface and no impact on the radiative balance. Many are confused by this level of obfuscation. The other thing Trenberth does is significantly underestimate the amount of energy that passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed by either GHG8217s or clouds. The relationship between atmospheric CO2 photosynthesis, in consequence also a bio-sinks, in the paper cited in reports IPCC is linear: rectilinear, exponential or logarithmic. Always, however, bio-sinks 8220no overtaking8221 CO2 emissions 8211 increase atmospheric CO2. This is also linear. It should, however 8211 at first 8211 to examine the most commonly occurring in the biosphere model of predator-prey 8211 The Lotka-Volterra equations (8220chasing8221 each other sinusoid). Here is a predator 8211 organisms with photosynthesis, and the prey is of course: CO2. According to the theory of AGW, IPCC, this model is impossible to implement due to the boundary conditions. Mainly has run out of iron and phosphorus, and disaster associated with warming, have further reduced photosynthesis. Therefore, the main problem (for the adoption of the model L-V) is to prove that in ancient 8211 geological times, the biomass of warm 8211 bio-sinks, however, were many times larger than now (and it need to prove by the skeptics). An example of the difficulties is here: earthscience. stackexchangequestions2439how-much-have-global-gpp-and-biomass-changed-over-earths-history . Bio-sinks are much faster (see eg. to quickly remove a sharp increase in CO2, at the end of the glacial period) than, for example: Oolites, etc. Paper by Knorr: Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing. 2009. it may indicate that we have to deal with the first phase of the sinusoidal model (no percentage increase the fraction of anthropogenic in total emissions CO2). It is worth knowing that the dispute regarding bio-availability of phosphorus and iron is very sharp and far from finished. However, it is also worth known that fossil fuels (of course after combustion) are an excellent source of iron: Iron solubility driven by speciation in dust sources to the ocean, Schroth et al. 2009. We conclude that spatial and temporal variations in aerosol iron speciation, driven by the distribution of deserts, glaciers and fossil-fuel combustion, could have a pronounced effect on aerosol iron solubility and therefore on biological productivity and the carbon cycle in the ocean. could even be that the net effect of more CO2 is that of cooling rather than warming8230 to see that CO2 is also cooling the atmosphere, note the Turnbull report quoted earlier by me to Andy May. Henry on December 6, 2016 at 3:23 am Henry, I8217m all but a specialist in the domain. But as far as I have understood the majority of the publications I read until now (and there was quite a lot of them), the effect of CO2 seems to be twofold: 8211 its increase in the lower atmosphere contributes to the warming of water vapor, what manifestly results in more water vapor there 8211 in those higher atmospheric regions where water vapor is absent (due to both precipitation and a lack of atmospheric pressure, about 1 of that at Earth8217s surface), CO28217s presence is the garant of a continuous heat release out to space. I intituively guess that without a minimum of CO2 we couldn8217t manage to survive: 8211 either we would freeze dut to an exceeding level of water vapor precipitation, or 8211 we would burn due to an insufficient amount of heat release. Pure layman8217s opinion, that8217s evident. Take it as it is, with caution :-) And this reduction in plant growth at low CO2 concentrations does not take into account the reducing partial pressure of CO2 with altitude. When CO2 concentrations reached 190 ppm during the ice age maximum, plants at high altitude experienced even less equivalent concentrations, and were starved of a vital nutrient. Thus large areas of uplants were turned into CO2 deserts, creating vast dust storms. It was this dust, and the consequent lowering of ice sheet albedo, that ended the ice ages. This article tends to support my conclusion that the primary forcing in climate change is best represented by the symbol 8230 . 8220The idea has been that added CO2 causes warming which in turn causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more waming because H2O is also a greenhouse gas with LWIR absorption bands. The additional waming then causes even more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more warming which causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere and so on. Actually an increase in CO2 is not required to set this off. (1) An increase in H2O itself which happens all the time would set off the chain reaction. If this really happened we would not be here. (2) The reality is that H2O is really a coolant so adding H2O to the atmosphere lowers and not raises temperatures8221 1. Agreed there is nothing magic about CO2, anything that increases temperatureH2O vapor will start this feedback. 2. Wrong, it does happen here. The climate systematmosphere on earth has an UNLIMITED amount of H2O vaporliquid to work with. (the oceans) The vertical circulation driven by differential heating and cooling moves saturated air to cooler high altitudes where it condenses into clouds. This removes it from the (IR)water vapor feed back system. The water vapor feedback as normally referred to is the clear air IR part of the system only. The addition of CO2 cannot cause what already exists and since the effect is as you say to cool through the negative feedback of clouds and high altitude IR emission to space, no CO2 problem exists. So, now that we solved that, we can move on the the next great problem of the day, right :-) It is not just clouds that cause the negative feedback. According to energy balance models. more heat energy is moved from the Earth8217s surface to where clouds form, and yes radiate to space, by H2O via the heat of phase change then by both LWIR absroption band radiation and convection combined. The fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly lower than the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O8217s cooling effect. The net feedback has to be negative for the climate to have been stable enough for life to have evolved because if not H2O alone would have been sufficient to have triggered runaway global warming causing the oceans to boil away, causing the atmosphe to be more massive then that on Venus and hence the Earth8217s surface would have become hotter than the surface of Venus, but such has never happened on Earth. Great point. Venus has no free water, instead it has sulfuric acid and sulfur trioxide, aka oleum. Much higher boiing point and density. Anyone using the Venus analogy must consider the oleum difference. As in a boiling point of 280 C. Yes, it is a rather violent acid. No wonder probes don8217t last long ) EPA8217s answer: Higher CO2 concentrations shrink researchers. This appears to be somewhat old news at one blog, but I just discovered it, and given its probable obscurity to many others, I thought it might bear repeating here8217 S. I. Rasool and S. H. Schneider, Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate Science 09 Jul 1971: Vol. 173, Issue 3992, pp. 138-141 How times change. That has been noted here, and that Schneider hopped on the CACA band wagon as soon as it left the station, replacing the cooling gravy train. Meanwhile, he rode the nuclear winter scare to notoriety. Didn8217t you see that your copyamppaste is dated 1971 How much do you think is known inbetween about that Just a detail: there is no 8220saturation8221 effect. Bindidon December 7, 2016 at 7:45 am Didnt you see that your copyamppaste is dated 1971 How much do you think is known inbetween about that Right, we now know that your 8220The Science8221 of CO2-Climate Change is Scientifically Falsified by its 100 Prediction Failure in real science8217s real world of empirical data. Meanwhile, what are you, Bindidon, personally doing in the real world you live in to decrease your own 8220CO2 Footprint8221 Is it mere Crickets vs Your Own CO2 Apocalypse JPeden on December 7, 2016 at 8:35 am Sorry for the response, but you are yourself the origin of it. This, JPeden, is the typical pavlovian answer of those I call the boring skeptics (i like sound skepticism, and from that you stay half an AU away). There was no hint on my meaning about CO2. A meaning which I myself consider be irrelevant due to my lack of knowledge concerning this extremely difficult and intricate context. What I have underlined in my answer to Robert Kernodle is that (in fact independently of the matter discussed) it is not very meaningful to refer on 45 years old scientific results. 8220Bindidon December 7, 2016 at 1:12 pm8221 I hereby denounce myself for not realizing that I was trying to herd cats JPeden on December 7, 2016 at 3:36 pm Thanks JP for the pretty good humor. Meanwhile, what are you, Bindidon, personally doing in the real world you live in to decrease your own CO2 Footprint Not much But at least I managed 10 years ago to stop this stoopid driving a car every morning evening, and to switch to public transport :-) Andy: You can go to the website below and simulate OLR (or DLR) from any atmosphere with whatever GHG concentration(s) you and temperature you want. For example, you can zero out all of the other GHGs and just look at normal water vapor vs no water vapor in a sub-arctic winter atmosphere or a tropical atmosphere. It usually makes sense to study one GHG at a time and then move on to mixtures that are relevant to our atmosphere. Does anyone know if the pictures of the four pine trees are from a real experiment Is there a picture of the four (similar) trees before CO2. Doing this multi-year experiment would take a lot of time and equipment 8211 a lot more than just staging picture with four signs and trees of different height. A real experimenter presumably would be proud to document how the experiment was performed. frank I don8217t know about the pine trees I do know that in Holland they add about 1000ppm of CO2 in the greenhouses to get much bigger tomatoes. this type of technology is not generally known because many try to keep it secret for understandable reasons8230. Except for the makers of CO2 generators who advertise their technology to commercial greenhouse growers. Of course with the potential for increased growth comes the caveat that other nutrients become limiting to growth so nitratesphosphates etc may need to be added to achieve larger crops. hallo Phil. long time no see haven8217t been not sick or anything It is good to see you understand the basics of biology and that more CO2 together with other nutrients is better8230. Grand article. I keep wondering if anyone pays attention to the calculus of missing carbon. Figure 3 shows the greening of the African Sahel from 1982 to 2003. Sorry: this is bare manipulation la Craig Idso. No wonder: this person is known to have best relations to institutions like Heartland Institute, and to big coal mining companies. I have no problem at all with people pushing hard on CO2 promotion. But I say to them: Please keep countries like the Sahel zone off your bloody manipulations. I8217ve been there, and Sahel looks rather like this: Above picture I found in the following article concerning Sahel: Vegetation index trends for the African Sahel 19821999 (Lars Eklundh, Lennart Olsson 2003) onlinelibrary. wileydoi10.10292002GL016772full It is evident that the character sequence 8220CO28221 does not appear at any line in the paper. Sahel8217s slow (re)greening is solely due to rainfall and 8211 by far more important 8211 to the notable effort spent there in the last 30 years to increase tree planting and water storage. Surprisingly, even people like Eklundh and Olsson felt some need to extend the Sahel zone pretty good southwards (Sahel rather ends at the latitude of Dakar, Senegal). To cut a long story short, this has NOTHING to do with CO2 increase. If the world had a magic wand and could reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere back to the good old days of say 1945 then according to satellite and other measures plant productivity across the world would decline by 20-30 at a minimum. That means mass starvation. The IPCC8217s prediction of lower plant productivity in 2080 is based on extremely bad science. 1) Genetics and other standard research into plant productivity is producing massive gains that have tripled overall productivity of plants since 1945 or so. 2) Industrial countries spend 2 of GDP on food production. Even if there was a decline this is not a big problem as the slightest increase in spending would compensate. 3) We are likely to have a food surplus by 2080 given current trends and increasing productivity from higher temps and increased co2 so that any decrease will hardly be relevant. 4) increased co2 improves not only plant productivity but also drought resistance assuming more droughts. A recent peer reviewed study showed that this completely cancels the effects of lower prodictivity due to projected model temperatures. 5) Projected model temperatures are way way off and based on unrealistic senstivity to Co2. So temperatures will never get to the levels they predict they think will hurt plant productivity which the previous article showed wouldn8217t happen anyway. Due to these extremely powerful reasons the IPCC8217s prediction of food productivity decline in 2080 is one of the most laughable and worst predictions they8217ve made (which is saying something.) Moreover, as pointed out in my first paragraph we would probably be welcoming additional CO2 and be completely uninterested in reducing CO2 levels. It is the most natural organic plant fertilizer available and we may find ourselves in 2080 burning fossil fuels to keep the CO2 level in the atmosphere elevated forever just because it8217s the cheapest way to keep the planet warm and fed. Jesus how old are you logic3 You remember me these ridiculous people telling us in the last century8217s Sixties that 8220the fission of 1 kg uranium liberates as much energy as burning 2,800 tons of coal8221. Over 50 years later, we know more about that blind-alley and the true comparison given by elaborating complete cost and energy balances, but we luckily also know more of how to discern and analyse similar blah blah . Your swearing is inacceptable. Remember we are in a public lecture room where eveybody can be a teacher or student. Dont talk unwise of peole jou have not studied. Jesus is the only one who can save you fronll snip. doesn8217t scan Owen. Give it another go but check both the links first. mod Never mind what everyone says: We have been over this many times before: there is no CO2 induced warming. Like H2O especially clouds, but also vapor CO2 cools the atmosphere when the sun is shining, by mirroring radiation especially at 1-2um and between 4-5um looking at the spectrum of CO2lt Anyone claiming that earth039s emission at between 14-15um is bigger than the sun039s radiation on earth at 1-2 and 4-5 must be out of his mind. The net effect of more CO2 in the air is cooling rather than warming, but that effect is too small to count against natural warmingcooling. Anyone claiming that earth8217s emission at between 14-15um is bigger than the sun8217s radiation on earth at 1-2 and 4-5 must be out of his mind. Not at all, they8217d just have to understand blackbody radiation and radiation heat transfer, unlike you Henry. To a good approximation mean sun8217s radiation incident on the Earth8217s surface equals the earth8217s emission at the TOA. Phil. says To a good approximation mean suns radiation incident on the Earths surface equals the earths emission at the TOA. Henry says if that were true, it would not be warming, now would it Or do you also doubt now whether it is still warming. to prove to me that the net effect of more CO2 in the air is that of warming rather than cooling, you must come up with the test results of an experiment that actually measures how much the more CO2 is cooling the atmosphere and how much it is warming the atmosphere. i. e. give me balance sheet. In this respect, of course, the closed box experiments of the inventors of 8216global8217 warming do not count, as they simply ignored the deflection of energy back to space by the CO2 in the sun8217s emission spectrum 0-5 um. Henry December 9, 2016 at 10:03 am Phil. says 8220To a good approximation mean suns radiation incident on the Earths surface equals the earths emission at the TOA.8221 Henry says if that were true, it would not be warming, now would it Actually it would if the absorption by the atmosphere of the emission from the earth8217s surface was increasing. Penses-y. 8220Actually it would if the absorption by the atmosphere of the emission from the earths surface was increasing. Think about it.8221 The atmosphere responds nearly immediately to thinks like changing clouds, changing water vapor concentrations as well as any other variability in GHG concentrations. So yes, if the atmosphere absorbs more surface emissions, the surface will warm owing to more of these absorbed emissions being returned to the surface, but this warming is nearly instantaneous (i. e. no more than a few days to adapt). Another way to look at this is that the residence time of energy stored by the atmosphere is very short. Phil. says Actually it would if the absorption by the atmosphere of the emission from the earths surface was increasing. Penses-y. Henry says but it is not warming. especially not here where I live8230we only had cooling despite everyone burning fossil fuels here8230 must be that the CO2 is cooling the atmosphere Awarded TOP 100 Status . the worlds most viewed climate website - Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming . invaluable - Steven F. Hayward, The Weekly Standard . changed the world and is one of the most influential resources on global warming. - Jonathon Moseley, American Thinker Now on DVD: BUY THIS BOOK Shameless Plug Follow me on Twitter Follow WUWT via Email