OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?

Status
Not open for further replies.
right_top_shadow.gif

Why does CO2 lag temperature?
January 2010 by John Cook
Why does CO2 lag temperature?

Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is Both.

Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration (Petit 2000) and temperature change (Barnola 2003).

Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23°. This tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° (obliquity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession).

Milankovitch_Cycles.jpg

Figure 2: The three main orbital variations. Eccentricity: changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit.Obliquity: changes in the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis. Precession: wobbles in the Earth’s rotational axis.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea iceand melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:
  • Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
  • CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
    *CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
``
 
The TITLE of this thread is:

OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?

I have no idea what is bugging you. Even you are talking about the nature of energy transfer in air in this thread:
...Water Vapor dominates the evaporation system, that draws up a lot of energy from the surface into the upper atmosphere.

Convection DOMINATES the cooling process from the surface to the atmosphere.
There is no reason to close this thread.
 
Here are thermal conductivities of common gases in the air given in units of W/(m K)

Ask yourself which is the more rapid means of moving energy....radiation or conduction...

A second misunderstanding you have is related to all your references to domestic heating engineers. There is a great deal of difference in IR spectrum from the 60 F earth, and from a 1000 F heater. The GHGs only absorb the very long IR wave radiation prevalent from the earth. The radiation from the shorter wave IR from a heater swamps measurement of that absorbed by the air. An engineer would rightly say there is no absorption in the air, a physicist would say it is unmeasurably small, or negligible.

Every time you reply..you just further acknowledge that you just don't know jack...

Here...from the industry...

Types of Infrared Heater: Near, Middlewave and Far IR

“Far infrared”, “IRC”, “Long wave” or “Dark Radiators” operate in the wavelengths above 3 microns. Far Infrared elements emit much lower temperatures, typically around the 100°C mark and no visible light. Human and animal skin absorbs Far infrared specifically well, because of its 80% water composition, making Far Infrared a biologically significant heating wavelength for humans and animals.

Far Infrared heaters use a number of different elements, with popular ones being nickel or fecralloy wiring or more recently carbon fibre.

Because of their lower temperatures, applications of “Far Infrared” heating include Domestic, Commercial and Public “comfort” heating applications. It is also also used extensively in modern saunas.

And I could go on and on with references stating that far infrared is the primary type in use where humans and animals are the target of the warmth...do you ever bother to look up anything? Far infrared can not and does not warm the air...


I hope this clarifies the physics for you.

I got the physics...all you clarified was how ignorant you are on the topic.
 
Here are thermal conductivities of common gases in the air given in units of W/(m K)

Ask yourself which is the more rapid means of moving energy....radiation or conduction...

A second misunderstanding you have is related to all your references to domestic heating engineers. There is a great deal of difference in IR spectrum from the 60 F earth, and from a 1000 F heater. The GHGs only absorb the very long IR wave radiation prevalent from the earth. The radiation from the shorter wave IR from a heater swamps measurement of that absorbed by the air. An engineer would rightly say there is no absorption in the air, a physicist would say it is unmeasurably small, or negligible.

Every time you reply..you just further acknowledge that you just don't know jack...

Here...from the industry...

Types of Infrared Heater: Near, Middlewave and Far IR

“Far infrared”, “IRC”, “Long wave” or “Dark Radiators” operate in the wavelengths above 3 microns. Far Infrared elements emit much lower temperatures, typically around the 100°C mark and no visible light. Human and animal skin absorbs Far infrared specifically well, because of its 80% water composition, making Far Infrared a biologically significant heating wavelength for humans and animals.

Far Infrared heaters use a number of different elements, with popular ones being nickel or fecralloy wiring or more recently carbon fibre.

Because of their lower temperatures, applications of “Far Infrared” heating include Domestic, Commercial and Public “comfort” heating applications. It is also also used extensively in modern saunas.

And I could go on and on with references stating that far infrared is the primary type in use where humans and animals are the target of the warmth...do you ever bother to look up anything? Far infrared can not and does not warm the air...


I hope this clarifies the physics for you.

I got the physics...all you clarified was how ignorant you are on the topic.

None of that matters. Even a 100C heater has 3 times the LWIR radiation as room temperature. On top of that, the size of the room is too small for any measurable effect because the absorption length for atmospheric CO2 is around 25 meters (82 feet). According to Beer's Law a room size of 15 feet will reduce the IR absorption of CO2 further down to 0.13 %.

That amount of absorption is negligible compared to what a solid object would receive. So again, an engineer would rightly say there is no absorption in the air, a physicist would say it is immeasurably small, or negligible.

You said, “..add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself... “

CO2 is a worse conductor of heat than all the other common gases in the atmosphere. So Todds question still stands. What gas are you talking about?
 
Here are thermal conductivities of common gases in the air given in units of W/(m K)

Ask yourself which is the more rapid means of moving energy....radiation or conduction...

A second misunderstanding you have is related to all your references to domestic heating engineers. There is a great deal of difference in IR spectrum from the 60 F earth, and from a 1000 F heater. The GHGs only absorb the very long IR wave radiation prevalent from the earth. The radiation from the shorter wave IR from a heater swamps measurement of that absorbed by the air. An engineer would rightly say there is no absorption in the air, a physicist would say it is unmeasurably small, or negligible.

Every time you reply..you just further acknowledge that you just don't know jack...

Here...from the industry...

Types of Infrared Heater: Near, Middlewave and Far IR

“Far infrared”, “IRC”, “Long wave” or “Dark Radiators” operate in the wavelengths above 3 microns. Far Infrared elements emit much lower temperatures, typically around the 100°C mark and no visible light. Human and animal skin absorbs Far infrared specifically well, because of its 80% water composition, making Far Infrared a biologically significant heating wavelength for humans and animals.

Far Infrared heaters use a number of different elements, with popular ones being nickel or fecralloy wiring or more recently carbon fibre.

Because of their lower temperatures, applications of “Far Infrared” heating include Domestic, Commercial and Public “comfort” heating applications. It is also also used extensively in modern saunas.

And I could go on and on with references stating that far infrared is the primary type in use where humans and animals are the target of the warmth...do you ever bother to look up anything? Far infrared can not and does not warm the air...


I hope this clarifies the physics for you.

I got the physics...all you clarified was how ignorant you are on the topic.

None of that matters. Even a 100C heater has 3 times the LWIR radiation as room temperature. On top of that, the size of the room is too small for any measurable effect because the absorption length for atmospheric CO2 is around 25 meters (82 feet). According to Beer's Law a room size of 15 feet will reduce the IR absorption of CO2 further down to 0.13 %.

That amount of absorption is negligible compared to what a solid object would receive. So again, an engineer would rightly say there is no absorption in the air, a physicist would say it is immeasurably small, or negligible.

So where is the tropospheric hot spot? If your belief is true, then a marked tropospheric hot spot would be the inescapable, inevitable, indisputable result. Where is it?


You said, “..add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself... “


CO2 is a worse conductor of heat than all the other common gases in the atmosphere. So Todds question still stands. What gas are you talking about?[/QUOTE]

I suppose I should have broke out the crayons and wrote in big colorful letters that radiation is a more efficient, and more rapid means of moving energy than conduction and if you add radiative gasses to the atmosphere, then energy moves on through the atmosphere more rapidly than if you depend on conduction. I should have figured that in your desperation to support your indefensible position that sooner or later you would start picking the fly specks out of the pepper...pick all the nits you like...it doesn't change the fact that you can't produce a single shred of evidence to support your position while all the known evidence in the universe supports mine. What's next....pointing out grammar, spelling, and punctuation mistakes in an effort to feel a bit better about yourself? What a loser with a great big L
 
God are you stupid.

And you can't provide the first piece of measured, observed evidence to support your position while every observation and measurement ever made supports mine...it would appear, skidmark, that the truly stupid one is you...you sure do love the emperors new clothes don't you? Bet you are asking everyone who is his tailor.

I am leading you goof balls on a merry chase, and have you running in circles, chasing your tails, claiming that the models provide the data necessary to prove the models and you call me stupid....

I am laughing my ass off at you clowns.
 
And the mechanism for the movement of the energy of the GHGs is what? Maybe absorption and re-emission of a photon. And what direction is that photon emitted in? Maybe a random direction? Which means that 50% of that radiation is now headed back toward the Earth, when previously 100% was headed out into space. You think that perhaps this might warm things up a bit? LOL SSoDDumb, you are a hoot.
 
God are you stupid.

And you can't provide the first piece of measured, observed evidence to support your position while every observation and measurement ever made supports mine...it would appear, skidmark, that the truly stupid one is you...you sure do love the emperors new clothes don't you? Bet you are asking everyone who is his tailor.

I am leading you goof balls on a merry chase, and have you running in circles, chasing your tails, claiming that the models provide the data necessary to prove the models and you call me stupid....

I am laughing my ass off at you clowns.
LOL laugh like the fool you are. For those of us that have had a least three classes of college level physics and chemistry, you are a clown. The physics of GHGs has been demonstrated on many levels now, from absorption spectra to the measurement of incoming energy and out going energy of our planet by the satellites. And not a single measurement supports your demented physics.
 
And the mechanism for the movement of the energy of the GHGs is what? Maybe absorption and re-emission of a photon. And what direction is that photon emitted in? Maybe a random direction? Which means that 50% of that radiation is now headed back toward the Earth, when previously 100% was headed out into space. You think that perhaps this might warm things up a bit? LOL SSoDDumb, you are a hoot.

No idea...tell you what rocks...how about you describe the actual underlying mechanism for energy movement from a warm object to a cool object....explain precisely how a vibration from a molecule is transformed into a massless particle/wave that travels at the speed of light..then explain the mechanism by which it escapes the molecule and goes forth. There should be a nobel in it for you.

You are absolutely ridiculous asking me for mechanisms for phenomena that we won't even begin to understand for a very long time...Observation and measurement tells us that energy only moves spontaneously from warm objects to cool objects...if you have an observation of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object, by all means show it...and then I can point out to you how you have been fooled by the instrument that supposedly measured that which does not happen.
 
And the mechanism for the movement of the energy of the GHGs is what? Maybe absorption and re-emission of a photon. And what direction is that photon emitted in? Maybe a random direction? Which means that 50% of that radiation is now headed back toward the Earth, when previously 100% was headed out into space. You think that perhaps this might warm things up a bit? LOL SSoDDumb, you are a hoot.

Newsflash for you rocks...GHG's almost never emit a photon....999 million 999 thousand 99 times out of a billion, they lose the energy they absorb to another molecule...usually oxygen or nitrogen...and when they do emit a photon, the second law tells us that energy only moves from warm to cool, so the photon would be emitted on towards cooler pastures....not back towards the earth.

If in fact, your beliefs were true, the inevitable, indisputable result would be a marked hot spot in the upper troposphere. Where is it? If it isn't there, then what you believe to be true and happening, isn't. Simple as that.
 
God are you stupid.

And you can't provide the first piece of measured, observed evidence to support your position while every observation and measurement ever made supports mine...it would appear, skidmark, that the truly stupid one is you...you sure do love the emperors new clothes don't you? Bet you are asking everyone who is his tailor.

I am leading you goof balls on a merry chase, and have you running in circles, chasing your tails, claiming that the models provide the data necessary to prove the models and you call me stupid....

I am laughing my ass off at you clowns.
LOL laugh like the fool you are. For those of us that have had a least three classes of college level physics and chemistry, you are a clown. The physics of GHGs has been demonstrated on many levels now, from absorption spectra to the measurement of incoming energy and out going energy of our planet by the satellites. And not a single measurement supports your demented physics.

Actually rocks...I have had a lot more than that..which is why I constantly and continuously ask you for the very evidence which we all know that you can't produce to support your beliefs. Do you believe that it is just coincidence that I happen to always be asking for something that doesn't exist? Do you believe it is coincidence that I just happen to always be probing along that line between modeling and reality? Do you think it is coincidence that I always seem to know upon which side of that fine line the actual observed, measured evidence happens to lie?

You are even stupider than I thought. You guys are so stupid that you don't even know when you are being led around by your collective noses? What a gaggle of geese. Scratch that..it is an insult to geese...even geese know when they are being led.
 
radiation is a more efficient, and more rapid means of moving energy than conduction

Yes radiation is more rapid than conduction for gases. I told you that.

and if you add radiative gasses to the atmosphere, then energy moves on through the atmosphere more rapidly than if you depend on conduction.

Yes radiation is more rapid than conduction for gases. I told you that.
Why did you say essentially the same thing twice in the same sentence

You are still skirting the question. You said, “..add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself... “

You still didn't say what gases you add to the air that you think are good conductors. You also didn't say why you think air would cool itself more rapidly.
 
No idea...tell you what rocks...how about you describe the actual underlying mechanism for energy movement from a warm object to a cool object....explain precisely how a vibration from a molecule is transformed into a massless particle/wave that travels at the speed of light..then explain the mechanism by which it escapes the molecule and goes forth. There should be a nobel in it for you.
You are trying the same crap on Old Rocks. You know that has no bearing on how physics can predict and verify everything there is to know about electromagnetic energy. Your appeal to the philosophy of physics is a non-sequitur.
 
You are even stupider than I thought. You guys are so stupid that you don't even know when you are being led around by your collective noses? What a gaggle of geese. Scratch that..it is an insult to geese...even geese know when they are being led.
That is another one of your trollish ill tempered remarks. It doesn't convince anyone that you know what you are talking about.
 
you sure do love the emperors new clothes don't you? Bet you are asking everyone who is his tailor.

I am leading you goof balls on a merry chase, and have you running in circles, chasing your tails, claiming that the models provide the data necessary to prove the models and you call me stupid....

I am laughing my ass off at you clowns.
It looks like troll remarks are all that you have left.
 
Here are thermal conductivities of common gases in the air given in units of W/(m K)

Ask yourself which is the more rapid means of moving energy....radiation or conduction...

A second misunderstanding you have is related to all your references to domestic heating engineers. There is a great deal of difference in IR spectrum from the 60 F earth, and from a 1000 F heater. The GHGs only absorb the very long IR wave radiation prevalent from the earth. The radiation from the shorter wave IR from a heater swamps measurement of that absorbed by the air. An engineer would rightly say there is no absorption in the air, a physicist would say it is unmeasurably small, or negligible.

Every time you reply..you just further acknowledge that you just don't know jack...

Here...from the industry...

Types of Infrared Heater: Near, Middlewave and Far IR

“Far infrared”, “IRC”, “Long wave” or “Dark Radiators” operate in the wavelengths above 3 microns. Far Infrared elements emit much lower temperatures, typically around the 100°C mark and no visible light. Human and animal skin absorbs Far infrared specifically well, because of its 80% water composition, making Far Infrared a biologically significant heating wavelength for humans and animals.

Far Infrared heaters use a number of different elements, with popular ones being nickel or fecralloy wiring or more recently carbon fibre.

Because of their lower temperatures, applications of “Far Infrared” heating include Domestic, Commercial and Public “comfort” heating applications. It is also also used extensively in modern saunas.

And I could go on and on with references stating that far infrared is the primary type in use where humans and animals are the target of the warmth...do you ever bother to look up anything? Far infrared can not and does not warm the air...


I hope this clarifies the physics for you.

I got the physics...all you clarified was how ignorant you are on the topic.

None of that matters. Even a 100C heater has 3 times the LWIR radiation as room temperature. On top of that, the size of the room is too small for any measurable effect because the absorption length for atmospheric CO2 is around 25 meters (82 feet). According to Beer's Law a room size of 15 feet will reduce the IR absorption of CO2 further down to 0.13 %.

That amount of absorption is negligible compared to what a solid object would receive. So again, an engineer would rightly say there is no absorption in the air, a physicist would say it is immeasurably small, or negligible.

So where is the tropospheric hot spot? If your belief is true, then a marked tropospheric hot spot would be the inescapable, inevitable, indisputable result. Where is it?


You said, “..add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself... “
CO2 is a worse conductor of heat than all the other common gases in the atmosphere. So Todds question still stands. What gas are you talking about?

I suppose I should have broke out the crayons and wrote in big colorful letters that radiation is a more efficient, and more rapid means of moving energy than conduction and if you add radiative gasses to the atmosphere, then energy moves on through the atmosphere more rapidly than if you depend on conduction. I should have figured that in your desperation to support your indefensible position that sooner or later you would start picking the fly specks out of the pepper...pick all the nits you like...it doesn't change the fact that you can't produce a single shred of evidence to support your position while all the known evidence in the universe supports mine. What's next....pointing out grammar, spelling, and punctuation mistakes in an effort to feel a bit better about yourself? What a loser with a great big L

I suppose I should have broke out the crayons and wrote in big colorful letters that radiation is a more efficient, and more rapid means of moving energy than conduction and if you add radiative gasses to the atmosphere,

Radiative gases? So when you said good conductors were added, you were wrong.
You should have just admitted your error....in crayon.
 
...and when they do emit a photon, the second law tells us that energy only moves from warm to cool, so the photon would be emitted on towards cooler pastures....not back towards the earth.

Still waiting for an actual expert to verify your claim here.

But, since you aren't going to find one, YOU can explain how matter can know the temperature of all other matter in its view. For starters.
 
Done to death. Too many times. If the denier of Radiative Physics wants to starts their own thread on this AGAIN -- I'll make a sticky and it will live forever. But we're not gonna turn EVERY thread into the same fillibuster..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top