Correlation between temperature and CO2

[Kosh]

I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-

The second graph is an example of how any two increasing variables can be made to look related by creative use of the two y axis scales.

The first graph is the actual correlation between the two variables. Because the correlation fluxuates between positive and negative values we know it is not the prime driver of warming. Because the correlation spends more time in the positive phase we can assume that CO2 does cause some warming.

Sounds about right to me.

CO2 has never controlled climate, never will.

Any correlation is meaningless, especially since trillions have been spent on proving man is the cause verse the few hundred million trying to actually understand how the climate engine actually works.

 

[SSDD]

Longwave IR going out drops in the GHG emission bands.

Except that isn't happening either hairball...deny till you drop but it just isn't happening.

Once you go into your "All the science that contradicts me is fraudulent" hysterics, I carve another notch in my cultist-spanking stick.

So what else is new...you carve a notch in your cultist belt every time someone mops the floor with you...you are in denial hairball..and that is what deniers do. You are just like the AGW hypothesis...everything is a win for you...even when it isn't.

Modern hardcore conservatives are commies. They've gone so far right, they've come back around on the left.

And you just keep on proving that you don't have a clue...modern conservatives, think that the government is the answer to nothing...modern conservatives still wan't a very small, very unintrusive government. Now do feel free to explain how small unobtrusive government bears any resemblance to socialism in any form.

You, like most liberals don't have the first clue regarding political philosophy. Your right and left are both wings in the same house...the socialist house....both sides of that house have little respect for individual rights, favor big government, and are fine with applying force...they differ slightly in their national goals until they reach their logical ends then there is little difference between them...conservativism favors small government, respect for individual rights and a live and let live lifestyle...not possible on either side of the socialist house.

 

[IanC]

CO2 as a molecule can not hold heat. Its molecular structure will not allow it to hold anything and it immediately re-emits any photon that it receives.

(That old tune is rattling around in the back of my head, clowns to the left of me...jokers to the right...)

You say a CO2 molecular re-emits immediately, SSDD says it is a one in a billion chance.

I say there is an average time that a CO2 molecule stays in the excited vibrational mode before it expels a photon and returns to groundstate. There is also an average time between molecular collisions in the air, which is dependent on the pressure and temperature. If the time to re-emit is greater than the time between collisions then the average interaction is to lose the energy by collision rather than emission but there is always a chance of emission because both time properties are normal curves and they overlap.

At sea level the time between collisions is much shorter but by the time you reach the stratosphere the time has lengthened dramatically because of lower pressure and temperature.


You say WV structure can hold 'heat' and CO2 can't. What a bunch of poppycock! First off, heat is a macroscopic property that describes bulk energy flow. So you should be saying energy instead of heat. WV does interact with more wavelengths of IR and that is why it's thermal conductivity is greater than CO2's, almost double, if I remember correctly from SSDD'S fiasco with the double pane window 'proof'. (SSDD never did own up to misreading the chart)

 

[IanC]

IN a desert, where water vapor is 5-10% or less on average, the temps soar in day time (nothing in the atmosphere to block or redirect incoming energy) and at night it cools rapidly to near freezing in just a few hours (again due to the lack of water vapor mass). CO2 levels do nothing to hold in heat because they are incapable of it. Without water vapor, CO2 is incapable of anything.

You are describing the effect of both the presence of an atmosphere, and the added effect of GHGs. I assure you that the temperature swings would be even more pronounced without one or both.

Why do you think that just because H2O has an effect that CO2 doesn't? I am having a hard time following your (so called) logic.

 

[IanC]

Empirical evidence shows us that CO2 ALONE should have caused 0.8 deg C in the last 180 years. Yet we haven't seen but 0.6 deg C (in unadjusted data sets) and all of that rise can be attributed to clouds and albedo change. None of it can be attributed to CO2. The IPCC models say we should have seen over 3.2 deg C rise and we have not.

CO2 has a warming influence. log 120/280 times roughly 1C/2xCO2. So something in the neighborhood of half a degree.

My OP correlation graph shows more time spent in the positive region than negative region. So it is likely that CO2 adds to the warming, but obviously is not the only or even most important factor.

I would spend more time poking holes in the consensus science case if I didn't have to correct the antiscience BS you bozos spew out.

You guys embarrass my side. I am skeptical, not stupid. You waste your time denying the real but exaggerated effect of CO2 when you could be attacking the real problems of the faulty AGW and CAGW theories.

I have a problem with any lies, from either side. Stop denying the reality of CO2 warming influence and focus on the exaggerations and misdirections being put up by the other side.

You bozos expect me to defend the obvious flaws of the IPCC when in fact I was one of the first to expose them. The OP was intended to show the misdirection of using separate graphs overlaid and compared by time to imply correlation and causation. The actual correlation is much less certain.

Instead we bog down into the same stupid arguments where you guys lie, and I point out your mistakes.

 

[jc456]

I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-

The second graph is an example of how any two increasing variables can be made to look related by creative use of the two y axis scales.

The first graph is the actual correlation between the two variables. Because the correlation fluxuates between positive and negative values we know it is not the prime driver of warming. Because the correlation spends more time in the positive phase we can assume that CO2 does cause some warming.

Sounds about right to me.

CO2 has never controlled climate, never will.

Any correlation is meaningless, especially since trillions have been spent on proving man is the cause verse the few hundred million trying to actually understand how the climate engine actually works.

we just had a weekend full of rain here in Chicago, and I know CO2 didn't have anything to do with it. Humidity did. An increase in humidity made the atmosphere unstable and we had record rain here for the month of July. All due to humidity. H2O in the atmosphere, not due to CO2. And then yesterday, when the last storm grew and dumped, then left, it got cool? Why? the humidity left. CO2 did not keep the temperature at 90 degrees, the temps fell by 20 degrees after the early evening about six. Why didn't CO2 keep the temps up there at 90 after the storm left? Observations will demonstrate over and over how CO2 has nothing to do with temps. But CO2 is a good plant food.

 

[SSDD]

I say there is an average time that a CO2 molecule stays in the excited vibrational mode before it expels a photon and returns to groundstate.

About 1 second

There is also an average time between molecular collisions in the air

About a nanosecond...a billion times shorter than the time it takes to emit a photon.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 has a warming influence. log 120/280 times roughly 1C/2xCO2. So something in the neighborhood of half a degree.

CO2 has no influence beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere...billions upon billions have been spent on the climate scam...you would think that if CO2 did what you claim, there would be some evidence outside of failed computer models...got any? Got any actual observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting your claim?...any at all?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Empirical evidence shows us that CO2 ALONE should have caused 0.8 deg C in the last 180 years. Yet we haven't seen but 0.6 deg C (in unadjusted data sets) and all of that rise can be attributed to clouds and albedo change. None of it can be attributed to CO2. The IPCC models say we should have seen over 3.2 deg C rise and we have not.

CO2 has a warming influence. log 120/280 times roughly 1C/2xCO2. So something in the neighborhood of half a degree.

My OP correlation graph shows more time spent in the positive region than negative region. So it is likely that CO2 adds to the warming, but obviously is not the only or even most important factor.

I would spend more time poking holes in the consensus science case if I didn't have to correct the antiscience BS you bozos spew out.

You guys embarrass my side. I am skeptical, not stupid. You waste your time denying the real but exaggerated effect of CO2 when you could be attacking the real problems of the faulty AGW and CAGW theories.

I have a problem with any lies, from either side. Stop denying the reality of CO2 warming influence and focus on the exaggerations and misdirections being put up by the other side.

You bozos expect me to defend the obvious flaws of the IPCC when in fact I was one of the first to expose them. The OP was intended to show the misdirection of using separate graphs overlaid and compared by time to imply correlation and causation. The actual correlation is much less certain.

Instead we bog down into the same stupid arguments where you guys lie, and I point out your mistakes.

Keep on believing Ian....

Until you can generate a model that can be empirically verified I will keep my well founded opinions.. You have forgotten the very basics of how and why physics functions.

 

[IanC]

I say there is an average time that a CO2 molecule stays in the excited vibrational mode before it expels a photon and returns to groundstate.

About 1 second

There is also an average time between molecular collisions in the air

About a nanosecond...a billion times shorter than the time it takes to emit a photon.

I hadn't realized there was more to that conversation between Burton and Happer. Here is part of RGBrown's response-

"

Dear Prof. Brown,
I think you might find the discussion below interesting. Prof. Happer's
reply to me is in [BLUE] below.

Yeah, I already know most of that stuff, and I'm pretty sure I have his
powerpoint presentation slides as well. I wasn't aware that there were
levels with lifetimes as long as 1 second -- that's actually pretty long
as atomic/molecular lifetimes go -- but those particular levels are then
going to be very sharp and not terribly responsive to non-resonant IR.
Either way, CO_2 doesn't "scatter" LWIR radiation, it absorbs it
(typically within a few meters, the mean free path at atmospheric
concentrations) and the energy is almost instantly transferred to the
surrounding air.

That doesn't mean that they don't radiate. It just means that their
radiation temperature is in equilibrium in the surrounding air, and it
isn't reradiating of a photon it absorbed, it is radiation initiated by
e.g. a collision with an air molecule.

That's why the greenhouse effect is basically logarithmic at this point.
It is long ago and overwhelmingly saturated. The atmosphere is
basically totally opaque in the CO_2 aborptive bands from sea level up
to maybe 8 or 9 km. Somewhere up there, where the air is much colder,
the molecules get far enough apart that LWIR emitted from the colder air
have a good chance of escaping without being reabsorbed. Increasing
CO_2 basically causes a very small variation of the average height and
-- due to the adiabatic lapse rate, which has little that is directly
due to the GHE itself -- therefore the temperature at which the
atmosphere becomes effectively transparent. The rate at which the
energy in this band emerges from the atmosphere is hence much less than
the rate at which it was originally emitted at the surface in this band.
Given constant average SWV (visible) delivery of radiation into the
system from the Sun, the ground temperature has to warm a tiny bit in
order to compensate for the loss of outgoing power in the CO_2 band.

Here is a curve indicating just how much explanatory power CO_2 has as
far as the temperatures over the last 164 years are concerned. Quite a
lot, actually. Happer might be interested in this curve. I think he
passed on the reference to Wilson and Gea-Banacloche in AJP (2012) which
reviews the CO_2-only no-feedback GHE and ends up concluding that the
no-feedback total climate sensitivity on doubling CO_2 ought to be
around 0.9 to 1.1C. I get an excellent fit to all of HadCRUT4 with TCS
around 1.8C,
"

That sounds exactly like what I have been saying.

 

[Old Rocks]

The reflectance for s-polarized light is

while the reflectance for p-polarized light is

where Z1 and Z2 are the wave impedances of media 1 and 2, respectively, μ1 and μ2 are the magnetic permeability of the two materials, and ε1 and ε2 are the electric permittivity of the two materials (at the frequency of the light wave).

For non-magnetic media (i.e. materials for which μ1 ≈ μ2 ≈ μ0
**********************************************************************

and thus proportional to the ratios of the indices of refraction of the two media. Your interpretation Mr Westwall, is crap.

So are you claiming that IR from either the earth, or the atmosphere is polariarized?

LOL

If its polarized, then photons can be rejected by molecules of like polarization and thus can not warm or be absorbed to warm them.... Is this how they get smart photons?

I believe this is the exact premise I tried to explain to Todd a while back and he laughed at me... Now Crick/Hairball are promotin it... Too Funny~!!

LOL You said what?!! LOL

 

[SSDD]

I say there is an average time that a CO2 molecule stays in the excited vibrational mode before it expels a photon and returns to groundstate.

About 1 second

There is also an average time between molecular collisions in the air

About a nanosecond...a billion times shorter than the time it takes to emit a photon.

I hadn't realized there was more to that conversation between Burton and Happer. Here is part of RGBrown's response-

"

Dear Prof. Brown,
I think you might find the discussion below interesting. Prof. Happer's
reply to me is in [BLUE] below.

Yeah, I already know most of that stuff, and I'm pretty sure I have his
powerpoint presentation slides as well. I wasn't aware that there were
levels with lifetimes as long as 1 second -- that's actually pretty long
as atomic/molecular lifetimes go -- but those particular levels are then
going to be very sharp and not terribly responsive to non-resonant IR.
Either way, CO_2 doesn't "scatter" LWIR radiation, it absorbs it
(typically within a few meters, the mean free path at atmospheric
concentrations) and the energy is almost instantly transferred to the
surrounding air.

That doesn't mean that they don't radiate. It just means that their
radiation temperature is in equilibrium in the surrounding air, and it
isn't reradiating of a photon it absorbed, it is radiation initiated by
e.g. a collision with an air molecule.

That's why the greenhouse effect is basically logarithmic at this point.
It is long ago and overwhelmingly saturated. The atmosphere is
basically totally opaque in the CO_2 aborptive bands from sea level up
to maybe 8 or 9 km. Somewhere up there, where the air is much colder,
the molecules get far enough apart that LWIR emitted from the colder air
have a good chance of escaping without being reabsorbed. Increasing
CO_2 basically causes a very small variation of the average height and
-- due to the adiabatic lapse rate, which has little that is directly
due to the GHE itself -- therefore the temperature at which the
atmosphere becomes effectively transparent. The rate at which the
energy in this band emerges from the atmosphere is hence much less than
the rate at which it was originally emitted at the surface in this band.
Given constant average SWV (visible) delivery of radiation into the
system from the Sun, the ground temperature has to warm a tiny bit in
order to compensate for the loss of outgoing power in the CO_2 band.

Here is a curve indicating just how much explanatory power CO_2 has as
far as the temperatures over the last 164 years are concerned. Quite a
lot, actually. Happer might be interested in this curve. I think he
passed on the reference to Wilson and Gea-Banacloche in AJP (2012) which
reviews the CO_2-only no-feedback GHE and ends up concluding that the
no-feedback total climate sensitivity on doubling CO_2 ought to be
around 0.9 to 1.1C. I get an excellent fit to all of HadCRUT4 with TCS
around 1.8C,
"

That sounds exactly like what I have been saying.

Sounds like just another model...got any actual evidence?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I say there is an average time that a CO2 molecule stays in the excited vibrational mode before it expels a photon and returns to groundstate.

About 1 second

There is also an average time between molecular collisions in the air

About a nanosecond...a billion times shorter than the time it takes to emit a photon.

I hadn't realized there was more to that conversation between Burton and Happer. Here is part of RGBrown's response-

"

Dear Prof. Brown,
I think you might find the discussion below interesting. Prof. Happer's
reply to me is in [BLUE] below.

Yeah, I already know most of that stuff, and I'm pretty sure I have his
powerpoint presentation slides as well. I wasn't aware that there were
levels with lifetimes as long as 1 second -- that's actually pretty long
as atomic/molecular lifetimes go -- but those particular levels are then
going to be very sharp and not terribly responsive to non-resonant IR.
Either way, CO_2 doesn't "scatter" LWIR radiation, it absorbs it
(typically within a few meters, the mean free path at atmospheric
concentrations) and the energy is almost instantly transferred to the
surrounding air.

That doesn't mean that they don't radiate. It just means that their
radiation temperature is in equilibrium in the surrounding air, and it
isn't reradiating of a photon it absorbed, it is radiation initiated by
e.g. a collision with an air molecule.

That's why the greenhouse effect is basically logarithmic at this point.
It is long ago and overwhelmingly saturated. The atmosphere is
basically totally opaque in the CO_2 aborptive bands from sea level up
to maybe 8 or 9 km. Somewhere up there, where the air is much colder,
the molecules get far enough apart that LWIR emitted from the colder air
have a good chance of escaping without being reabsorbed. Increasing
CO_2 basically causes a very small variation of the average height and
-- due to the adiabatic lapse rate, which has little that is directly
due to the GHE itself -- therefore the temperature at which the
atmosphere becomes effectively transparent. The rate at which the
energy in this band emerges from the atmosphere is hence much less than
the rate at which it was originally emitted at the surface in this band.
Given constant average SWV (visible) delivery of radiation into the
system from the Sun, the ground temperature has to warm a tiny bit in
order to compensate for the loss of outgoing power in the CO_2 band.

Here is a curve indicating just how much explanatory power CO_2 has as
far as the temperatures over the last 164 years are concerned. Quite a
lot, actually. Happer might be interested in this curve. I think he
passed on the reference to Wilson and Gea-Banacloche in AJP (2012) which
reviews the CO_2-only no-feedback GHE and ends up concluding that the
no-feedback total climate sensitivity on doubling CO_2 ought to be
around 0.9 to 1.1C. I get an excellent fit to all of HadCRUT4 with TCS
around 1.8C,
"

That sounds exactly like what I have been saying.

Sounds like just another model...got any actual evidence?

He's having a hard time with the laws of distribution and how mass can affect potential effects...How the temperature of the mass defines the length of the wave (photon) emitted.. He just cant figure it out and believes that CO2 has some magical property that defies physics.

 

[SSDD]

He's having a hard time with the laws of distribution and how mass can affect potential effects...How the temperature of the mass defines the length of the wave (photon) emitted.. He just cant figure it out and believes that CO2 has some magical property that defies physics.

The key word there is "believes"...and at least he admits that his is a position of faith...although I don't know how he can rationally claim to be pro science having taken a position of faith. Maybe it is because he has deified science to the point that it is his religion and he simply accepts because "science" said it.

 

[IanC]

He's having a hard time with the laws of distribution and how mass can affect potential effects...How the temperature of the mass defines the length of the wave (photon) emitted.. He just cant figure it out and believes that CO2 has some magical property that defies physics

What a bunch of gibberish. I see some words but they make no sense.

You say I believe CO2 has a magic property...what is it? You say this magic property defies physics...what law or laws of physics are being broken?

Be specific. ie. A mistaken claim by the IPCC dealing with water vapour has nothing to do with my explanation of the radiative effect of CO2, so stay on topic.

 

[SSDD]

He's having a hard time with the laws of distribution and how mass can affect potential effects...How the temperature of the mass defines the length of the wave (photon) emitted.. He just cant figure it out and believes that CO2 has some magical property that defies physics

What a bunch of gibberish. I see some words but they make no sense.

You say I believe CO2 has a magic property...what is it? You say this magic property defies physics...what law or laws of physics are being broken?

Be specific. ie. A mistaken claim by the IPCC dealing with water vapour has nothing to do with my explanation of the radiative effect of CO2, so stay on topic.

The second law of thermodynamics for one...unless of course you can show me some observed, measured examples of two way energy flow....got any that weren't made with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the emitter?...and that aren't simply based on a mathematical model?

In short...do you have any that aren't either pie in the sky models or examples of how easily you are fooled by instrumentation?

 

[IanC]

The second law of thermodynamics for one...unless of course you can show me some observed, measured examples of two way energy flow....got any that weren't made with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the emitter?...and that aren't simply based on a mathematical model?

Ahhhhhh.... The SLoT.

SSDD believes the crude measurements done by unsophisticated instruments 150 years ago that led to such unrealistic results that quantum theory had to be invented to remove the inconsistencies, is far superior to the technology now. Hahahaha.

Entropy is the mechanism behind the SLoT but SSDD doesn't believe in that because it is just a model. If he did believe in entropy then he would have to abandon his peculiar interpretation of physics.

SSDD wants direct measurements of photons. How could we do that? Photons can only be inferred by their impact on the matter that emits or absorbs them. If you place a detector between the emitter and the absorber then the instrument becomes the absorber and SSDD claims 'fooled by instrumentation'. Does the radiation really not exist before you attempted to measure it? Seems overly complicated to me but it is possible, especially if you consider and compare the virtual photons that transfer the electric and magnetic forces. I think they are two different things with the same name but it is above my pay scale to decide. What colour is the electric force if it finds a suitable partner to swap energy with? Is it the same colour for both repulsive and attractive force?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD believes the crude measurements done by unsophisticated instruments 150 years ago that led to such unrealistic results that quantum theory had to be invented to remove the inconsistencies, is far superior to the technology now. Hahahaha.

And I can't help but notice that you are not providing any measurements made with the much more sophisticated instruments we have today...and why might that be?...because energy flow is a one way street, no matter how sophisticated your instruments are...but you believe...you believe...you believe...we all know that you believe...

And as far as your claim that I want "direct" measurements of photons goes...get a grip...hell, I would be satisfied with something that takes them out of the realm of being a theoretical particle and moves them into reality. You talk about them as if they were real and not just a place holder that we use until such time as we learn a hell of a lot more about light and energy than we know now.

 

[IanC]

I assume that you're not denying the existence of light, just the name of it and the billions of hours spent studying it with instruments that give consistent and repeatable results. It's odd that every instrument, no matter how diverse the methodology, fools us in exactly the same way.

SSDD thinks the walls in a room stop radiating because they are all at the same temperature. If you put something cooler inside then they start radiating again BUT only at specific angles that point at the new object.

I think the walls always radiate, according to their temperature and emmisivity. No temperature change happens because the radiation emitted is equal to the radiation absorbed. No stopping and starting of radiation, no forbidden radiation, and perhaps most importantly, no exceptions to the law of entropy.

People can decide for themselves which scenario is closer to the truth. A 150 year old guess that didn't actually describe reality except in a very general macroscopic fashion. Or the new version built up from the reason (entropy), that has been verified by every experiment conceived so far.

 

[SSDD]

I assume that you're not denying the existence of light, just the name of it and the billions of hours spent studying it with instruments that give consistent and repeatable results. It's odd that every instrument, no matter how diverse the methodology, fools us in exactly the same way.

No...I am just reminding you that photons are theoretical particles and when you talk about them as if they actually exist...or that you know what the hell they may be doing...you aren't actually speaking fact...you are speaking model...and model and reality are two very different things.

And you can go on and on as much as you like about what SSDD thinks...but you should mention...just for the sake of honesty...that every observation and measurement ever made supports what SSDD thinks...and that is why SSDD thinks it...and Ian believes because there are no actual observations or measurements that support what Ian believes.