Professor Michael Mann on Wildfires

[bdgwx]

13 hours ago, BillT said:

the IR wave leaves the earth heading UP towards space and a small portion of that wave excites a co2 molecule when it hits it, most of that IR wave goes right on by the co2 since the co2 only impacts tiny segments of the wave, the molecule that gets excited quickly releases a new IR wave with NO directional push, there has to be some force that would cause it to go back towards the surface rather than towards the much cooler space.

Earth's surface and lower atmosphere emit in a portion of the EM spectrum called the "atmospheric window" or sometimes "infrared window". This is a non-contiguous band in which photons have a free escape trajectory. Certain polyatomic gas species (like CO2, CH4, CFCs, etc.) have vibration modes that are excited by the atmospheric window. In the presence of these molecules photons which would have otherwise had a free escape to space are now captured by the molecule. One of two things happens with this captured energy. 1) The molecule can "thermalize" it by using its induced dipole moment to accelerate and collide with neighboring molecules. In this manner the energy is used to increase the temperature in the vicinity of that molecule. 2) The molecule can relax its induced dipole moment by remitting a new photon. This new photon is emitted in a random direction with roughly 50% having downward trajectories. It is precisely because there is no special force that would cause a significant preference on the trajectory of the emission that some of these new photons and the energy they carry will proceed toward the surface as downwelling longwave radiation.  Both of these processes act to impede the transmission of radiant energy to space and enhance the transmission of radiant energy toward the surface. A positive energy imbalance develops in the geosphere.

13 hours ago, BillT said:

the claim that human released co2 is "trapping heat" and making our atmosphere and oceans hotter makes no sense at all in science because as an insulator it does NOT "trap heat" it slows the movement but NEVER traps any heat

It is the decrease in transmission to space and increase in transmission back toward the surface that is being referred to by "trapping heat". And "trapping heat" is a perfectly reasonable and quite intuitive description of the processes involved. The analogy I frequently give to people is that of your home with a furnace and insulation. The insulation does not provide energy to your home nor does it act as a source of energy. That is the role of the furnace and its fuel source. The insulation augments the furnace by allowing your home to achieve a higher equilibrium temperature than would otherwise be possible. It does this by impeding the transmission of energy produced by the furnace to the outside. It "traps" the energy inducing an energy imbalance that cause it to accumulate inside your home. This accumulation occurs until a new equilibrium is achieved. Although there are subtle and important differences worth discussing the analogy is conceptually similar to how the GHE works in the atmosphere on a planetary scale. The point...the word "trap" is used to mean a positive energy imbalance which is exactly what happens in both the GHE and inside your home. Anytime you add a thermal barrier to a system with an energy source that energy will ALWAYS be "trapped" by the barrier.

13 hours ago, BillT said:

so the tiny compared to nature amount of co2 released by humans

The anthroprogenic emission of CO2 caused 100% of the increase from 280 to 410 ppm. In other words 130 of the 410 ppm or 32% of the total concentration was caused by anthroprogenic actions. That is a significant portion of the whole.

13 hours ago, BillT said:

and the  co2 that gets excited by a tiny portion of the IR wave

The atmospheric window is on the order of 40 W/m^2. An increase from 280 to 410 ppm is able to close off 5.35 * ln(410/280) = 2.0 W/m^2 of that window. A +2.0 W/m^2 radiative force may seem small relative to the 240 W/m^2 emitted to space but at a sensitivity of 1.0C per W/m^2 that would represent a +2.0C change in lower troposphere temperature. That is a significant change.

13 hours ago, BillT said:

it is claimed to be the "cause" of warming the oceans and atmosphere and that makes NO sense in science

It is the primary cause of the warming today. And it makes perfect sense. No other theory even comes remotely close in its ability to explain present day warming. It is about as settled as anything in science can be. csnavy says it best...there are so many nails in this coffin there probably isn't enough room to drive in another.

13 hours ago, BillT said:

i remain with the science and FACT that NO insulator ever "traps heat" in any system

The body of scientific evidence comes to a different conclusion than you. In fact, you may unwittingly be betting your life, like many do, on the GHE and the trapping of heat if you work in an environment monitored by NDIR sensors. And the radiometers onboard the GOES-R satellites (among others) exploits the GHE every minute of every day to detect water vapor which like most polyatmoic gas species is a GHG. In fact the GOES-R radiometer even has the "CO2 channel" that exploits CO2's minor absorption line near 13.3 um (not be confused with its primary GHE interaction near the 15 um band) to produce some of those great satellite products we've all come to love. All of this because CO2 and other polyatmoic gas species "trap" radiant energy. To be honest...scientific understanding of this "trapping" behavior is likely better understood than many other physical concepts you take for granted like say gravity.

13 hours ago, BillT said:

again mock me all you desire i can handle it and wont be silenced.

I have no interest in mocking you or anyone. I do, however, have an interest in making sure everyone including you understands what science actually says regarding the matter.

[skierinvermont]

Bill, I will say I appreciate the more effort you e put into reading and responding. Your short one line posts and then ignoring the responses when people try to help you understand are extremely frustrating, so I apologize if my post was too personal.

[BillT]

the co2 is similar to a blanket that is over 80% holes and doesnt slow any heat movement.....in most of the area of it.....try wearing a coat that only covers less than 20% of your upper body and tell me how warm you feel in zero degree weather?

[skierinvermont]

1 minute ago, BillT said:

the co2 is similar to a blanket that is over 80% holes and doesnt slow any heat movement.....in most of the area of it.....try wearing a coat that only covers less than 20% of your upper body and tell me how warm you feel in zero degree weather?

It’s full of holes but also miles thick. Which is why the surface of the earth isn’t freezing cold like other similar planets. Planets with more ghgs are even hotter.

[BillT]

1 minute ago, skierinvermont said:

Bill, I will say I appreciate the more effort you e put into reading and responding. Your short one line posts and then ignoring the responses when people try to help you understand are extremely frustrating, so I apologize if my post was too personal.

ty but you refuse to accept i did this research long ago, these posts are not based on recent study, i have done no additional research in the last 24 hours or even in years when it comes to what an insulator does and doesnt do.

[skierinvermont]

1 minute ago, BillT said:

ty but you refuse to accept i did this research long ago, these posts are not based on recent study, i have done no additional research in the last 24 hours or even in years when it comes to what an insulator does and doesnt do.

I’m sure you did. What I appreciate is that you are thinking about it and I am sure that if you think and engage enough you are more likely to arrive at the correct conclusion.

[BillT]

2 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

It’s full of holes but also miles thick. Which is why the surface of the earth isn’t freezing cold like other similar planets. Planets with more ghgs are even hotter.

the primary GHG  on earth is water vapor.......and Venus is much closer to the sun, Mars has a much higher %age of co2 in its atmosphere than earth and is much colder.

[BillT]

3 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

I’m sure you did. What I appreciate is that you are thinking about it and I am sure that if you think and engage enough you are more likely to arrive at the correct conclusion.

i already have arrived at the correct conclusion = NO insulator ever traps any heat and cant make the total heat in any system increase, and the greenhouse effect is an insulating effect....btw i do appreciate the now civil content of your comments, ty....also we have to do some errands and our weekly grocery pickup so i will be busy for the next several hours.

[skierinvermont]

1 minute ago, BillT said:

the primary GHG  on earth is water vapor.......and Venus is much closer to the sun, Mars has a much higher %age of co2 in its atmosphere than earth and is much colder.

See you’ve changed tactics. First you denied the greenhouse effect entirely. Now you deny that more ghgs will increase the effect. Which is it?

[skierinvermont]

2 minutes ago, BillT said:

i already have arrived at the correct conclusion = NO insulator ever traps any heat and cant make the total heat in any system increase, and the greenhouse effect is an insulating effect.

My blanket takes issue with your blanket statement that no insulator ever traps heat. The air inside my blanket is toasty.

as I said nobody ever said the total heat increase. By trapping more heat on earth less heat escapes to stratosphere and space

[BillT]

2 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

See you’ve changed tactics. First you denied the greenhouse effect entirely. Now you deny that more ghgs will increase the effect. Which is it?

and there went the civility, i have not in any way denied the greenhouse effect......it clearly makes the earths atmosphere warmer than it would be by slowing the movement of the heat in our system.......,with no atmosphere the earths temperature would have huge swings daily from super hot during the day to bitterly cold every night.

[BillT]

4 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

My blanket takes issue with your blanket statement that no insulator ever traps heat. The air inside my blanket is toasty.

so you are claiming your blanket stays warm even after you get up it doesnt return to room temperature soon after you get out of bed??????

[skierinvermont]

1 hour ago, BillT said:

the primary GHG  on earth is water vapor.......and Venus is much closer to the sun, Mars has a much higher %age of co2 in its atmosphere than earth and is much colder.

Mars is cold because the atmosphere is thin 1% of earths and contains almost no water vapor

[skierinvermont]

1 minute ago, BillT said:

so you are claiming your blanket stays warm even after you get up it doesnt return to room temperature soon after you get out of bed??????

No of course not. The co2 and the sun aren’t going anywhere

[skierinvermont]

7 minutes ago, BillT said:

and there went the civility, i have not in any way denied the greenhouse effect......it clearly makes the earths atmosphere warmer than it would be by slowing the movement of the heat in our system.......,with no atmosphere the earths temperature would have huge swings daily from super hot during the day to bitterly cold every night.

Pointing out contradictions is not uncivil. You’ve said that the molecules scatter random directions and implies this means that they can’t warm the earth. But this is exactly how the greenhouse effect for other gases works, which now you say keep our atmosphere warmer than it would be. That’s a contradiction. Those molecules also scatter in random directions and yet keep the earths atmosphere warmer than it would be

[bdgwx]

7 hours ago, BillT said:

and there went the civility, i have not in any way denied the greenhouse effect......it clearly makes the earths atmosphere warmer than it would be by slowing the movement of the heat in our system.......,with no atmosphere the earths temperature would have huge swings daily from super hot during the day to bitterly cold every night.

And as the effectiveness of the GHE increases so too does the temperature near the surface of Earth increase all other things being equal. Any other outcome would violate the 1LOT, 2LOT, or other laws of physics.

And yes...one signature of the GHE is a reduced diurnal temperature range. Another even more compelling signature of the GHE is the cooling of the stratosphere simultaneous with the warming of the troposphere and hydrosphere. That's the "trapping" effect in action. Heat accumulates on one side of the GHG layer and depletes on the other side.

Make no mistake...adding CO2 (and other gas species) to the atmosphere WILL result in a positive radiative forcing component. It WILL put upward pressure on Earth's energy imbalance. It WILL put a warming tendency on the planet. This is a certainty.

[BillT]

The anthroprogenic emission of CO2 caused 100% of the increase from 280 to 410 ppm. In other words 130 of the 410 ppm or 32% of the total concentration was caused by anthroprogenic actions. That is a significant portion of the whole.......there is NO proof on any level that 100% of that increase was done by human release........it is a FACT that co2 has been much higher in the past and humans certainly did NOT cause that, so to claim we are 100% to blame now is NOT science on any level.you are claiming ALL other sources have been 100% unchanged and that makes no sense on any level.

[donsutherland1]

44 minutes ago, BillT said:

The anthroprogenic emission of CO2 caused 100% of the increase from 280 to 410 ppm. In other words 130 of the 410 ppm or 32% of the total concentration was caused by anthroprogenic actions. That is a significant portion of the whole.......there is NO proof on any level that 100% of that increase was done by human release........it is a FACT that co2 has been much higher in the past and humans certainly did NOT cause that, so to claim we are 100% to blame now is NOT science on any level.you are claiming ALL other sources have been 100% unchanged and that makes no sense on any level.

Scientists are able to tell that anthropogenic activities have led to most of the increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2. The carbon atoms in fossil fuels are “light.” The increase in atmospheric CO2 has been occurring while the ratio of “light” - to - “heavy” carbon has been increasing, as well. Thus scientists are confident about the reason the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is rising.

[bdgwx]

14 hours ago, BillT said:

The anthroprogenic emission of CO2 caused 100% of the increase from 280 to 410 ppm. In other words 130 of the 410 ppm or 32% of the total concentration was caused by anthroprogenic actions. That is a significant portion of the whole.......there is NO proof on any level that 100% of that increase was done by human release........it is a FACT that co2 has been much higher in the past and humans certainly did NOT cause that, so to claim we are 100% to blame now is NOT science on any level.you are claiming ALL other sources have been 100% unchanged and that makes no sense on any level.

There are multiple lines of evidence that corroborate the anthroprogenic hypothesis in the context of CO2.

• The atmospheric C13/C12 ratio is declining. Fossil carbon is C13 depleted because it was formed by biomass that primarily uses C3 carbon fixation photosynthesis which prefers C12.
• The atmospheric C14/C12 ratio had been declining up until the bomb spike. Fossil carbon is C14 depleted because C14 is radioactive with a half life of 5700 years.
• The atmospheric C14/C12 ratio since the bomb spike is not declining at a rate that can be explained without human C14 depleted emissions.
• The atmospheric O2 ratio is declining. Fossil carbon is released primarily via combustion which forms via C + O2 --> CO2. 
• Ocean pH is declining. 
• Ocean pH is declining fastest at the surface.
• Mass accounting of human emissions of carbon match the carbon mass increase in the carbon cycle (atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere).
• The trajectory and timing of human emissions of carbon match the trajectory and timing of carbon increases in the carbon cycle (atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere).
• There is no known increase in carbon source flux or decrease in carbon sink flux that is entirely naturally modulated that has appeared since the industrial era.
• There are large changes in source and sink fluxes that are unquestionably tied to anthroprogenic actions. These include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, land use changes, etc.

Yes. CO2 has been much higher in the past. That's how we know that natural factors can modulate its concentration too.

[blizzard1024]

Come on people. It is the poor forest management practices in Ca and the west. Suppressing fires for many many decades is now reached a breaking point. People also have been encroaching on the forests with developments vs 50 years ago. There are more people in harms way now. Anyone who says climate change is causing this is uninformed.   This is the time of year when the hottest and driest conditions occur in CA. The jet stream begins to amplify over the Gulf of Alaska in late summer climatologically. This leads to more ridging in the west and Santa Ana winds. A dry heat. Its fire season now. If you have that plus a LOT of fuel...its gonna be bad. How does climate change cause this? You have got to be kidding thinking this is causing the fires. 

[skierinvermont]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Come on people. It is the poor forest management practices in Ca and the west. Suppressing fires for many many decades is now reached a breaking point. People also have been encroaching on the forests with developments vs 50 years ago. There are more people in harms way now. Anyone who says climate change is causing this is uninformed.   This is the time of year when the hottest and driest conditions occur in CA. The jet stream begins to amplify over the Gulf of Alaska in late summer climatologically. This leads to more ridging in the west and Santa Ana winds. A dry heat. Its fire season now. If you have that plus a LOT of fuel...its gonna be bad. How does climate change cause this? You have got to be kidding thinking this is causing the fires. 

Average temperatures in California have increased and average precipitation has decreased.

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

Average temperatures in California have increased and average precipitation has decreased.

This data suggests CA has been warm recently but the long term averages are pretty stable. Precipitation is pretty steady since 1893. The early 1900s had some very wet years which skews this dataset a bit. But since 1920 no real changes in precipitation have been observed. 

 

[BillT]

many here have an agenda and write long posts that appear to be impressive but in reality are NOT science on any level.......their claim that human released co2 has overpowered all the natural forces and now is the driver is a stupid claim no matter how many ways they try to back it....i attempt using simple terms like no insulator ADDS heat to any system which is simple science fact, and they counter with long posts explaining how their chosen insulator co2 indeed DOES ADD heat to the earth system.

[BillT]

this thread is about a michael mann idea and many in error call him a scientist, when reality is he is a con artist.

[blizzard1024]

32 minutes ago, BillT said:

this thread is about a michael mann idea and many in error call him a scientist, when reality is he is a con artist.

In fairness, I have corresponded with Michael Mann and he really believes in his work. I don't agree with him but I don't think he is being disingenuous. 

 

 

[donsutherland1]

54 minutes ago, BillT said:

this thread is about a michael mann idea and many in error call him a scientist, when reality is he is a con artist.

He is a scientist:

http://www.met.psu.edu/people/mem45

His work has also been cited more than 38,000 times.

[BillT]

mann created the hockey stick something no scientist would ever do, but something a con artist indeed would do......his creation gave a hockey stick no matter what data was input, by design it gave the result he wanted.

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, BillT said:

mann created the hockey stick something no scientist would ever do, but something a con artist indeed would do......his creation gave a hockey stick no matter what data was input, by design it gave the result he wanted.

I don't think he did this on purpose or was fraudulent with his research. I do not agree with his methodology and yes his statistics are flawed. But he believes in his work. That's all. 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, BillT said:

mann created the hockey stick something no scientist would ever do, but something a con artist indeed would do......his creation gave a hockey stick no matter what data was input, by design it gave the result he wanted.

Much of Mann’s construction, including the “blade” illustrating the anomalous late 20th century warming were reaffirmed in subsequent research.

https://ral.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf

[blizzard1024]

49 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Much of Mann’s construction, including the “blade” illustrating the anomalous late 20th century warming were reaffirmed in subsequent research.

https://ral.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf

Sorry they can't erase the Medieval Warm Period or LIA. They happened. Tons of evidence. This is just plain wrong.