[Pete Ridley (OP)]

Hi Yor_on I am astounded that you have been allowed to contribute three long-winded commentaries about the general greenhouse theory without the thread moderator screaming “off-question”. Have you read the original question that I raised here? It’s specifically about Professor Stewart’s demonstration, not about the “greenhouse” theory.

As I told you yesterday, I complained to Chris Smith about there being declared rules for the general public and none for the moderators and that one of those requirements for moderators should be impartial.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

[yor_on]

Not as astounded as I am Peter. And now I'm afraid I will astound you some more

That as I feel we all need a reality check after all those learned discussion. So, here’s how I understand how Earth’s ‘radiation’ works, discussing H2O and CO2 firstly, methane later and I'm not discussing ‘convection cycles’, and yes, it's somewhat simplified but correct, as far as I know.

Think of Earth as a ‘black body’, I absolutely refuse to go into the mathematics of it but just as that black body Earth radiates. The heat Earth frees from the sun’s warming and its own inherent heat goes up in the atmosphere as infrared radiation, to eventually disappear in space. That infrared radiation will be taken up by all molecules (air) between space and Earth, with them radiating it back again in all directions, down as well as up and sideways. The higher in the atmosphere you come the less density there will be, that means fewer molecules to take up that radiation.

So what happens when we add ‘man made’ CO2 (carbon dioxide)? Well the concentration/addition of molecules will get our atmosphere to become denser or thicker if you like, that in its turn will push that releasing ‘edge/surface’ where that heat finally leave our atmosphere upwards to even colder layers, higher up. As those is colder they do not radiate heat as well as those layers that already is becoming ‘satiated’ by heat. And the whole time we have a constant creation of more manmade CO2 joining the atmosphere that we are ‘creating / transforming’ into CO2 from the Earth’s hidden/buried ‘sinks’ in form of coal and oil and natural gas (methane) . You’re with me so far? Each ‘layer’ of air in our atmosphere will reach ever new equilibrium’s of warmth as the heat and molecules radiates / get freed from Earth, that as molecules in each layer also warm each other as they radiate.

As this is happening Earth will slowly become a place where the radiation from those molecules, reflected in all directions, will cause the Earth to start conserving this energy by building up ‘heat’ in the air layers as the heat gets more and more ‘trapped’ by our new molecules. And this ‘imbalance’ creating evermore warmer layers will keep on, until the highest level of our atmosphere is so ‘warmed up’ that it reflects as much heat in space as the planet is receiving from the sun and ..Us. - That as it is only in that highest layer Earth can regulate its temperature through radiating out in space -. Did you know that before we started our industrial era we were actually in a slowly cooling period on Earth? As for water-vapor it is well known that the higher up you come the ‘dryer’ the air will be, that means that most of the water-vapor falls out as rain further down.

As the Co2 and H2O molecules drifts upward their mode of absorption changes. At a sea level the absorption is concentrated into discrete spikes with narrow gaps between the spikes and ‘shallow’ valleys. The ‘spikes’ we’re talking about is light (heat) absorbed in very specific wavelengths shown as dark lines in a spectrum. When the molecules are at the higher layers this absorption will change as the air-pressure goes down. Then their ‘spikes’ becomes much more defined and closer together (more heat absorbed per molecule) And CO2 won’t fall out as water vapor does (H2O-humidity-rain) at those lower altitudes, instead it will stay mixed no matter the height even though it will ‘thin out’ the higher we come just as our atmosphere. That’s why climate scientists talk about amount of heat conserved in different molecules and of global warming potential (GWP).

“Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 60-70 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a twenty-year period (or 25 times over a hundred-year period). “ And that’s why methane is a ‘killer of life’ even in small quantities. Also you should know that CO2 when taken up by the oceans create acidity in them, creating a marine environment where our fishes, reefs, etc starts to die. And as I wrote earlier, they are already becoming saturated. "A study published in the journal Science revealed that since 1981, the Southern Ocean has been taking up less carbon dioxide - five to 30 per cent less per decade - than researchers had predicted previously. At the same time carbon dioxide emissions rose by 40 per cent, the study found. The reason for the slowdown is more winds over the Southern Ocean since 1958, caused by human-produced greenhouse gases and ozone depletion. " New global warming threat from Southern Ocean.

“Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise. . Changes in precipitation and evaporation over the oceans are suggested by freshening of mid and high latitude waters together with increased salinity in low latitude waters. Mid-latitude westerly winds have strengthened in both hemispheres since the 1960s. More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. Increased drying linked with higher temperatures and decreased precipitation have contributed to changes in drought. Changes in sea surface temperatures (SST), wind patterns, and decreased snowpack and snow cover have also been linked to droughts. "

And now I will quote myself from 2007 in ‘global health’ " Now I'll make a wild guess ) In five to ten years we will start to see a accelerating release of Methane into the Atmosphere, and the linear thinking of how the climate works will break down (again Earth ain't linear. Earth is a dynamic nonlinear system, and even if mostly stable , we are throwing a big monkey wrench into its cyclic gears. (And) When a nonlinear system change 'state' it can do so very quickly."

As for the stratospheric water? Which indeed can create a 'forcing' as I understands it. Well, that's mostly a byproduct from, guess what , methane. Yep, some of it comes from the tropics, as normal water vapor but as much, or more? is is in the form of oxidation of methane which happening in the upper stratosphere. And considering the releases growing that amount will grow steadily. When, or rather if, the methane frozen and hidden in our oceans and tundras really start a 'run away chain' we can forget all about debating here Peter. That has happened before in fact, killing of almost all life on this planet. Siberia's peat bogs came to be around the last ice age 11,000 years ago, being the size of France and Germany slammed together.  As vegetation, animals, etc, rot hey start to decompose generating methane, that then becomes trapped within and under the cold permafrost, mostly in ice-like structures known as clathrates, or methane hydrates, the same as we find in our oceans.

That's what we see getting released today, in a area stretching for a million square kilometres across the western Siberias permafrost, now becoming a mass of shallow lakes as the ground melts, and if that accelerates Peter? Will we still laugh at the sight of air burning as they poke a hole in the snow on Utube, if that comes true? Don't think so myself. It won't be funny anymore. And I'm not mentioning other Country's, although I expect the same to happen everywhere where the climate is melting those bogs and permafrost. Last year a expedition found such concentrations of methane in the Arctic shallow sea that Professor Orjan Gustafsson reported it as 'bubbling' as they studied the release from the ocean.

This .. is a later, more moderate report, but if you're interested I can find that first one too, with their first hand impressions. But it's when it all comes together that worries me the most. The methane, short lived as it is, will need to be released at a incredible pace to really create that disaster scenario I'm talking about. On the other hand, we do have strong evidence for it happening before, so we can't really exclude that scenario. But we also need to consider the way it becomes stratospheric water, creating a long-time forcing, as well as becoming CO2 as it oxidizes. It's all about balances, and also about non-linear 'systems'. And that is what surprises me the most, that so few seems to realize that Earth is a true non-linear system.

Every scientist worth his salt can tell you that when a non-linear system change from one stable pattern/mode to another, it can come very quickly, and for no foreseeable reason. And that's what I'm really worried about, a lot of small interconnected changes and relations that together builds up to a state where our Earth finds a new stable phase. Earth has done that before, and may do it again, well, rather 'will'  do it again I'm afraid. Lastly but not least, The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming.

So, Peter. This is why I take it serious, and why I find little to make fun off. And I think I've treated you fairly in our posts, more than fairly in fact, especially considering the snide messages I received recently from you?  We invite people to participate and we try to have fun while discussing, sometimes arguing, but none acting condescending even if the discussions can become heated at time. But you have acted strangely from the beginning. Not sure what you expected here? I also can't help but wonder what you write on those other sites Peter? About us is it? That's probably enough to ban you, even without using your remarks in the messages I've gotten.

Should I check it up?

[Pete Ridley (OP)]

Hi Yor_on I’m sure that you astounded more that just me with that load of rambling nonsense which is about as far off-question as you could be (and still no objection from the moderator if this blog).

I think that Arthur Ducette was spot on when he said of you on 22nd Sept 2007 @ 13:14 “ .. Your posts, for the most part, are good examples of media/scientists distorting the message to make a political oriented point” (http://www.physforum.com/index.php?s=24dfd9c137656d85aa00f620e59f58d1&showtopic=16294&st=15) and

.. you obviously don't recognize MARKETING spin when you read it. You apparently can't TELL that there are a LOT of people trying to SELL you an idea. You seem to EASILY fall for their MARKETING SPIN. Worse, you then try to SELL others on your RELIGION. Oh well, It worked for the Missionaries. Arthur ..

I do fully agree with one thing that you have said on 23rd Sept. 2007 @ 12@51

.. It's no big deal, neither you nor me are going to make a difference here Mother nature will take care of it all, little caring for what we might think. And no ranting, from any corner, will make it different ..

You’re quite right, the CACC doctrine is no big deal and none of us will make a difference. It is Mother nature who has control over the different global climates, not humans. As for the ranting making no difference, why do you persist in doing it then?

Best regards, Pete Ridley

[yor_on]

Ah Arthur and me are friends Peter, we had some really giving discussions. I'm guessing that you've done a 'private detective' here

Perhaps you should change your name
Mr. Hammer?

[Pete Ridley (OP)]

Hi yor_on, , unlike many bloggers and moderators I wouldn’t want to hide behind any false name because people can get led astray by them. If I hid behind Mr Hammer someone might mistake me for Frederick Phillip (http://extras.journalnow.com/hammer/pdfs/warrants_ashe1.pdf) and that would be so misleading. I’m happy to stick (ferret) in between Pete and Ridley and I was nicknamed “fish” at school, but that’s another story having nothing to do with the question at the top of this thread.

Mind you, it seems that all of a sudden the “rules of engagement” on this thread have suddenly been relaxed. One of the moderators said to me on this thread on 22nd April @ 14:25:10

.. in this thread please stick to the question at hand, which is about the youtube video you posted.  I will lock this thread if you keep using it to .. editorialize about other topics.  We've been fairly lenient in allowing you to freely post content so far, but this is primarily a science Q&A site, not your personal blog ..

It seems to me (and I’m sure to other viewers of this thread also) that you have been allowed to “editorialise about other topics” and use this as your “personal blog” with impunity. In one day yesterday you were permitted to submit about 4500 words which were absolutely nothing to do with

the youtube video (I) posted”

It appears that there is one rule for the general public and another for someone who

.. is a valued member of the community and .. a moderator on this forum

It is evident from your essay and from other contributions of yours that you are a staunch supporter of the doctrine that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC). Is that one of the qualities required by The Naked Scientists to be accepted as

a valued member of the community and .. a moderator on this forum

? Or, as BenV put it on 22nd April @ 16:20:22 about another TNS blog/forum moderator

.. JP was invited to become a moderator as he was a valued member of the site. .. - they have earned their privileges ..

I Googled - "The Naked Scientists" yor_on "climate change" “global warming” – and found more yor_on comments all demonstrating your faith in CACC. One excellent example, which also suggests that you have the full support of The Naked Scientists, was your comment featured in Science News The Naked Scientists: Science Radio & Science Podcasts “A breath of fresh air in climate change debate” thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/news/news/2052/) and appeared again in the “Can we reduce climate change with our infrastructure?” thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=33987.0). The thread originator, thedoc (another of those “false names” who gives nothing away about his/her specialist scientific discipline) must have been dissapointed that after waiting for almost 2 weeks for anyone to make a comment the only person showing any interest was one of The Naked Scientists own moderators.

I must dash now as she who must be obeyed is calling but I hope to return later today.

Best regards, Pete (ferret) Ridley

[Bored chemist]

As you might guess, Bored Chemist isn't my real name.
However I use it here for two reasons.
One is that my employer and I don't always share a viewpoint. So I don't say who I am and they don't need to worry about it.
The second reason is that names don't tell you anything.
It doesn't matter who I am.
What matters is what I say.
So, if I say "carbon dioxide absorbs IR" then I'm right or I'm wrong.
Reality doesn't care about my name.
Any reputation I have is not the issue; you should look at the evidence.

The video shows that CO2 absorbs IR.
If you like, you can repeat the experiment and verify it for yourself.
It might be easier to look in the literature and see if anyone has already established this.

For example I just googled "IR spectrum" and asked it to find me pictures.
The first hit is this
http://www.dnassequencing.com/2011/04/11/ir-spectroscopy/
if you look carefully you can see a small peak near 2400 wavenumbers.
That's a negative CO2 peak.
So, I can provide real live evidence, made by someone entirely independent of this discussion (as far as I know) that shows that CO2 absorbs IR.
Iain Stewart's demonstration of the same fact is a lot more accessible to the layman, but it's not misleading.

[JP]

Mind you, it seems that all of a sudden the “rules of engagement” on this thread have suddenly been relaxed. 

Good point!  I had a busy weekend and didn't have a chance to read this thread in detail.  I'm going to shrink off-topic posts, and further off-topic posts will lead to this thread being locked, since most of the recent content seems to be off-topic personal sparring rather than posts dealing with the question.

By the way, if any posters think a post is violating the forum rules, there's a link at the bottom to "report to moderators," that lets you tell us so.  This is a much better way to do it than to make a new post pointing out how the first post is breaking the rules (which itself drags the discussion off-topic).  It can sometimes take a while for the moderators to act, but we do get the messages.

[Pete Ridley (OP)]

Hi JP, thanks for giving me the opportunity to re-submit this comment, which I’ve modified as I think that you required.

Hi Bored chemist, what objection did you have to the “Absorption Spectra for Major Natural Greenhouse Gases in the Earth’s Atmosphere” (http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif) plots which I provided a link to on 23rd April @ 20:36:04? Those plots appear to me to be more revealing than the one you linked to in your comment yesterday @ 10:50:45 because they show clearly that CO2 plays a minor roll compared with other greenhouse gases as far as absorbing IR is concerned.

That demonstration of Professor Stewart was set up specifically to give an exaggerated impression of the extent to which CO2 absorbs IR. That cannot be denied because the set-up designer, Dr, Jonathan Hare, has admitted it

.. The thermal imaging camera we used was sensitive from ca. 1 to 5 µm, quite a large part of the IR spectrum. A lit candle or match produces lots of energy through the IR to the visible. Consequently a candle looks very bright (colourful) on the false colour IR camera image. .. You would think from what I said above that when you view the candle through the tube using the camera, and you introduce CO2 the bright flame would 'disappear' due to the IR absorption. However, when you try this it doesn't work, the candle doesn't disappear! The reason is that the CO2 absorptions observable by the IR camera are quite weak and are only in a relatively small part of the spectrum. The only way to get the demonstration to work is to have a 'CO2 filter' on the camera. This only lets through IR at around 4 µm, close to one of the CO2 absorption's (which are broadened a bit at atmospheric pressure). The filter blocks out much of the IR energy so that the CO2 absorption is not so swamped anymore and this allows us to now observe our vanishing candle effect ..

I have already pointed this out to all of the viewers of this thread, on 23rd April and it seems obvious to me, as a sceptic of the CACC doctrine, that  the intention was to mislead the viewers about the extent of IR absorption by CO2 in order to support the claim that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to CACC.

As I mentioned here in my opening comment and also to Professor Stewart and Dr. Hare in my E-mail of 18th April

.. I do not challenge the fact that CO2 absorbs rather a small part of the IR band compared with the other greenhouse gases, particularly H2O but I puzzled over the manner in which Professor Stewart chose to demonstrate it. In the introduction before describing the apparatus Professor Stewart says “I can show you how carbon dioxide affects the earth’s climate using this .. ”. The demonstration does not show what is claimed, because CO2 is only opaque to a small portion of the IR band, as clearly shown in “Absorption Spectra .. ” (http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif). The set-up and explanation of what is happening gives the false impression that a significant amount of IR from the candle is absorbed whereas in fact CO2 only absorbs a small proportion of the IR. ..

There’s more in that Email if you want it. BTW, I still haven’t had a response from either Professor Stewart of Dr. Hare.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

[Geezer]

Meanwhile, returning to the original question, which was:

"What does Iain Stewart's "CO2 experiment" Demonstrate?"

It seems that everyone agrees it demonstrates that carbon-dioxide can absorb infrared radiation. As such, it's actually quite a good demonstration. It's not really much of an experiment, because there isn't much in the way of quantification, but I think it does a reasonable job of demonstrating how an invisible gas like CO2 can absorb IR energy.

I really don't know what motivated Stewart to screen the demonstration, nor do I think anyone else does. We could speculate of course, but that won't help us answer Pete's question.
 

[Bored chemist]

Pete.
If you look carefully you will see that I didn't "object" to the spectra you cited.
I just pointed out that evidence carries more weight than a famous name.
Did you not read what I wrote, or did you not understand it?

[Pete Ridley (OP)]

It looks as though I’m going to have to go back to square one here, but tackle this question from another angle. Let’s first look at what Professor Stewart claimed that his demonstration (

would show, quoting those words of his that in my opinion will mislead any of the target audience who have no understanding of how the demonstration is set up or how much of the IR from a heat source such as a candle, the sun or even the earth CO2 absorbs.

0 to 19 secs –

I can show you how carbon dioxide affects earth’s climate using this heat sensitive infrared camera .. a candle, this glass tube .. this canister of carbon dioxide gas ..

but does it do anything of the sort? No, showing that a candle flame changes from white to blue when viewed through CO2 and a 4 µm filter using an IR camera shows nothing whatever about CO2’s effect on the earth’s climate.

22 to 28 SEC. - 

.. the camera picks up the flame perfectly. The hot spots are glowing white ..

but does it do that? No, the camera picks up only a very small part of the flame’s emissions.

30 to 108 secs. –

.. When I turn on the carbon dioxide .. the carbon dioxide in the tube is effectively trapping the heat. The candle’s warmth no longer reaches the camera. Instead it is absorbed by the carbon dioxide inside the tube ..

but is that correct? No, it is the filter that is trapping most of the candle’s heat, not the CO2, so that is why the most of the flame’s emissions don’t reach the camera.

The question raised by that demonstration is the one that Geezer couldn’t answer

.. what motivated Stewart to screen the demonstration ..

I’m interested in that question too and trust that it is acceptable to the thread moderator to try to answer it here. If there is no objection to this then I’ll do a follow-up comment using some interesting stuff I found.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

[Geezer]

Pete,

No need to back to the beginning. Your question was "What does the experiment demonstrate?"

It clearly demonstrates that CO2 absorbs IR.

Whether or not Stewart intended to mislead his audience, or otherwise, would be a totally different question.

[Bored chemist]

Pete,
How would you demonstrate to a lay audience that CO2 absorbs IR?

[JP]

The question raised by that demonstration is the one that Geezer couldn’t answer

.. what motivated Stewart to screen the demonstration ..

I’m interested in that question too and trust that it is acceptable to the thread moderator to try to answer it here.

No, it isn't acceptable to try to answer that here.  This thread is about what science the experiment demonstrated and whether or not that science was adequately explained by the presenter's comments.  I think we've pretty well covered that the science is absorption of IR by CO2.  We're divided on whether the verbal explanation of the experiment was accurate or not, and don't seem to be getting anywhere with it. 

I believe the one thing that remains contentious point is if if the presenter's claim that:

I can show you how carbon dioxide affects earth’s climate

is adequately explained by the experiment.

[Pete Ridley (OP)]

Hi JP, thanks for the speedy response on that question of Geezer’s

.. what motivated Stewart to screen the demonstration ..

I hope that there will be no objection to me raising it as a separate but relate question, which should cover Geezer’s point in his comment today at 19:58:20.

Regarding your

I believe the one thing that remains contentious point is if if the presenter's claim that:

I can show you how carbon dioxide affects earth’s climate

is adequately explained by the experiment

do I take that to mean that you agree with my other two points:

No, the camera picks up only a very small part of the flame’s emissions

and

No, it is the filter that is trapping most of the candle’s heat, not the CO2, so that is why the most of the flame’s emissions don’t reach the camera.

?

The question

Pete, How would you demonstrate to a lay audience that CO2 absorbs IR?

is also off-topic so if that and Geezer’s questions can only be raised as separate ones this gets very messy. After all, one question always leads to another related one. Never mind, forum moderators appear to set their own rules here so we visitors have to abide by them.

Is there a mechanism for linking questions other than verbose explanations about their relationship, or is that classed as off-topic and require that a separate question be submitted for that too?

Best regards, Pete Ridley

[Geezer]

Pete,

I didn't raise any questions.

[Pete Ridley (OP)]

Hi Geezer, sorry if I misunderstood your “I really don't know what motivated Stewart to screen the demonstration”. I took that as you raising (i.e. bringing up) the question. I don’t recall anyone else mentioning it but may have missed it.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

[Bored chemist]

Pete,
if you say "He did it badly" (and you have) then it's perfectly reasonable to ask how you would do it better.

If you want to go to an absolutely strict limit to what's on topic then the question has been answered (repeatedly); the clip shows that CO2 absorbs IR.

[Pete Ridley (OP)]

Bored chemist, with all due respect I can’t see how you can be so sure what is perfectly reasonable to ask. Let’s leave it to the thread moderator to declare his ruling, shall we.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

[peppercorn]

Pete, BC's point stands and, as such, deserves a valid response.
I would comment that you have derailed the very valid scientific responses you have been offered for long enough and it is getting likely that you will find yourself soon 'out of rope' in the very near future; if you get my drift.