Two Books by Craig Bohren on Atmospheric Science


Recommended Posts

Brant wrote: A drop in time. Another drop in time may well see another ice age. There is even a speculation increased temperatures could precipitate the next ice age. In the meantime, we're supposed to make life miserable or impossible for billions of people by waging an all out war on the use of hydrocarbons? end quote

Well said.

Bohren wrote: Climate has changed in the past, and there is no reason to believe that it will not change in the future. After all, the last Ice Age ended only about 10,000 years ago, and it is fair to say that another Ice Age would be equally or more catastrophic for Earth than global warming. end quote

Of course. So why are the “chicken little alarmists” warming to the idea of the earth as a blazing desert because of industrial activity? Rand and Ellen “Not So Subtle Stuttle” both think it is left wing, totalitarian politics and I agree. The more scientific question should be, “How can we keep the earth warm?” Any ideas?

I know someone in California who is one town over from where that dam is threatening to collapse. More rain is coming. What do we do about that? Climate change is about ten times LESS threatening than their problem . . . but what can we do to warm the planet if another ice age is eminent? I remember reading about periodically dropping coal dust from cargo planes on the Arctic and Antarctic to increase the evaporative and melting effect of sunlight and there is the bromide about increasing the CO2 and maybe those two things would be a cost effective way of staving off an ice age. "OK kids. Each of you has a spray can of CO2 and today at recess you will do the planet a big favor and spray every last drop into the atmosphere." And the constructive use of nuclear weapons has been suggested.  Oh Canada, do you want to lose your country to a vast ice sheet as has happened in the past?

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh fiddle faddle. I looked Oroville and Chico California up on a map and my family friend is about 20 miles away from the damn dam. I think a lot of the displaced residents are rooming with the people in Chico. And if I were that close I would be worried too.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2017 at 2:33 PM, william.scherk said:

As you prefer. Which preference would agree with Brant's, that Bob be assigned to the 'oblivious' roster.

On the other hand, the ''faux science" of Lukewarmist Bob espied by Brant is not categorically  different from the "faux science" propounded by the worthies.  The point is ready to grasp -- Bob has no more accepted a religious position than have Curry, Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Watts.

They ''religiously accept" the "faux science"  of "Tyndall gases," they accept that there is a so-called Greenhouse Effect. They break with the mainstream of course -- just as Bob does -- in the confidence they have in model forecasts. They also have no patience with false alarm. 

Brant thought it made sense to class Bob's positions as accepting "faux science" ... to put his beliefs within an 'enemy' Blob. I thought it made sense to point to others of The Blob. They are as accepting as Bob of the "faux science" that gets up Brant's nose or confuses him or angers him.

I appreciate the interjection, and am glad to clear up misunderstanding.

It's definitely worth a read.  His opinions are not uncommon on this side of the 'debate' chasm ... they might tend to reinforce some stances or offer new-ish (2006) examples or arguments to wield against the Venusian Alarmists. 

Plus the side-bar from the article:

 

The radiative effects of certain IR frequencies  on CO2 is an established fact.  Thousands of experiments and measurement have established it.

CO2 in the atmosphere slows down that rate at which some IR frequencies are radiated back into space.  Arguing about that is like advocating Flat Earth theory.

Calling it a "green house" effect is a misnomer.  Real greenhouses or hothouses work by preventing convection of hot air.  Hot air will rise.  Look up -adiabatic lapse-  in any thermodynamics text book. CO2  absorbs some IR radiation (in some frequencies)  and re-radiates  like any blackbody.  Some of the CO2 is radiated down to the ground.  In effect  some of the IR bounces back and forth between the CO2 and the ground which slow the rate of radiation into space.

That is why the earth is warm enough to have liquid water.  If all the CO2  in the atmosphere disappeared the Earth would become an ice-ball. 

Please see:  http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recapping an issue of Which Blob Are You In? ...

On 11/16/2016 at 9:43 AM, william.scherk said:

Judith Curry, in a review of two "Lukewarmer" books (by Thomas Fuller/Knappenberger+Michaels) says this on the subject:

People often try to categorize me as a lukewarmer.  Well, if you are delineating three ‘tribes’ – alarmist, denier, lukewarmer – then I more naturally align with the lukewarmers.

However, I have my own little ‘tribe’, whose figure head is the uncertainty monster.  While the evidence that we do have points in the direction of lukewarming, the uncertainties are sufficiently large that we can’t rule out large sensitivity and catastrophic outcomes.  My preferred approach to ‘solutions’ given this uncertainty – decision making under deep uncertainty – prefers robust decision making frameworks and anti fragility.

In any event, a growing lukewarm movement is a healthy sign for the climate debate.

Where is the burr under our saddle?

On 2/14/2017 at 11:33 AM, william.scherk said:
BG said:

Since you [Bob] are now a "lukewarmist" you have accepted a political not a scientific position which is faux science hence religious. Of course, of this you are completely oblivious. 

The point is ready to grasp -- Bob has no more accepted a religious position than have Curry, Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Watts.

A "Political not a scientific position" ... is not quite accurate. It damns too many people ostensibly on your "side" against Venusian Alarmism.

773ea94ed1b50b78706d087c52c02310bdb76772

18 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If lukewarmism means accepting that aggregated global temperatures are going up because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, that's accepting AGW.

Okay, and then the question moves to proportions: 'how much'? That is the sensitivity issue noted by Curry up top.

How much will human-added CO2 contribute to measured temperature increases?  I think that is where the important differences lie -- as Ellen might point out -- between a Lukewarmist blob and an Alarmist blob and a sensitivity-skeptic blob. The Lukewarmists, generally, think that climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is lower than the calculated guesses collected in the IPCC reports. A more skeptical personal position might be like Ellen's:

On 11/14/2016 at 5:35 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

I wouldn't call myself a "Lukewarmist," and my understanding of the term is different from yours.  I take it as meaning someone who believes there definitely has been warming over the last half century or so, and that human-produced CO2 has been "significant" ( meaning varies).  I'm agnostic as to whether there's really been warming in that time period.  The data is so contaminated, impossible to be sure.  If there has been, and if CO2 concentration has been a driver, humans have contributed about 1/40 to whatever amount CO2 has driven.

Ellen's personal stance might be closer to yours, Brant. But she doesn't slag off the Aspie in the room as being duped by religion.

There may have been warming, and there may have been increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The 'anthropogenic' portion of the increase may be measured.  The measured increases may have been among drivers of this warming. The drivers of the warming may be entirely natural or a mix.  Whatever the driving force of CO2 on warming, the human contribution to warming is about one to forty. 

How we get to one in forty I  cannot tell you. Why not one to five or 3 to 7 or any proportion?  Don't know. 

Quote

I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying there's no good evidence of that. If you guys want to debate the quality of the evidence, go right ahead. If you guys want to state it's settled science and true, I'll call you out on that. In the first instance it's a data and analysis war.

Let's start with where we more or less agree for the sake of argument. Lukewarmism means accepting that temperatures are going up in part because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but Lukewarmism doesn't mean accepting outlandish scenarios of Venus 2100.

If we say there is no good evidence that CO2 increases lead to increased 'greenhouse effect,' then we are dismissing physical evidence (the Tyndall gas effect) which Lukewarmists accept. The Tyndall Gases Effect is physics. 

If we do not accept the Tyndall Gases effect is working in the world that we know, then we become part of a Blob that has little physical explanation overlap with Lukewarmist blob. We self-select into the Blob 'dismissive' (per the Yale project) and we might call ourselves Skydragon Slayers -- if we completely dismiss or deny evidence of a Tyndall Gases effect. 

If we cannot be persuaded by strong evidence, evidence that has stood against falsification, then we set ourselves outside the interesting disagreements. We run the risk of not understanding the disagreements and basing our opinions on misunderstandings.

Quote

In the second instance it's authoritarian ad hominem and a religious position even if one doesn't know it and just backs into it in good faith.

Brant, why not move away from this kind of  judgement, and figure out where misunderstandings or gaps in knowledge are?

Quote

As I understand the near-historical record, the CO2 goes up after the temperature goes up plus the contribution of CO2 by the burning of hydrocarbons.

Why did Earth temperatures go up in the first place in the near-historical record? 

That is an interesting gap. [Recommended Skeptical Science link]

Quote

If this is true it doesn't mean there is no tripping point wherein the increased CO2 won't then push up temperatures, but that would be a speculation.

It is unclear what you are arguing for or against, which mechanism you think is speculation and which is scientifically sound. Setting aside "tripping point" and restating your argument:

Authoritarian ad hominem religious position.  CO2 goes up after the temperature goes up. CO2 also goes up due to burning of hydrocarbons. This could  mean that  increased CO2 will then push up temperatures. In 10,000 years Earth could well see another glaciation. Increased temperatures could precipitate the next ice age. 

Quote

In the meantime, we're supposed to make life miserable or impossible for billions of people by waging an all out war on the use of hydrocarbons?

There are a few places on Earth that might be seen to wage all-out war on hydrocarbon burning. Sweden was in the news the last fortnight:

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My issue was Bob's position that human added CO2 to the atmosphere is causing increased global warming, albeit not by much. There is no way to experiment your way to that conclusion with any validity. That CO2 causes, say, A and/or B doesn't mean AGW is either result. That's a result too far. So he then came with a much better statement.

Frankly, I think you may be hoping this thread will cause global warming.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William Wonka wrote: Why did Earth temperatures go up in the first place in the near-historical record? end quote  

Ai! So you aren’t talking about near historical highs or did you jumble your words? The historical record I would like to see is the last 100,000 years. Got any graphs of that William? I think I looked at some about a year ago. It isn’t the warmest it has even been. Not even close. Warmth brings the most recently evolved humans out of their caves in a real and mental sense.

And do you have a timeline showing warmer times that correlate with increased or decreased human activity? "Heaven and Earth, Global Warming, the Missing Science," by Australian geologist and climate expert, Ian Plimer is pretty good. You could go back 4 billion years and it would demonstrate that warmth is good, but let’s start more recently with some more modern history:

The Roman Warming. (500BC to 535AD) “Good for us!”

Then the Dark Ages. (535 to 900)  “Cold is bad for us.”

Medieval Warming. (900 to 1300)  “Good!”

The Little Ice Age. (1300 to 1850)  “Bad.”

Modern Warming. (1850 to Present)  “Good for us!”

Every time we “warm,” we thrive.

Stay toasty my friend So if it gets as warm as the Roman warming will we die off?

Peter    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Peter said:

William Wonka wrote: Why did Earth temperatures go up in the first place in the near-historical record? end quote  

Ai! So you aren’t talking about near historical highs or did you jumble your words? The historical record I would like to see is the last 100,000 years. Got any graphs of that William? I think I looked at some about a year ago. It isn’t the warmest it has even been. Not even close. Warmth brings the most recently evolved humans out of their caves in a real and mental sense.

And do you have a timeline showing warmer times that correlate with increased or decreased human activity? "Heaven and Earth, Global Warming, the Missing Science," by Australian geologist and climate expert, Ian Plimer is pretty good. You could go back 4 billion years and it would demonstrate that warmth is good, but let’s start more recently with some more modern history:

The Roman Warming. (500BC to 535AD) “Good for us!”

Then the Dark Ages. (535 to 900)  “Cold is bad for us.”

Medieval Warming. (900 to 1300)  “Good!”

The Little Ice Age. (1300 to 1850)  “Bad.”

Modern Warming. (1850 to Present)  “Good for us!”

Every time we “warm,” we thrive.

Stay toasty my friend So if it gets as warm as the Roman warming will we die off?

Peter    

There are no accurate temperature records of any kind prior to 1700  because calibrated thermometers were invented in the 18 th century by Farenheit and Celsius.

Any temperature  "records" prior to that are by surrogate data  and inferential.  These include densities of ice cores,  tree ring density,  analysis of plant matter and such like.  One can identify "warm"  periods and "cold" periods   but  no exact numerical temperatures can be reckoned. We know certain crops like warm weather so when residue  of such crops are found, we can assume a warm period and provisionally assign a numerical range based on modern knowledge of those plants and trees.  There are also accounts of snow fall,  freezing of rivers and such.  We know that London was cold during the  Little Ice Age because we have accounts of the Thames being frozen solid in the winter.  We also have accounts of glaciers, so we know when the glaciers advanced and retreated.

But accurate high resolution temperature of percipitation data is only from recent observations. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fusion. Confusion.

12 hours ago, Peter said:
19 hours ago, william.scherk said:
Brant Gaede said:

As I understand the near-historical record, the CO2 goes up after the temperature goes up plus the contribution of CO2 by the burning of hydrocarbons.

Why did Earth temperatures go up in the first place in the near-historical record? 

So you aren’t talking about near historical highs or did you jumble your words?

Clear now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really William or Brant. Locutious speaking to the Borg in his British accent: “From this day forward, no one will be assimilated.”

Ba’al wrote: Any temperature "records" prior to that are by surrogate data and inferential.  These include densities of ice cores, tree ring density, analysis of plant matter and such like.  One can identify "warm" periods and "cold" periods but no exact numerical temperatures can be reckoned . . . . end quote

I wonder if I am being led along since you give me the evidence to counter your “Woe is Us, we just don’t exactly know,” lament. How do we know anything? Is the dark side of the moon made of green cheese? We have historical evidence from, what else, history and even diaries since the Roman times. That is why I find focusing on the possibility of man-made global warming as nearly irrelevant.

Warming is good for humanity. We need to focus on countering droughts as were recently dampened in California by overly heavy rains and other weather phenomenon’s like snow removal and flooding. We should not invest more than a passing nod at warming. But we should shudder at the possibility of glaciers intruding into Canadian territory. Or nuclear arms in North Korea. Or even animals escaping from the zoo.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2017 at 9:23 PM, Brant Gaede said:

If lukewarmism means accepting that aggregated global temperatures are going up because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, that's accepting AGW. I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying there's no good evidence of that. If you guys want to debate the quality of the evidence, go right ahead. If you guys want to state it's settled science and true, I'll call you out on that. In the first instance it's a data and analysis war. In the second instance it's authoritarian ad hominem and a religious position even if one doesn't know it and just backs into it in good faith. As I understand the near-historical record, the CO2 goes up after the temperature goes up plus the contribution of CO2 by the burning of hydrocarbons. If this is true it doesn't mean there is no tripping point wherein the increased CO2 won't then push up temperatures, but that would be a speculation. We have little more than 5000-10,000 years of written human history. A drop in time. Another drop in time may well see another ice age. There is even a speculation increased temperatures could precipitate the next ice age. In the meantime, we're supposed to make life miserable or impossible for billions of people by waging an all out war on the use of hydrocarbons?

--Brant

Our bodies run on hydrocarbons.  And like any good heat engine we metabolize them  and exhale CO2.  Which is cool, because the plants that feed us need the CO2 as plant food and to make into plant structure tissue. One way we can keep the balance is to use  methods of heat production that do not involve the combustion of hydrocarbons.   I favor  paving the advanced industrial nations with fission generators to make all the electrical power we can possibly use.

And there is even a better path if we can find it.  If we can perform hydrolysis by catalysts powered by sunlight  we can generate  free H2 galore and finally achieve the much touted  hydrogen economy.  The only thing we need burn  is H2  and produce H2O as an exhaust product.  You have go to love something like that.  If we ever achieve this technology  energy is no longer a problem.  We can turn the world into a garden.  Once we have achieved solar driven catalytic hydrolysis we will not longer need fission reactors  except perhaps for uses in space.  

That is the future I  imagine might happen.  Probably not in my lifetime,  but my descendants may enjoy it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

COAL!!!

Coal is best left in the ground,  or if necessary as a  feed stock to produce carbon polymers.  

Coal powered the early industrial revolution (steam engines) and the early electric age (coal powered generators).  It is a difficult substance to burn without polluting the atmosphere  (see the air quality in several large Chinese and Indian cities).  The time has come to use other ways of generating steam and electricity. 

The worst side effect of coal is not CO2.  It is SO2, NOx  H2S  and particulate effluence pm 2.5,  particles smaller in diameter than 2.5 microns.  These devils are very, very bad for human longs and kill hundreds of thousand of people a year worldwide.   Coal is very difficult and expensive to clean up thoroughly and there are better ways of generating electricity  (natural gas,  fission,  hydro,  solar  and geothermal). Also wave and tidal power can be used to some extent.  Besides which it is not right to use the atmosphere (which everyone must breath from)  as a garbage pail for one's private gain if other alternatives exist.  Fouling the air and water supply is not kosher. It is the initiation of force  even if the motive is not theft, war, and murder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2017 at 8:13 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Coal is best left in the ground,  or if necessary as a  feed stock to produce carbon polymers.  

Coal powered the early industrial revolution (steam engines) and the early electric age (coal powered generators).  It is a difficult substance to burn without polluting the atmosphere  (see the air quality in several large Chinese and Indian cities).  The time has come to use other ways of generating steam and electricity. 

The worst side effect of coal is not CO2.  It is SO2, NOx  H2S  and particulate effluence pm 2.5,  particles smaller in diameter than 2.5 microns.  These devils are very, very bad for human longs and kill hundreds of thousand of people a year worldwide.   Coal is very difficult and expensive to clean up thoroughly and there are better ways of generating electricity  (natural gas,  fission,  hydro,  solar  and geothermal). Also wave and tidal power can be used to some extent.  Besides which it is not right to use the atmosphere (which everyone must breath from)  as a garbage pail for one's private gain if other alternatives exist.  Fouling the air and water supply is not kosher. It is the initiation of force  even if the motive is not theft, war, and murder. 

If coal is left in the ground economics will make it so. China and India can scrub out most of that foul stuff and the sooner the better, but until they get on it what is produced here is relatively trivial. I surely don't agree with you about solar. Good luck with the amortization of the capital equipment--and it's maintenance and replacement. Fission? Is that the nuclear we have today or will have, hypothetically, tomorrow? Why didn't you say "nuclear"? Hydro is peaked for lack of new dam locations, but it is truly renewable. Geothermal is minor today. How could it be significant in years to come? Wave and tidal power--see solar.

You need a more sophisticated understanding of "initiation of force." Your position has bloated it up to worthlessness. Arrest someone for having an outside barbecue?

Practically speaking only natural gas and nuclear can displace coal. They constitute the big three of power generation. Short term natural gas seems to have the most coal displacing potential in this country. In China I think it's nuclear and they are building a lot of new plants. Maybe India is too.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If coal is left in the ground economics will make it so. China and India can scrub out most of that foul stuff and the sooner the better, but until they get on it what is produced here is relatively trivial. I surely don't agree with you about solar. Good luck with the amortization of the capital equipment--and it's maintenance and replacement. Fission? Is that the nuclear we have today or will have, hypothetically, tomorrow? Why didn't you say "nuclear"? Hydro is peaked for lack of new dam locations, but it is truly renewable. Geothermal is minor today. How could it be significant in years to come? Wave and tidal power--see solar.

You need a more sophisticated understanding of "initiation of force." Your position has bloated it up to worthlessness. Arrest someone for having an outside barbecue?

Practically speaking only natural gas and nuclear can displace coal. They constitute the big three of power generation. Short term natural gas seems to have the most coal displacing potential in this country. In China I think it's nuclear and they are building a lot of new plants. Maybe India is too.

--Brant

What would you call it if I poison the air you breath and the water you drink?  Even if I did it unintentionally? 

At the very least  criminal negligence and reckless endangerment.  Is that unbloated  enough for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

What would you call it if I poison the air you breath and the water you drink?  Even if I did it unintentionally? 

At the very least  criminal negligence and reckless endangerment.  Is that unbloated  enough for you?

The dose makes the poison. A molecule floating around in the atmosphere doesn't qualify. On one extreme water can be a poison and on the other concentrated mercury. To adduce evidence for your proposition you have to come with the numbers or Hume wipes you out with your own "metaphysics."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The dose makes the poison. A molecule floating around in the atmosphere doesn't qualify. On one extreme water can be a poison and on the other concentrated mercury. To adduce evidence for your proposition you have to come with the numbers or Hume wipes you out with your own "metaphysics."

--Brant

Visit any major Chinese city and it will take you only a breath or two to learn about doses.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jts said:

"Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent “Thank you” to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find."  -- Ayn Rand

 

Didn't she say KISS the smokestack? It was too phallic for me. There are reasonable levels of pollution that facilitate production without the over regulation, but the air I breath and the ground water I drink are such an intimate part of my being, I would fight to keep them at one part per billion.

Peter 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Visit any major Chinese city and it will take you only a breath or two to learn about doses.  

Is this an argument? About what? US air pollution from US coal burning plants?

--Brant

since the US plants are initiating force close them down immediately!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Didn't she say KISS the smokestack? It was too phallic for me. There are reasonable levels of pollution that facilitate production without the over regulation, but the air I breath and the ground water I drink are such an intimate part of my being, I would fight to keep them at one part per billion.

Peter 

I watched her say that on TV May of 1971. She looked somewhat tired and haggard. I do believe it was "thank you."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Is this an argument? About what? US air pollution from US coal burning plants?

--Brant

since the US plants are initiating force close them down immediately!

Not as bad,  but no good for health in the long term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now