the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

None of the Above – An alternate solution to global warming

Posted by Jeff Id on November 9, 2009

Recently, I’ve read on several blogs the proprietors belief in mitigation.  It’s a common theme on even skeptic blogs and none of us like pollution so it makes sense at that level.  Here I propose the opposite is a better strategy for mitigation.  After all, it’s not about how much CO2 we emit now, it’s how much we emit before better solutions can be implemented.  This is where I propose the all of the above mitigation argument falls short.

I’ve never offered an opinion on whether CO2 is creating global warming, the theory makes some sense but even  the 1.2 degree minimum calculated a century ago has some problems.  It’s complicated so we rely on incomplete models for future climate and some very poor data and math for historic climate reconstructions to create a picture.  To compound matters liberalism and socialism have corrupted the science to a point where many papers are invalid.   Claims about  shrinking fish due to global warming is a good example but there are many others.  The scientists still get government grant money though, and the government is happy to pay because 100 percent of the solution to this potentially manufactured problem is increased government control.  Our founding fathers warned endlessly about this.

In the global ‘mitigation’ strategy money is taken from countries described as rich and given to countries described as developing, in addition massive and economy crushing limits are placed on production.  Now I’ve already made the point that developing country means – repressed by socialism and dictatorship religious or otherwise but rich country is an equal misnomer.  This Copenhagen wording is a mechanism to force a communistic style redistribution of wealth to countries who don’t deserve support.  It is my contention that the argument has nothing to do with the good of the planet but is rather for the personal interests of the politicians.

It is my contention that the proposed solutions are not good for the planet and will actually result in the creation of more CO2. In addition it is my contention that organizations such as think progress, greenpeace and even the UN politicians and world governments secretly agree with me.  The unstated purpose is repression of the economy, not for the good of the people but rather for the prosperity of their own personal lives.  Now there are plenty of minions in these groups who fully believe they are working to save the planet but my contention is that the leaders do not.  When you consider it in that light the irrational promotion of non-science by the UN IPCC, EPA and numerous other organizations in the face of all reasoned criticism is explained.

Again I don’t understand why the  population doesn’t see this for what it is.  Whether global warming is real, whether it is beneficial or dangerous and whether it can be solved at all are still reasonable questions yet we’re pushed from one half of government, the anti-freedom government control side that there can be no question and we’re presented with the following solutions that don’t work.

While you read the list, ask yourself if you were the government and had solutions that didn’t really work wouldn’t “all of the above” be a good quality obfuscating answer to the public?

#1 – Biofuels  – Waste of money adds cost no hope for success.

#2 – Solar PV – Good future, can’t make enough cells due to materials, most use very poisonous elements, add’s cost, no power at night, no energy storage.

#3 – Carbon capture doesn’t work yet- Adds cost, may have a future.

#4 – Nuclear – Works, but is blocked for irrelevant reasons.  Add’s some cost.

#5 – Wind – no storage methods.  Power is created inconsistently.

#6 – Wave – impractical and expensive

#7 – Carbon trading – Adds cost to limit usage.  The worst kind of solution but directly addresses the goal I’m claiming of repressed society and increased control.

#8 – Carbon tax – Even more direct than #7.

#9 – More efficient lighting – ignores heat benefit in housing, the only viable sources are florescent which spread mercury.

The list goes on and on and the only item on it which can help right now is nuclear.  I’m sure many of tAV readers will disagree with the points above but consider how bad most are. Consider also that that is the point of an All of the Above policy – to confuse the issue.   What’s more, nuclear power stations which are safer than ever cannot be produced because of the same environmental groups saying no to any other working source of fuel!

Really people, you have to ask yourselves – Why do they do that?

So this is why these policies will create more CO2 rather than less.

1- Adding cost to power production reduces the economic output of a country – 80 percent reductions will result in massive massive cost.  Even if it’s only a big cost, the ensuing economic downturn reduces CO2 production in the short timeframe but it also leads to substantial poverty globally which of course the government will happily subsidize.  However, in a subsistence mode less people are able to go to school, less people are actually working and overqualified people do menial jobs to put food on the table.  You should see the very high quality of people we’re hiring for a front office position.  The net result is less money for technological development, something seen all across America for the past 20 years.  The world is catching up and often develops the latest technology.

2 – Increasing global population requires more energy and new coal plants are built every week in China and India alone to provide power to the masses.  They still can’t leave their lights on at night due to rationing in China so this isn’t going to stop soon.  CO2 production will continue to rise even in a deteriorating economy.  Global consumption will not be reduced anywhere near enough to compensate, what’s more is poverty has been shown to accelerate population growth.

3 – Massive increases in energy costs and/or redistribution of wealth will manifest themselves as increases in all product costs globally.  Countries with repressive economies are to be exempted and compensated by the rest such that they gain a huge competitive advantage – new communist sweat shops.  The result is a financial support of non – free means of existence at the expense of the free. Treating all government systems as though they are equal.

All of the above will conspire together to slow the development of the very technologies they purport to want.  All the above will take freedom from the west and prop up human right violating dictatorships and third world countries.  Due to growth of population, exempted third world countries, no enforcement, and increased consumption none of it will eliminate CO2 production and it will continue to grow.  As in numerous cases in history the policies will instead increase poverty and starvation potentially to the point where wars begin.

.

So what then should we do Mr. Jeff?  It’s actually simple.  Do the opposite.  Build cheap coal fired and gas fired plants.  Drill everywhere for oil to drive the price of energy down – way down.   Stop sending western money to Muslim countries who don’t support freedom of religion and human rights.  Build nukes, everywhere you can.  Eliminate the foolish envirowhacko’s influence on our politicians.  What would happen?

Business will beneifit and with eliminatioin of enough regulation would even prosper again.  CO2 would continue to rise, some warming may occur maybe a lot of it. Humanity will prosper to the maximum level the climate allows and new technology will be developed at record rates.  Poverty which was at globally record low levels will be pushed down ever further with the success of free people leading the way.   Electrical storage methods will be developed and gas engines for cars will be instantly replaced – this will happen in the future.  I’m certain of it.  The reduced part count, cost and improved performance and safety will make it happen whether we want it to or not.

In the end new generation and storage technologies will replace coal plants (probably naturally within 50 years) wind and solar will make financial sense.   If you want to try and accellerate that with some subsidies for research – do it but don’t even think about subsidizing the output or you’re back to the problems above.

You can say I’m wrong it will bring about global warming doom but I say your ideas of mitigation will put more CO2 in the atmosphere than my way. With my plan freedom has a chance to succeed, with the proposed plans it leads to oppression and increased global socialism, strife and a longer time until real solutions can be found.  Life and governance are not single step processes despite what AGW solutions purport – every action has consequences and in this case it seems obvious that these would be severe.


58 Responses to “None of the Above – An alternate solution to global warming”

  1. Andrew said

    On 8 “the only viable sources are florescent which spread mercury.” I disagree Jeff, I think that LED holds a lot of promise. Sure, right now they are expensive but I see a real future for them.

    That doesn’t mean I support subsidizing them though.

    Overall I think you have the grasp of what really ought to be done. My main argument has generally been “get the government out of the energy game first, then we’ll talk” by which I mean NO subsidies NO taxes (gas, utilities, whatever) NO restrictions on drilling, etc.

    I happen to be writing up a post today about the question “If AGW alarm is apolitical as some claim, then where are the apolitical ‘solutions’?”

    Of course, I’m debating whether it is a good idea on a science blog or if I should just put it on my political one…

  2. Ron H. said

    Jeff, I think you have covered it completely. I can’t find anything to disagree with. More government control is not a good solution to anything.

    One slight quibble: in your second sentence “…and none of us likes pollution…” are you referring to CO2 as a pollutant?

    Ron

  3. GT said

    Doesn’t it look like the human population somehow “thinks” that it’s too large and is taking steps to reduce it’s size by destroying the economic and technical systems that support it? It’s perfectly understandable that the “have-nots” would cook up a scheme to siphon off the wealth of the “haves” (nature does it with parasitism), but what other explanation do you have for the host working so hard at helping it’s parasite succeed and to it’s own detriment?

  4. BR said

    To see the truth in what you’ve said, all you have to do is examine the record of care for the environment in “rich” countries vs. “poor” and developing ones. The ecological disaster zones in Russia, China and many places across Africa and South America are worse, more common, and more persistently ignored than anywhere in the rich world. Environmental regulations are lax to non-existent and corruption sees to it that nothing changes because there is no accountability whatsoever and huge incentive for the people in power to siphon off every dime they can. How do you fix this? Freedom (and the accountability that comes with it), and economic growth (and the ability wealth provides to make things better).

    You are exactly right in saying the way to solve the problem fastest is to use the rich world’s wealth to *accelerate* the expansion of scientific progress, economic growth and freedom across the globe and *not* to instead redistribute that wealth to a bunch of people who will do nothing with it besides fund more weapons with which to repress their people, more palaces to live in and more shopping trips to Paris.

  5. KevinM said

    One more vote for LED lights. The quality is getting very good, and some of the key developers are here in the USA: e.g. Cree.

    The lightbulb issue shows a big weakness of the government intervention you rail against. If the USG had been more aggressive in subsidizing and mandating CFLs, as certain cliques in congress wanted to do, they would have crushed LED light development, which is a better technology in the long run.

    Again with nuclear power. Early disasters aligned the environmental movement against it, and now that the world and the technology have changed important leaders and interest groups can’t adjust their positions without losing face… so they don’t.

  6. Ron de Haan said

    KevinM said
    November 9, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    “One more vote for LED lights. The quality is getting very good, and some of the key developers are here in the USA: e.g. Cree.

    The lightbulb issue shows a big weakness of the government intervention you rail against. If the USG had been more aggressive in subsidizing and mandating CFLs, as certain cliques in congress wanted to do, they would have crushed LED light development, which is a better technology in the long run.

    Again with nuclear power. Early disasters aligned the environmental movement against it, and now that the world and the technology have changed important leaders and interest groups can’t adjust their positions without losing face… so they don’t”.

    Changing your light bulps for more enery efficient types is totally useless as is any form of CO2 mitigation like bio fuels, wind energy, solar energy, carbon sequestration from coal plants and Cap & Trade.

    Here is why:

    Global CO2 emissions at present are 30 billion tons/year (EIA), causing atmospheric concentration to rise by 2 ppmv/year (NOAA). So 15 billion tons emitted will increase atmospheric concentration by 1 ppmv/year. The UN (IPCC, 2007; see also BERN climate model), on scenario A2, which comes closest to the pattern of actual emissions today, says its central estimate of CO2 concentration in 2100 will be 836 ppmv. So the UN thinks we’ll add (836-368) = 468 ppmv to the atmosphere during the 21st century. Multiply that by 15 billion tons/ppmv and the UN is implicitly projecting that, in the absence of any mitigation, the world will emit (468 x 15 bn) = 7 trillion tons CO2 this century. It also projects (IPCC, 2007) that this extra CO2 will raise global temperature by around 7° F. So we need to forego 1 trillion tons of CO2 emission per 1° F warming forestalled. Divide 1 trillion by 30 billion and one concludes that we’d have to close down the entire world carbon economy for 33 years just to forestall a single Fahrenheit degree of warming. Since the UN has exaggerated the warming effect of CO2 sixfold (Lindzen & Choi, 2009), make that 200 years. Therefore, there’s no point in mitigation because the cost is extravagantly disproportionate to the benefit. –

    CO2 mitigation is a non solution to fight a non problem.

  7. Ron de Haan said

    GT said
    November 9, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    “Doesn’t it look like the human population somehow “thinks” that it’s too large and is taking steps to reduce it’s size by destroying the economic and technical systems that support it? It’s perfectly understandable that the “have-nots” would cook up a scheme to siphon off the wealth of the “haves” (nature does it with parasitism), but what other explanation do you have for the host working so hard at helping it’s parasite succeed and to it’s own detriment?”

    Some people do and population control is one of the major objectives behind the AGW/Climate Change doctrine.

    Read: http://green-agenda.com and visit the links provided by this web site a.o The Club of Rome, UN Agenda 21 and the concept agreement of the upcoming Copenhagen Climate Conference in December of this year that indicates the establishment of a World Government without any democratic control mechanisms.

  8. BillB said

    Jeff,

    Love your site and I probably have close to the same political views.

    So, of course, my first post is to disagree with you.

    No, I don’t think that the leaders of the AGW movement doubt that they are “trying to save the planet”. I think that as you say, they are anti-progress and anti-capitalist. Since the AGW issue fits in so well with many of their goals, they’ve embraced it. But I’m sure they really believe it.

    It seems that you have a hard time believing that since so many of their solutions are impractical, but you must remember that a good liberal doesn’t have to think things through, they just need to have good intentions.

    I don’t see how questioning their motives or honesty helps “our” side. I think that we’re better off leaving that sort of thinking to the “other side”.

  9. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Sometimes people are forced into really poor economic choices simply because they do not have any money in their pocket. I am reminded of a very old chemical plant in Argentina that I visited years ago. The plant carried out a polymerization reaction which reached about 92% conversion to product. The 8% un-reacted raw material should have been recovered and used, but this required pumps/compressors/condensers, all of which existed but were not in operation. Instead, the un-reacted raw material was discharged to the air. When I asked why, the engineers explained that some compressors had failed, and the plant did not have the money to buy the required (expensive) replacements. It turned out that the compressors were indeed very expensive (several hundred thousand dollars, installed), but they would pay for themselves within ~3 months via reduced materials costs. It did not matter. The plant lived hand to mouth, and could not/would not make any capital investment, even one that would pay for itself in less than half a year. I then asked how long the compressors had been out of service. One said “About 5 years”, but another said “No, no, closer to 10..” A few years later the plant closed because its “operating costs were too high”.

    So I would add to your list:

    Subsidized loans to people who do not have the financial means to improve energy efficiency in their homes. In many places this sort of thing can be financed via the local utility companies, where “payments” for the installation of insulation, better windows, etc. are added to the customer’s (now greatly reduced) utilities bill. Compact fluorescent bulbs will pay for themselves pretty quickly in reduced electricity cost (sorry, LED’s are not close to this point yet), and insulation normally makes financial sense for both heating and cooling. The mercury in compact fluorescent bulbs is a concern, but recovery of mercury from the bulbs should not be too difficult, especially if there is a “deposit” of a dollar or two on each bulb.

  10. Jeff Id said

    #8 Thank god someone disagreed😀

    It was starting to sound like RC.

  11. Carrick said

    Jeff ID:

    #5 – Wind – no storage methods. Power is created inconsistently.

    So we need an improved electrical grid. That’s long over due.

    Power isn’t that inconsistent for plain states situated to the east of the Rockies.

    I think your comments about solar panels are way over stated.

    Compared to coal, it’s like hugging kittens.

  12. Jeff Id said

    #11 Solar’s getting closer but costs are very high yet and I use my lights at night.

    My whole point is that the market will automatically use these techs when they’re ready. Forcing it is a very bad answer in my opinion.

    and don’t forget you’re getting the coal plants either way.

  13. Carrick said

    Granted about the market, but that’s separate from the practicability argument. Infrastructural development, key being energy transport and storage, is needed, and that is a place for government.

    Solar is getting close to the break-even point.

    Wind already is comparable in costs to coal.

    I’m just cautioning against overly curmudgeonry sort of views of the engineering. The talk of arsenic and all that is a total joke, once you think about it. How many people have died from poisoning from solar panels? Zero? How many die each year in coal mining accidents?

    Not even close to the same risk level.

  14. John F. Pittman said

    JeffID: I couldn’t let you think this was an echo chamber.

    BillB said “”but you must remember that a good liberal doesn’t have to think things through, they just need to have good intentions.””

    Couldn’t let this one go unanswered. Many people extrapolate (including both Liberals and Conservatives) and mostly they are wrong. A common extrapolated mistake is to assume that population will increase because people increase. Though this is apparently true, when one adds the wealth factor, richer means less population increase. It is stated in the above comments. Correct extrapolation would mean we should do as noted above, drill, and grow economies worldwide. We will end up with fewer people and less pollution, but natural resource support will become the problem. At present we solve this with ever increasing technology and, generally, per capita energy consumption. Sooner or later our energy use will have to be accounted for.

    Another mistake from extrapolation occurred when “W” Bush chose to cut taxes for industry and investment, rather than taxes to individuals. The problem was that there was excess capacity not a lack of investment.Seems like his economic (read political) advisors din’t realize there were two sides to the equation. The funniest, still going on is the “free” trade versus “fair” trade. When the US began changing from fair to free, “liberal” economists predicted that the “adjustments” that would occur would be unacceptable. Enter “W” and the first of the economic stimulus packages in violation of the necessity of adjustment. Where were those “conservative” economists pointing out, “free” trade won’t work without adjustments. Those curious as to “adjustments” translate as job losses, money devaluation, trade imbalances, etc.

    Speaking of unrealization, JeffID your number #7 is much worse than #8. #7 assumes that Washington knows how to pick the winners now, and that the choice is stationary. I don’t see eveidence that Washington can do the first, and it is a certainty that no one thinks things will remain the same. A tax is more transparent, and is unweighted as to winners and losers. Not so cap and trade. Besides, the cap and trade is formulated on a bad assumption when applied to CO2 versus how it was developed for SO2. SO2 took incremental changes. As you point out, different “green” energy sourcing is not incremental or doable at present except in the most limited manner.

  15. curious said

    Most effective and cheapest way to reduce a light’s consumption is to switch it off….holds true whatever political colour bulb you use!

    Example of “could try harder” here: http://ecoworldly.com/files/2008/09/ipcc-20years.jpg

  16. Retired Engineer said

    Well. Prosperity causes a reduction in population growth. “Wealthy” nations have lower birthrates. Taking the world down to the lowest level will make things worse. Making the planet prosperous through capitalism solves many problems. Capitalism creates wealth, Socialism does not. Socialism requires far more bureaucrats.

    LED’s are cute, but very expensive. And use nasty chemicals in production. They have some applications, I use them in battery powered devices. About the same efficiency as FT40-T8, a bit better than CFL. Longer lasting. Niche markets.

    Solar is nowhere near cost competitive. It depends on massive subsidies and Enron style accounting. Thermal solar has a chance, PV’s are more hype than anything else. Great for space programs where cost doesn’t matter. If we impose massive taxes on carbon fuel, solar looks better. That’s not the way to do things. If the wind blew all the time, it could be competitive. At a typical 30% factor, not yet. And those bird shredders require a lot of maintenance and land. Electric storage is a problem.

    Smart grid? Nice buzzwords. You cannot ship power over long distances without major losses, no matter how smart. The real meaning of so-called smart is to let the utility (read government) turn you off when they want to. Not nice.

    Folks in the semiconductor industry are drooling over the prospects of electric cars. Another dot.com IMHO. There isn’t enough surplus power to charge a lot of them. And current batteries “inhale” greatly. (to avoid a bad word)

    What to do? Nukes generate waste. Without reprocessing, a bad idea. Coal? Sure, if you can lock up the enviros during construction. We have lots of coal. Newer plants are easier to clean, so by all means, build. Aside: whatever happened to fluidized bed combustion? That was supposed to make coal more efficient and cleaner. Carbon capture? Maybe if we pump it into real greenhouses.

    Drill? Same as above. We can, we should. At the same time, slowly raise the mileage standards, so the car cos don’t make more stupid decisions that come from a rapid jump in mpg requirements (We had a company Suburban. Had 40 gal gas tank, got almost 20 mpg on the highway. Next model had 20 gal tank. New regs changed measurement method, required half full tank. Smaller tank, less weight, more mpg. Sort of. Really just cut the driving range.)

    Keep the government out of the market. Catch crooks, put out fires, pave roads. Period.

    None of this has a snowball’s chance of happening.

  17. Jeff Id said

    #14, It is appreciated. 😛

    I think you meant something else, otherwise it’s a safe bet.

    “assume that population will increase because people increase.”

  18. Jeff Id said

    John,

    On your 7 vs 8 I agree that the cap and trade system is worse. It’s actually the formation of a currency that only politicians control and only politicians see the value of. They can trade credits for whatever – or not trade. It’s a recipe for corruption and insider trading so I’m not surprised that it has it’s roots in Chicago.

    One comment by the evil evil Pelosi, and the market goes up or down. One payoff and more credits are issued. It’s not good at all.

  19. Joseph said

    Jeff, posts like this reveal that you have been successfully befuddled by the perpetrators of the AGW hoax. You are a smart guy, but you are making the mistake of accepting the initial premise; that AGW is real, if only a little bit, and that there might be a problem to be addressed. Once you have made this mistake, you have been pwned.

    This AGW strategy was not arrived at willy-nilly, it was carefully considered. All it takes to gain momentum is to coerce people into accepting that initial premise, and the deluge begins. Even intelligent people (maybe especially) very rapidly get caught up in the consideration of various mitigation/adaption strategies for an alleged problem for which no evidence has been provided to support that it exists. I think this post of yours is evidence of that.

    Jeff, ask yourself, why are you accepting that initial premise that AGW might be real, if only a little bit? Is it possible that you are falling prey to a “precautionary principle” strategy that seeks to turn your intellect against you? The first falsehood told is always the most important. Those subsequent are rendered moot when the existence of the first is revealed.

    I do respect the thoughtfulness that you have put into this post, but I think it was led astray by the acceptance of a misguided notion.

    Think about it.

  20. Jeff Id said

    #19, I fully understand your opinion on this and even agree with it. However as a working optical engineer, the most basic premise is correct. More heat will be captured by more CO2. The questions are threefold.

    How much more heat is captured and what warming will be created?

    How dangerous is the warming?

    How expensive is it to fix.

    My opinion is that Q1 is not reasonably addressed yet but receives a lot of attention, Q2 has been answered with science that’s so full of crap it’s nothing but wild arm waiving, Q3 has been answered with leftist politics.

    Maybe a post on the three q’s of global warming is in order. Either way, my goal isn’t to force bad science on people but to find out the truth. Really if there was a high level of global warming wouldn’t you like to know? I mean we could then argue whether the rest of the crap in Q2 & 3 were real after the first was established. If you wanted me to guess about warming right now, my guess is small enough that it cannot be separated from natural variance – but me not know?!

  21. Joseph said

    No, Jeff, I don’t think you do agree. You are still befuddled. You need to consider that “the most basic premise”, as you suggest, is not correct.

    All of the IR that upwells from our planets surface is fully absorbed to extinction in the troposphere today. That is not disputed. This is the reason why adding more GHG’s to the atmosphere cannot make the atmosphere warmer; because it is not possible to absorb more than 100% of the available energy.

    If you dispute this, please state your case.

  22. Kenneth Fritsch said

    John Pittman at #14: I do not have a clue as to what you are talking about, so I cannot disagree with you. It sounds like some grumbling with a few Ws thrown in for good measure.

    Jeff ID, I am convinced that the political solutions being suggested for potential mitigation AGW are rooted not in science or free market considerations but in politics. This development is not new, however, and we have seen recently it with the bail outs , health care and the recovery programs. Governments have been doing, or at least attempting to do, this routine to gain power since they have existed. What they all have in common is that someone was able to convince the public, or thought they could, that a life and death emergency was involved or evolving.

    And I know you conservatives do not like to hear this, but getting into Iraq was under the same call to an emergency. Now there are those amongst you who will say that, even if the reasons were a mistake, the cause and result were good. And that is exactly how the AGW mitigation advocates think – if we were wrong about AGW it is ok because we need the government regulation in place anyway – and dispite any costs.

    Speaking of costs I think the whole country has lost its mind. Remember when you heard Liberals tell George W that the Iraq war and Medicare insurance were too expensive (and I agreed with them) and now we zoom the deficits out of sight and we are still in two wars and nobody gives a damn or a worry because well it is now all an emergency and the world as we know it will come to an end without – yeah, you guessed it – big time governemt involvement.

  23. Jeff Id said

    #21, You need to consider what happens to the energy which is absorbed.

    Let’s say H20 is the warming culprit. It’s a much stronger absorber and makes me happier.

    The solar black body radiation is shifted high enough in the spectrum that most energy passes through the absorbing H20 molecules. The humidity is transparent at those wavelengths as our eyes tell us when we look out on a clear muggy day.

    The electromagnetic energy strikes the ground heating it causing a re-emission by a black/gray body source at a much lower temp. This shifts the spectrum heavily to longer wavelengths. To these wavelengths as you correctly point out the air is black. Nearly 100% of the energy is captured before exiting the earth. However once a single molecule captures a single photon of electromagnetic energy it vibrates faster, – it’s hotter. Eventually it eitherh collides with another molecule transferring part of it’s kinetic energy or its energy is re-emitted in a random direction. The key point you’re missing is that the energy does not stop it’s travels from the first absorption. In classical physics energy is neither created or destroyed.

    Once the photon is re-emitted it get’s another shot at exiting the atmosphere. While the probability of a successful exit is again low, it’s not quite zero and if it fails the process repeats again. The net result of all this is that no amount of black ink gives 100% probability of a non exit, so the increase in black ink (water vapor or CO2) simply slows the process trapping the heat for a longer time basis on average and — increasing the temperature.

    Now don’t dispair from the sound physics, that’s not where the argument should lie. The potential disagreements occur in the net feedbacks of the atmosphere and how they react to the increased heat input. For instance, are less or more clouds formed at a higher temperature or are they formed at different altitudes. The whole thing is nightmarishly complex to the point where this engineer ain’t going to believe a computer model has captured the problem sufficiently until it’s proven itself absolutely over several hundreds of years.

    My own thumbnail opinion is that the net warming lies between slightly over zero and 3/4ths of whatever the worst number the IPCC has made up. A second opinion is that warming is likely beneficial. There has not been a single case where it has been demonstrated to fit the disaster scenario’s.

    Still think I’m befuddled?

  24. Jeff Id said

    Kenneth,

    I’m glad the post didn’t irq you this time. You might find it odd but when the second Iraq war started, I was vocally against it (me vocal?! imagine that). It was an exaggerated emergency for undisclosed reasons. In retrospect I’m not sure I was right at the time.

    And I know you conservatives do not like to hear this, but getting into Iraq was under the same call to an emergency. Now there are those amongst you who will say that, even if the reasons were a mistake, the cause and result were good. And that is exactly how the AGW mitigation advocates think – if we were wrong about AGW it is ok because we need the government regulation in place anyway – and dispite any costs.

    By the way, people mention Bush 2 as though he were conservative, I couldn’t disagree more. While he had some of the conservative streaks in religion and values people despise so much, his fiscal and government policies were anything but conservative. The reason most conservatives I know became disappointed is that he did nothing to reduce government. Nothing at all. In fact, I fully believe he was complicit in the recent banking takeover of the US government, although the Democrats were the driving force the Republicans were semi-benefitting and aware. We don’t have a choice anymore in IMHO. Someday I’ll have to start another blog so we can talk about the loss of america to industry – too big to fail.

  25. timetochooseagain said

    “Now there are those amongst you who will say that, even if the reasons were a mistake, the cause and result were good. And that is exactly how the AGW mitigation advocates think – if we were wrong about AGW it is ok because we need the government regulation in place anyway – and dispute any costs.”

    With all due respect, there is an important distinction-in the Iraq case the argument is retrospective.

  26. treyg said

    Jeff, I’m surprised and delighted to find I’m not the only AGW heretic with similar views on our decision to go in to Iraq.

    Jeff can speak for himself, but my view was certainly not retrospective. I was skeptical of the nuclear and Al Qaeda claims regarding Iraqthe administration made.

  27. treyg said

    (oops — accidentally hit the submit button, continuing on)

    … I was skeptical of the nuclear and Al Qaeda claims regarding Iraq that the administration made. The administration was using scare tactics and faulty intelligence to promote the war, not unlike the methods used by strong-AGW proponents in the climate debate. That said, I’m certainly glad that Saddam is not in power, and hopefully Iraq can become force for a more democratic Middle East, but (no surprise) I’m no optimistic.

  28. Ralph B said

    First a question…was the earth in dire straits 100MYA when all this carbon we are releasing today was sequestered from the atmosphere? From all the carbon deposits we are benefiting from today I would say the answer is no…the earth was flourishing.

    The stereotypical alarmist is a hypocrite. They awear by evolution (I am an old earth creationist) but want the earth to be stagnant. The whole reason the friggin snail darter is endangered is because it didn’t evolve and disperse which means it would become extinct even in a human devoid earth.

    Don’t get me going on Iraq…ay yay yay!

  29. Ralph B said

    Dang…is there a way to spell check prior to posting?

  30. Mark T said

    Yeah: write your post in Word or some other word processing software that has a spell check function, then spell check, then cut and paste into the panel! This has the added benefit of saving your work in case a long post gets borked (from experience, this toads the wet sprocket).

    Mark

  31. JLKrueger said

    If you look at power generated per acre for both solar and wind compared to nuclear or coal, it’s a no-brainer. Wind and solar can’t produce nearly the same power per acre of land use that coal or nuclear can produce. While wind and solar may give you “warm tinglies” about being “green friendly” they remain inefficient.

    On the politico-economic side, I’m not in favor of the government making what should be business decisions. They have a really bad track record in that field.

  32. JLKrueger said

    Jeff Id said
    November 10, 2009 at 12:17 am
    By the way, people mention Bush 2 as though he were conservative, I couldn’t disagree more. While he had some of the conservative streaks in religion and values people despise so much, his fiscal and government policies were anything but conservative.

    In my mind he was a RINO (Republican in Name Only), but for several elections our choices have been deciding between evils.

  33. KevinM said

    Ron de Haan 6:

    Nice bit of information, which seems to be a direct quote of something Lord Monkton drew on Glen Beck’s whiteboard last week. I don’t see what it has to do with LEDs or nuclear power though.

    As a particiant in the semiconductor industry, I can tell you that the $10 low yield GaN process for making high quality lightbulb LEDs today will reduce to a 10-cent high yield process in less than a decade. With or without AGW, your house will be full of them by 2020… unless something better comes along. It will be better quality for less cost.

    Nuclear power makes the most energy in the smallest area with the easiest to mitigate waste. I didn’t say the least toxic, or least dangerous, or least frightening, just easiest to contain. It is very heavy solid and stays wherever you put it. The “waste” from solar and wind is natural space. Show a picture of a modern (2010) world powered signicicantly by these sources to an environmentalist and they’d puke. There would not be any room left for trees, hiking trails or wild horses.

    Whether or not AGW is relevant, cleaner electric power and better lighting make sense.

  34. DeWitt Payne said

    Unfortunately, there’s a significant fraction of the environmental movement that is simply anti-technology. Amory Lovins and Jeremy Rifkin are names that come to mind immediately. Sustainable, small is beautiful, all that garbage. In their opinion, the worst possible thing that could happen to the planet would be a new source of clean inexpensive energy.

    Firefox has a spell checker built in, IIRC.

  35. Carrick said

    Joseph:

    All of the IR that upwells from our planets surface is fully absorbed to extinction in the troposphere today. That is not disputed. This is the reason why adding more GHG’s to the atmosphere cannot make the atmosphere warmer; because it is not possible to absorb more than 100% of the available energy.

    Look, you have short-wave length radiation that is transparent to the air, strikes the surface, where a portion is absorbed and remitted as long-wave length radiation (IR).

    For upwards moving radiation, a portion is absorbed by greenhouse gases and remitted, with a portion of that transmitted back towards the ground. We can characterized by the fraction of the upwards radation that gets “reflected” back to the ground by a net reflectance coefficient, Ra, (a is for atmosphere) which is just the ratio of amplitude of downwards propagating radiation to the initial upwards propagating radiation.

    A fraction of the radiation that strikes the ground is then reflected upwards, the ratio of amplitudes o the upwards propagating radiation to initial downwards propagating can be characterized by the reflectance coefficient Rb (g is for ground).

    Letting au be the upwards amplitude and ad be the downwards amplitude, and au0 be the initial IR radiation emitted in response to solar forcing we have the simple relations:

    (au-au0) = Rg * ad
    ad = Ra * au

    Solving for au in terms of au gives:

    au = au0/(1 – Ra * Rg)

    As you increase Ra (by adding more CO2), au increases and the total IR radiated increases. The Earth gets hotter.

    For a passive system (no internal batteries) we are limited by Ra < 1 and Rg < 1, but au can still get arbitrarily large.

    Physically the explanation is that the "resonance chamber" defined by the ground and the net downwards retransmission of initially upwards propagating radiation is that the system is "integrating" the constant forcing on it over time. The longer the time integration, the larger the steady-state value will become.

    Apologies for notational or terminology glitches…. I'm in a symposium today and am responding during the break.

  36. Carrick said

    Jeff ID:

    How expensive is it to fix.

    Again this is an engineering question, so there are a variety of solutions available. Some are more expensive (and more effective potentially than others).

    Eventually, it all comes down to a cost benefit analysis.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that a modest warming compared to 1850 has a net benefit. For sufficient warming, it is likely there will be a point where it is equally good economically and socially to 1850, and above that level we will experience net harm.

    Until we reach the level where the harm is equal or greater to the cost of action, it makes no sense to act.

    And that is one issue that any advocates for extreme measures must address. The second is whether their proposed solutions will fix anything. Cap and trade I think it can be argued is very expensive and doesn’t fix a thing. It is useless as a solution and must be abandoned.

  37. curious said

    Questions:

    Does anybody on this forum balance their finances by only taking account of their income? Do you spend as you wish when you wish? Do you allow/encourage family members/dependents to do the same? Do you buy something in the morning and throw it away in the evening? And then do you buy the same thing again tomorrow? And then do you go out and earn more to cover it? Or do you run up debts to a level you believe you can service? And then lets say interest rates take a hike and you can now no longer cover the debt – do you cut back on expenditure or do you take a second job just to keep up the same level of expenditure? How far do you go leaving expenditure unchecked when balancing your books?

    Ok – this isn’t a financial comment but an energetic comment. The other side of this “what is a viable energy production and supply system” is the “what is a productive and effective energy demand model” – or, do we like to engineer and drive our cars to cater for those who don’t like to trouble themselves by taking the parking brake off (hat tip to James Hunt from many years ago complaining the Merc (I think) he’d been supplied with wasn’t up to scratch when in fact he’d been driving with the brake on…). Seriously we waste energy by the bucket load and, as far as I can make out, this is to nobody’s benefit.

    At the top of those solutions should be “use what we’ve got more productively” – otherwise it’s just “load” in another guise. Maybe if there are a host of responses from y’all telling me how you just keep on “earning and spending” come hell or high water I’ll rethink – but I’ve not met anyone like that yet…

  38. John F. Pittman said

    Kenneth, it was more for JeffID than you in one sense. He and I had discussed before that economics is agreed upon until some politician is upset he might lose votes. Then whatever is necessary to make the economic role by government to work is thrown out the window. For the Keysenians, they can’t get taxes passed when the economy is good. For the Free-Market guys, they can’t get the politicians to accept there is no such thing as “too big to fail.” Politicians will always make the worst economic decision when it comes time for payment of excess spending or having to accept external economic downturns (adjustments). An example is China does not want to trade with us, they just want to sell to us. Free-market means adjustments in jobs, standard of living, monetary value, etc are determined by the market.

  39. G Howe said

    Curious-A Rethink on your part is called for IMO. Wasting “energy by the bucketload” isn’t happening right now. Where? Tire inflation? All the economically feasible energy efficiency and conservation programs may save 10% if we’re lucky. That would get us 5 years at current energy use growth rates. Turning off the billboards in Vegas? Why should the gov’t decide who wins and who loses? Can we trust their decisions if they are using the strawman of global warming?

  40. Jeff Id said

    #39, I agree. People don’t waste money on purpose. This is one area where capitalism has the finest control over usage and govt can’t improve on. We spend no more than is necessary and balance the quality of technology against cost as part of our daily lives. Which car, SUV or limousine + driver do we use ain’t coming from a mandate but by what makes sense.

  41. JLKrueger said

    Jeff Id said
    November 11, 2009 at 12:40 am #40
    People don’t waste money on purpose. This is one area where capitalism has the finest control over usage and govt can’t improve on.

    People and companies try to have more discretionary funds available for things they want to purchase vs things they must purchase. That’s why capitalism works best.

    When we switched to “curly” bulbs in my house, we didn’t do it to lower our carbon footprint, but to lower our electric bill. We’re now trying out LEDs wherever we can, but none of it has anything to do with what “greens” or the government desires. It’s all about saving my money for things I’d rather spend it on and “I didn’t need no stinkin’ government mandate!”

  42. dhmo said

    Jeff I have lurked around your website quite a bit and must say it very worthwhile, but I am not going to agree with you. Well I suppose I will agree a bit. If you exclude nuclear then “AlternativePoverty Energy” just does not cut it. If someone builds a power station from any of these energy sources which will deliver a GW 24/7 at reasonable cost then maybe. Very unlikely anytime soon. In OZ we would need 30 of them.

    There is a saying “Don’t blame on malice what can be explained by incompetance” I think a lot is explained by this. Humans in the main accept authority it is a part of being part of the pack. We also need explanations for everything so if there is none or understanding is not possible we accept the authority of someone else. This is what keeps lots of things going. Religion, government environmentalism and so on. This is a necessary attribute and failing at the same time otherwise society would not function. The results can be damaging look at eugenics, that was believed for 50 years. It was believed that humans were descending into stupidity and this had to be stopped by none allowing targeted people to breed. Lobotomy was the order of day for this in the USA and Britain certainly before WWII. The NAZIs made it quite unpopular! Religion has many such dark periods as well as will the eco religion if it gets its’s way. As to individuals well yes I expect some are quite aware of the failings of the theory and see it as a money opportunity or as a way to diminish the population. Ehrlich who wrote the “population bomb” is quite active in the green movement and was one of the principals in the attack on Lomborg. The Goracle stands to make heaps and is proud of it. Buchanan wrote in the sixties that it is quite difficult to perceive faults in your belief if your livihood depends on it.

    So no I don’t accept there is an overall ulterior motive unless you can prove these people wish to ruin the developed world and hand over the world to India and China. That is what will happen if we do what the greens want. If we do it will prove what good little sheep we are and how delusional the those who pretend to be leaders have become.

  43. Geoff Sherrington said

    33.KevinM said
    November 10, 2009 at 10:30 am

    Completely OT and private, I’m working on a safety device whose electronics evolved after I retired. Demonstration today went fine, but in Australia we do not have your ease of access to good info on (particuarly) LEDs. Are you willing and able to do some short private emails? Regards Geoff Sherrington sherro1 at optusnet dot com dot au

  44. Joseph said

    Re #23

    Yes, Jeff, I still think you are befuddled.

    It sounds like you have bought into Spencer Wearts’ theory of a photon Pachinko machine in the sky.

    I have considered what happens to the energy which is absorbed by the atmosphere, and that was when I realized where the greenhouse theory was flawed.

    If this re-emission of energy by atmospheric gases that you claim was true, it should be detectable from the surface, no? After all, these energies travel at the speed of light, and the atmospheric density is greatest at the surface. Let’s take a look at some observations.

    http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/surf_check?site=desr&mos=June&day=2&year=2008&p1=dpsp&p5=dpir&p6=upir&ptype=gif

    This is a plot of the measured downwelling solar, downwelling IR and upwelling IR at a SURFRAD station during a cloud-free, clear skies day. As can be seen, even though the upwelling IR increases by 200 W/m^2 (50%) during daylight hours, there is no response in the downwelling IR, when there should be, according to your theory.

    There is no re-emission of absorbed energy by tropospheric gases, due to radiative decay. The reason why is because the atmospheric density in the troposphere is too great to allow that to happen because the rate of collisional de-excitation is much more rapid than the radiative decay rate. In other words, atmospheric gases capable of absorbing upwelling IR never get the chance to re-emit any of it (due to radiative decay) because they lose that energy too rapidly via conduction to the surrounding atmosphere. N2 and O2 end up with most of it, because they are most of the atmosphere.

    Downwelling IR is the result of processes that are unaffected by the day/night cycle and variations in upwelling IR. Downwelling IR results from the release of latent energies by water vapor as it changes phase in the atmosphere, condensing, freezing and sublimating.

    Take a look at figure 1 in this paper.

    http://esto.nasa.gov/conferences/estc-2002/Papers/B4P2%28Mlynczak%29.pdf

    This color diagram depicts the tropospheric cooling that results from water vapor changing phase and releasing latent energies. There is no cooling that could be attributed to anything but water vapor. CO2 is active between wavenumbers 600-700. No cooling (radiation) there.

    What do you think now?

  45. Jeff Id said

    #44 I’m not surprised, at tAV I get to be wrong at least 5 times a day so it’s normal.

    In your first image the green line increases slightly during the day. Do you know the wavelength range of the graph? If it is near IR, this is exactly what I would expect.

    Regarding the Spencer Wearts, I’ve never read it. I work as an optical engineer so these things are simple and make sense.

    There is no re-emission of absorbed energy by tropospheric gases, due to radiative decay. The reason why is because the atmospheric density in the troposphere is too great to allow that to happen because the rate of collisional de-excitation is much more rapid than the radiative decay rate.

    First, that’s a very odd claim. Sure there is collisional averaging of temperature but more rapid doesn’t mean 100%, however your point is separate from the mechanism of re-emission. The theory is that the average temperature individual molecules also radiate energy as they cool so stating that the high energy molecules don’t get time to re-emit because they collide and return to an ‘average’ energy level is secondary to the argument.

    “Downwelling IR results from the release of latent energies by water vapor as it changes phase in the atmosphere, condensing, freezing and sublimating.”

    It also results from the emission from a warm gas, unless you want to tell Plank he was wrong.

    Regarding Figure 1 you are reading it wrong.

    The figure correctly shows that most of the cooling occurs from water vapor including radiative emission from planks curve. While watervapor overwhelms the CO2 signal the CO2 signal still exists. BTW, in case you are wondering these are the data used for climate models which show CO2 greenhouse warming. If you read some of the wording on the page you can see I’m correct.

    The problem in your statements is that you aren’t understanding the difference between overwhelming a warmth capture and the existence of the warmth capture. This whole paper supports the basic theory of AGW but is discussing taking actual data.

    Again, I would encourage you to open your mind on this. While the warming effect is true (and rather obvious), it doesn’t mean it’s big or dangerous or glacier melting or weather changing. My own opinion is that it is a benign effect that it likely a lot smaller than advertised and that it’s completely unstoppable with our current technology anyway.

    CO2 is plant food.

  46. Carrick said

    Joseph:

    There is no re-emission of absorbed energy by tropospheric gases, due to radiative decay. The reason why is because the atmospheric density in the troposphere is too great to allow that to happen because the rate of collisional de-excitation is much more rapid than the radiative decay rate.

    Actually we know that tropospheric gases remit absorbed energy because we can measure it.

    The 58 GHz O2 line is a good example of that and is used for vertical temperature profilers. There are commercial systems that successfully exploit this effect.

    Jeff ID:

    Again, I would encourage you to open your mind on this. While the warming effect is true (and rather obvious), it doesn’t mean it’s big or dangerous or glacier melting or weather changing. My own opinion is that it is a benign effect that it likely a lot smaller than advertised and that it’s completely unstoppable with our current technology anyway.

    I disagree. I certainly think it can influence climate significantly.

    My main disagreement with the alarmists is I think they are ignoring the science in making their grave pronouncements (which is completely the opposite of what they claim to be doing). In other words, I think the science supports a “luke warmingest” viewpoint, and not a “no warming” nor a “gore-warming scenario”.

    I also am quite pleased that the glaciers have melted back a bit. I’d much rather have that, than the opposite, which is accumulating ice sheets in North America and another ice age.

  47. Carrick said

    I should mention there also is a experimental IR radiometer built by NOAA that was used in obtaining mesospheric vertical temperature profiles.

    The best test for whether an effect exists is not just whether you can putatively measure it, but if you can make it sing, dance and do tricks, e.g., use it to make applied measurements of other quantities. Yesterday’s new discoveries are today’s new engineering metrics.

  48. Jeff Id said

    #47, I should clarify – I don’t disagree with your point on significant warming either. I just think it’s less likely that CO2 has a big effect not that it’s impossible. I don’t buy the feedback’s presented as they are not well understood.

    The real ‘exact’ answer in my opinion is that we just don’t know yet. I don’t think those who say we do know either way are right.

    Anastassia on CA has a very interesting paper she’s been discussing. It describes an evaporative mechanism for powering hurricane and tornado winds. It’s a good example of science not understanding the fundamentals of weather and if shown correct would change a lot in atmospheric flow.

    A link to her paper is online here:
    http://www.bioticregulation.ru/common/pdf/08e04s-acpd_mgl/08e04s-acpd_mgl-print.pdf

  49. William R. James said

    Jeff Id, you are dead on accurate in your assessment, but should carry the solution further. I did the math over a year ago on this. A dozen nuclear plants similar to those very safe and reliable very small plants we use on nuclear powered aircraft carries would produce enough energy to equal all of the oil the US currently imports. We could copy those designs, no need to design anything new, and build 25 of them in under a year. The glut of electricity could be used to drive down electricity prices and start to replace conventional electric plants, but in the short term could be used to make natural gas (aka methane, CH4) from water and atmospheric CO2. This would appease the believers in the AGW religion as it’s entirely carbon neutral. And old gas guzzlers are cheap and trivial to convert to natural gas as a fuel. Instead of “cask for clunkers” scams wasting billions of tax dollars, buying $60 conversion kits is much cheaper, and we wouldn’t be asking people who can’t afford a new normal car at $12,000 to blow $80,000 on a fancy new hybrid or electric. In under three years we could be totally independent of foreign oil, stop funding dictators and terrorists, and have fuel equivalent to under 50 cents a gallon, and appease the kooks, and all without any more drilling! And as bonuses, lower our electric bills, stop wasting tax dollars subsidizing nonsense, people can keep their cars, and the marxist crackpots peddling the magic CO2 hoax will have to find another way to peddle their agenda.

  50. DeWitt Payne said

    A high rate of collisional de-activation, otherwise known as local thermal equilibrium, is necessary for the application of Kirchhoff’s Law: absorptivity = emissivity. But collisional de-activation is matched by collisional activation so that the fraction of molecules in an excited state capable of emission is constant for any given temperature. The fraction in the excited state can be calculated from the Boltzmann distribution. To calculate actual emission, the emissivity at any wavelength is multiplied by the Planck function for that wavelength. Note that absorptivity equaling emissivity does not mean that absorption equals emission at any given altitude. The atmosphere above the surface boundary layer doesn’t change much in temperature on a daily basis, so total downwelling radiation doesn’t change much. But you can point an FT-IR spectrometer at the sky and see an emission spectrum that matches a calculated emission spectrum to a very good approximation.

    The reason why CO2 is such a good greenhouse gas is that it absorbs very strongly and the temperature of the atmosphere drops with altitude in the troposphere. That means that the altitude when the optical density of the center of the CO2 band drops to 1 is quite high and and hence quite cold, ~220 K. Emission at other wavelengths has to increase so that incoming and outgoing radiation is more or less balanced. In order to do that, the temperature of the surface has to increase above what it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent in the thermal IR.

  51. William R. James said

    CO2 is a rather weak greenhouse gas compared to water vapor, and it’s hardly significant as a trace gas anyway. And water vapor not only overwhelms any efect from CO2, but also regulates the earth’s reflectivity.

  52. Carrick said

    William there is a well known spectral window where water vapor is transparent to to infrared radiation. It is in this window, that CO2 principally acts as a green-house gas. Further it is speculated that there is a CO2-water vapor feedback mechanism that further enhances the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

  53. DeWitt Payne said

    William,

    The main effect from CO2 is at 667 cm-1 (15 micrometers). This is on the edge of the water vapor window. To demonstrate the effect of CO2, I need to use MODTRAN to calculate emission atmospheric emission spectra. To show that MODTRAN works, I have observed emission spectra here and here and calculated spectra for similar conditions here. Now here are the spectra calculated for four different concentrations of CO2 (10, 100, 1000, 10000 ppmv) at 20 km looking down using the 1976 standard atmosphere, all other settings unchanged. If you still think that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and insignificant compared to water vapor, think again.

    I hope this doesn’t bounce because of too many links.

  54. Carrick said

    DeWitt, thanks for the more detailed response.

    According to MODTRAN, doubling the CO2 from 375 ppm to 750 ppm has almost no effect on the net radiated heat…it just decreases it by 3 W/m^2 from 288 W/m^2 to 285 W/m^2.

    Do you care give your explanation why this could still lead to significant additional heating of the atmosphere?

  55. Carrick said

    Also, if you just take I0(CO2=0) – IO(CO2) as the “MODTRAN CO2 Forcings”, you get this figure.

    Comments?

  56. DeWitt Payne said

    Carrick,

    3 W/m2 is about right. The IPCC official value is 3.7 W/m2, but they use somewhat different assumptions. You can use MODTRAN to calculate the change in surface temperature also. Increase the surface temperature offset until the outgoing power matches the outgoing power at the lower CO2 level. At 375 ppmv CO2, 1976 standard atmosphere, 100 km looking down, all other settings default, outgoing power is 258.799 W/m2 at a surface temperature of 288.20 K. If I then increase CO2 to 750 ppmv, I have to increase the surface offset by 0.88 degrees for a surface temperature of 289.08 K. Change to constant relative humidity and the offset increases to 1.3 degrees or 289.50 K. Clouds will make a difference too, but I haven’t played with that setting much.

  57. DeWitt Payne said

    Carrick,

    I’ve made the same plot. I think the effect is caused by line shape. At low concentrations, only a very narrow peak at the center of the CO2 band can possibly achieve saturation and emit at the lowest temperature. As CO2 increases, more of the band saturates, so less energy is emitted for a given change in the log of the CO2 concentration. At high concentration that gives a constant slope of the log plot. The same thing applies to methane. The statement that methane is x times greater than CO2 can be misleading. Doubling methane from its current level, which will never happen absent some sort of geological event IMO, gives a much smaller change in outgoing power than doubling CO2.

  58. BlueIce2HotSea said

    I would first support warmth mitigation over CO2 mitigation, possibly high-altitude high albedo aerosals – cheap. But, to address this post directly, florescent and led lighting in homes in northern climes will likely increase CO2 emissions. It certainly will in mine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: