re: Increased CO2 levels produced no negative effects on GW-signed by 31,847 scientists

quote:

---

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

---

quote:

---

Clearly as the concentration of CO2 increases in the atmospheric mixture the temperature decreases.

---

Clearly your plot has no correlation.

Using just the raw data isn't going to show you an accurate portrayal either, since the methods (time of day, buckets from the ocean vs ship intake) have changed over time too. I'm sure you'll have issue with the adjustments and record, but that's a different discussion.

quote:

---

This can be predicted and modeled by Dalton's Law but instead of using pressure, use specific heat of each gas in the atmospheric mixture.

---

We've done this song and dance before, but why not go again?

The heat capacity of the atmosphere is not the concern of the "greenhouse" effect. It's about how much more IR radiation is being reflected back to the surface vs out to space. Not all molecules are the same in terms of being able to absorb and then re-emit the energy.

You've seen a water vapor satellite image I presume? It works because water vapor absorbs a specific range of wavelengths. The satellite receives less of that wavelength coming to it, there's more water vapor in the upper levels. The same is done for CO2 concentration data from satellite.

There's no oxygen or nitrogen equivalent, because it's invisible to IR radiation. It passes straight on through.

The heat capacity doesn't relate to the greenhouse effect. It is about how certain molecules absorb and re-emit IR radiation being emitted by the surface.

IR is the spectrum in question because it's what the surface emits toward space.

It's not that the greenhouse gases just absorb the heat though. They absorb it, vibrate, and re-emit it. In all directions, some of which goes back to the surface. The surface thus radiates less heat back to space overall, and warms. The surface being the main heat source for the lower atmosphere.

quote:

---

So you are saying that nitrogen and oxygen store no energy in our atmosphere?

---

Of course not. I'm saying they don't absorb the radiation coming in from the sun or coming from the surface. O2 and N2 are still moving around, changing temperatures with pressure changes, ect.

quote:

---

Just asking questions here so please don't take this as me being a dick or trying for a gotcha.

---

I haven't known you to argue in bad faith.

quote:

---

So O2 and N2 can only store energy and change temperature is via pressure changes (PV=nRT)?

---

There's convection from the surface to consider, mixing the near-surface air up. The O2 and N2 don't absorb the IR radiation from the hot surface, but they do physically contact it and warm up. Then go bouncing around off other molecules.

Heat release from condensation along with it. Basic heat transfer stuff I know you know well. Along with the obvious PV-work effects.

quote:

---

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)
2. Earth (2,240)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)
3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)
2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,822)

1. Chemistry (3,129)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)
2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)
3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)
Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

1. General Engineering (9,833)

I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)
2. General Science (269)

---

I have a Chemical Engineering degree and I understand the molecular behavior of the relevant gasses. But I don't know shite about climate science. No way I would put my name on a petition either supporting or refuting man-made influence on global warming.

quote:

---

The O2 and N2 don't absorb the IR radiation from the hot surface, but they do physically contact it and warm up.

---

I believe that's his point.

In fact, though the generally expressed contention is the atmosphere and GHGs warm the Earth, we know for a fact that is not exactly true, right?

By simply examining the moon, we know our atmosphere functions as both a heat shield and a terrestrial blanket. Otherwise we'd be exposed to enormous lunarlike temperature variance. Overheating for lack of IR protection, overcooling for lack of heat retention. To a certain degree we see that in deserts sans 75% of GHAs over wide expanses.

Likewise it is very difficult to fold the entire terrestrial temperature equation into the GHG box when nocturnal heat retention along with altitude effects are considered. Pressure variance almost certainly contributes.

quote:

---

I have a Chemical Engineering degree and I understand the molecular behavior of the relevant gasses. But I don't know shite about climate science. No way I would put my name on a petition either supporting or refuting man-made influence on global warming.

---

I'll bet you'd feel at least the same or perhaps more strongly if the claimed qualification was a background in Cognitive Science? Yet that is the background of one of the most outspoken proponents of the "AGW-consensus". It floats both ways.

quote:

---

Diatomic gases play no role in radiative forcing, but that is not the only component of atmospheric heat production as you've noted. Pressure is certainly a component.

---

I know pressure is a small component, but a component nonetheless. That's generally why it's freezing cold in the mountains versus the beach. PV=nRT. Hold V, n, and R constant, when P increases so does T and when P decrease so does T. Relatively high P at the beach (or lower elevations) gets you higher Ts. Lower Ps on top of mountains gets you lower Ts.

Perfect example: Hawaii:

quote:

---

Atmospheric pressure would not be expected to vary cyclically over time expanses though.

---

Right.

quote:

---

For example, our ice age temp cycles would relate to something variable over the time course.

---

Ice ages are due to the earth orbital shape, and changes along it's axis, and wobble: Milankovitch Cycles. And solar activity.