Are you saying that blogger is an expert? Can’t be possible. That ignorance of CO2 absorption isn’t possible from even a High School Graduate in physics.
I’m sorry to have to ask what is clearly an obvious question, but please educate me.
What *is *the relative overlap in the absorption bands of CO[sub]2[/sub] and H[sub]2[/sub]O? What are the sizes of the bands, how big is the overlap?
Sure, a guy with a brain problem should consult a retired after 30 years brain doctor (and he only did it for a few times) and hope that a brain aneurism will be treated properly with the old rusted blades from that doctor, with no modern CAT scans, newest technologies, and no supporting group (Also known as a hospital).
Yeah, that will do wonders.
I prefer to get the information from current experts, and those experts also pointed at even more errors from Dyson from my early cite, Dyson is the one digging the hole.
You really think that people with experience will not blog about this issue? You really need to go out more often.
http://planet3.org/author/mtobis/
But the others you continue to claim are not dealing with the errors from Dyson or are ignored by you to claim “game over” are still there, looking at the hole Dyson made awhile ago.
The Professor in Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago and the other guy that has a PhD in Geological Sciences at UW and is the founding co-director of ISOLAB, a state-of-the art isotope geochemistry facility involving research ranging from climate and atmospheric chemistry to geobiology are Eric Steig & Ray Pierrehumbert Also known as the real “Brain Doctors” with the access to the “hospital” (Current research facilities) “non-rusted tolls” and the latest technology. Unlike a former once great scientist that it is just following the footsteps of Dr. Seitz
Perhaps you should read this. Specifically page 4, figure 6.2.
CO2 and H2O’s absorptive overlap is in the 2.5 to 3 um range, which is near-visible infrared. CO2 contributes heavily to the absorption in the 13.5-14.5 um range, which is thermal infrared. H2O has about 1/3rd the spectral absorption in this range. CO2 contributes almost exclusively in the 13.5-14.5 range while water gives a little bit at each wavelength along the thermal spectrum from 7 to 14 um.
Water, while a green house gas that is very effective because of it’s abundance, is not as effective per mole as CO2 in the thermal bands that they overlap in.
Note this is for gas only. H2O water as a different absorption spectrum, which I have seen some people bring up. For reference: CO2, Liquid H2O, Gas H2O. (You’ll have to change the graphs from transmittance to absorbtion via the control group below, center, and right-most dropdown from the graph.)
What the…? That made my head hurt.
Sorry, it is just what I get from Dyson trying to pass himself as a current expert. As an example of the problem here one should not give much weight to the opinions of a retired brain doctor that did just a few operations related to the brain and then did move do something else in his career.
It is bad that Dyson has no current experience, it is also bad that most of his experience was not related to this issue, but it is worse that more up to date or current experts caught him already making **many **mistakes, if he was like the doctor of my example Dyson would be lucky to not be sued for malpractice.
FX, in this discussion you have been so badly wrong so many times, cited so many fake “McExperts”, and tried to pass off so much bullshit, you do not get to just “assert” that something is wrong. If a blogger says “The sun is made of Cheese”, I wouldn’t trust your scoffing to be a reliable rebuttal. And of course, as Farin pointed out, you’re badly wrong again. The overlap between CO2 and gaseous H2O is not significant.
You don’t have to quote a climatologist to show that. You just have to quote Dyson:
To be fair, we are less than a decade away from multiple kinds of technology in the pipe at the testing stages that will scrub CO2. There are some arguments for and against, but I think it’ll be a good investment when it arrives.
There was an additional review where someone was trying to grow algae that would also pull CO2 from the air in a good quantity which could then be used as food. But I can’t find that article. (I think it was Britain.)
So, while it’s not a genetically engineered tree with a bib that says “CO2” we are certainly heading towards cleaning up the CO2.
Might I suggest the metaphor, “If you are diagnosed with an aneurysm, don’t go to a retired podiatrist for brain surgery.” ?
Metaphors are best served short! 
You consider this to be a question:
About what?
Where do climate scientists do something similar to ignoring the depreciation of all automobiles purchased by consumers? Where is Demand Side Depreciation in our economic theory? Doesn’t the manufacture of consumer goods designed to be junked produce CO2?
psik
I explained why I responded as I did. If you don’t understand how or why CO2 in the atmosphere works, and think Dyson is wrong, it’s up to you to argue your case.
Nonsense, you just said things, you didn’t provide one bit of evidence. Dyson holds the high ground (and is correct), so you can’t just say things, you have to show evidence. I for one would love to hear you disprove the basics of the enhanced greenhouse theory, or AGW, or as it’s usually called, global warming.
So what? Do you know what temperature that band of IR is?
Again, so what? Do you know what temperature that band of IR represents?
Once again, so what? What you don’t know, nor does anyone else attacking Dyson know, is how physics and science and data and measurements work.
CO2 does not absorb any radiation at all between 9 microns and 13 microns. Which is the IR range of 220K to 320 K, the temperature range of IR radiated by “the earth” that would warm the surface if re-radiated.
“CO2 contributes almost exclusively in the 13.5-14.5 range” - do you know what temperature that is? of course not. It’s why you don’t realize how wrong it is to criticize Dyson.
Priceless.
Look, you calculate what temperature of terrestrial radiation CO2 “absorbs” in the 13.5-14.5 range and I will explain why Dyson is correct. Of course f you can calculate that figure, you might already know the answer.
OK when you see that level of wrong, game over. Seriously, if you see that statement, and do not know why it is wrong, you have no business discussing climate, climate science, global warming, and especially not trying to put down a scientist.
That GIGO quotes something that wrong, and doesn’t realize what he is doing, it’s truly sad. All the worse, it’s done to try and say Dyson is stupid and wrong.
The narrow band centered around 4.3 microns is the one place where there is no overlap of CO2 with water vapor. But that temperature band is not radiation coming from the surface of the earth.
CO2, like all greenhouse gasses, is radiatively imbalanced. In perfect radiative balance, CO2 will exist at at roughly -273 C. It doesn’t just gain and radiate at the 13.5 - 14.5 um bandwidth, it gains energy constantly from kinetic interactions with other gases, keeping it above a dry ice state and it radiates all the energy it picks up from any source.
This radiated energy is picked up by water vapor, which has a roughly 40% absorption rate at the 13.5-14.5 um bandwidth and Nitrogen along the 3-5 um bandwidth which keeps the primary atmosphere gas warmer than it would otherwise be. Since Nitrogen doesn’t radiate heat to get to a balanced state like a greenhouse gas, it creates a temperature blanket that is lost through direct interaction, both to other air molecules and the surface of the earth.
Back up calling everyone an idiot and prove through science why we are dumb. I’m willing to listen. Please show me how the energy balance works that negates, short-circuits, or ignores CO2’s influence.
Regarding FX, I only see just efforts to cloud the issue. 
To begin with, there is still the other experts that are deftly avoided by FXMastermind.
And then there is the distraction to blame the messenger, indeed I quoted the experts and the people with more experience, what we need here is a quote from the experts he claims are supporting his position telling us that Dyson is correct. Specifically anyone from the UTAH State University of Bedford MA Stewart Radiance Lab stating that their results mean that Dyson is correct on the whole or that they support him. Not gonna happen.
He’s repeating himself. Bizarre.
FXMastermind, I think this might have gotten lost in the noise, but I’m actually really interested in the answer. Again, I realize you consider this to be really basic stuff, so my apologies, but I don’t know much about it.
You’re almost on track with a perfect record of always being wrong, although in this case it’s more an error of omission. The issue isn’t whether there’s overlap or not, the issue is whether the CO2 absorption spectrum adds substantially to the absorption side of the radiative balance. In that regard the 4.3 micron part of the spectrum is of no interest, but the spectrum above 12 μm where CO2 has a profoundly important effect most assuredly is, because in that spectrum water vapor alone allows a significant radiative window into space.
You can see that here, which is very clear on the facts:
This isn’t the only area where Dyson is full of crap. In fact almost everything he says is either wrong or extremely misleading. No wonder you like him. To take this statement again:
As already shown, the first sentence is completely wrong. Strike 1 for Dyson. So is the rest of it. If you look at the effects of CO2 alone without water vapor on the earth’s outgoing radiation profile, it roughly follows the contour of the incoming insolation, with the exception that the effects are actually enhanced, not diminished, in the tropics. That’s because (quoting directly from the cite below) the latitudinal variation in the CO2 greenhouse effect derives from the vertical structure of the atmosphere: in the tropics there is more contrast between surface and tropopause temperature than there is in the extratropics. Strike 2 for Dyson.
Finally, the amazing statement that the Arctic is warming more because it’s drier and CO2 has more effect. Complete bullshit. The Arctic is warming more because of ice albedo feedbacks and other feedbacks directly related to the CO2 forcing. In point of fact, if you look at what happens if the average relative humidity is taken to saturation in the NCAR CCM3 radiation model, it has the greatest effect in the tropics and almost none at all in the Arctic. So much for “drier air” being a huge factor. Strike 3 and Dyson has struck out. Too bad, because if he was still at bat I could point out the complete bullshit about CO2 having a greater effect “in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands”, which is the exact opposite of reality, since it’s directly related to depth of atmosphere.
Cite for the above: Pierrehumbert, Brogniez, Roca, 2007: On the relative humidity of the atmosphere. in The Global Circulation of the Atmosphere, T Schneider and A Sobel, eds. Princeton University Press.
[QUOTE]
Since you accused me of using bogus numbers of post 359, I ask again
Which number that I used on post 353 were bogus?
30 gT?
750 gT?
4%?
25 times?
If CO2 is the evil gas of death, what was the alternative for picking humanity and progressing in ways that poor people in the US, fuck, lower middle class people in Peru, live better than emperors of the middle ages?
Dude, way to mis the point!
You said that economists hadn’t figured out DSD. Figuring out DSD or any other economic concept with a mathematical formula, requires kick-ass maths, statistics, and minute understanding of a complex, multi-variable system.
Climate is DSD to the 10th power in mathematical/statistical/algebraic difficulty.
Hence my contention that if economists/statisticians/mathematician who would profit greatly in money cannot figure it out, much less can I believe that it happened for climate, where the monetary reward are much less.
Kindergarten version:
DSD = Hard
Climate = Hard-hard.
Don’t try Hard-hard if you can’t hard.
Since #359 was mine, may I answer that? What was “bogus” about your numbers was the attempted implication that humanity’s incremental addition to the CO2 balance was insignificantly small. As I’ve already explained, in terms of the alteration of the balance and the consequent long-term climate forcing, it is in fact huge and unprecedented in millions of years, both in its magnitude and its rate of increase. It’s the difference between playing games with numbers, and the physical reality.
Probably none. We’ve made major advancements in technology and civilization for a couple of hundred years by digging carbon deposits out of the earth and burning them. Now we understand that the consequences of doing this will eventually be disastrous. What was your point, exactly?
Obvious questions are easily answered by using Google.
Most any graphic comparing the absorption bands and amounts will answer the question. if it was that simple, there would be no arguments about any of this. Seriously, no argument at all. The bands CO2 absorb are not the ones that the temperature of the surface radiate.
You can actually see this, concerning CO2 and the greenhouse effect. In this video it is demonstrated that CO2 is opaque to infrared radiation (or at least most of it)
Many people look at that and they are all convinced (as if the matter was up for discussion) that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. End of story, end of video. CO2 absorbs IR, hence the greenhouse effect.
What they don’t think about, is that the candle flame is from 800 to 1400 °C (red to blue color)
How much outgoing IR radiation is leaving the surface at that temperature? For CO2 to absorb? (there actually is some, it’s not a joke question)
There is a good reason the IR camera wasn’t tuned to the IR of a human face in the video, or even a black piece of paper under a hot lamp.
Hell, if CO2 absorbed the IR that most of the surface of the planet was radiating, there wouldn’t even be a discussion of this. A simple demonstration ends the entire thing.
On the other end of the IR, at the 15 micron band, the temperature is far far below freezing.
Yes CO2 adds to the greenhouse effect. Just not in the 9-13 micron band where most the IR radiates from the surface. The overlap with WV exists, and even with it being a small cold band, it actually matters.
When it’s moist, the CO2 doesn’t matter much there. But where it is cold and dry, that’s where the CO2 effects the atmosphere the most.
Which is exactly why Dyson is correct. And those who think they are smarter than Dyson are still wrong.