Carbon credits

[HydrogenBond]

If the CO2 acts a blanket to prevent heat escaping, why can't heat escape between all the holes in the blanket. PPM levels is not a very thick blanket. It would be like trying to stay warm with a fishing net. Even if we change the thickness of the string by 25%, it is still not a very good blanket. Does energy go out of its way to find only CO2.

[Essay]

Clouds at night can create a kind of greenhouse effect, a local area under the clouds that's warmer than unclouded areas. Haven't you ever noticed a clear night is cooler than a cloudy night?

 

Yes, and that is much more similar to the real "glass" greenhouse effect; but still completely unrelated to how CO2 affects the global heat balance. HydrogenBond also does not seem to know about how heat escapes from the planetary system. A class in spectroscopy will help immeasureably.

 

~ :phones:

[HydrogenBond]

Where the CO2 is, in the upper atmosphere, it is very cold. So isn't what the CO2 reflecting back to the earth, cold IR? In other words, if we did an IR profile from the surface of the earth to the upper atmosphere, it gets colder and colder. Where the CO2 is, the radiation reflected is cold IR.

 

So maybe the reflection isn't correct. So does the CO2 act as an insulator, so when heat rises, the upper atmosphere gets warmer,lowering the thermal gradient to the surface, so the surface temperature rises?

[BrianG]

As I understand it, a volume of atmosphere with more [ce]CO2[/ce] is warmer than a volume with less [ce]CO2[/ce]. All I propose is examining experimental tests of this effect in the field, to see how it influences climate. If we can demonstrate restricting [ce]CO2[/ce] emissions or sequestering [ce]CO2[/ce] will significantly influence climate, that's good enough for me.

[Essay]

As I understand it, a volume of atmosphere with more [ce]CO2[/ce] is warmer than a volume with less [ce]CO2[/ce].

Just all by themselves(1)? ...or do you mean after being lit up by sunshine(2)?

...or do you mean after waiting for the two volumes of air to cool for a while, after being warmed by sunshine(3)?

 

....Because your understanding would be wrong if you mean either of the first two conditions.

The third condition (after time to cool down) would leave you with the higher-CO2 volume of air warmer than the volume with lower CO2.

 

What the CO2 changes, is how fast the volume of air cools (loses heat).

Given two volumes of air at the same temperature, the one with more CO2 will lose heat more slowly than the one with less CO2.

===

 

It's not that CO2 heats up the air, but that CO2 prevents the air from as easily losing heat.

 

Since the global temperature depends on how fast we lose heat from the top of our atmosphere into deep space, the slowing or retarding of heat loss (by CO2) means that the whole system loses heat more slowly, and so heat builds up.

 

When heat builds up in the global system, it can melt ice or evaporate water (without changing the temperature), or it can raise the temperature of the oceans, crust, and air.

 

~

[BrianG]

Good deal, so all we need is an atmospheric test of this effect, to see what a policy of restricting fossil fuel use will bring. Is experimental verification too much to ask? It's reasonable with every policy, it's called due diligence.

[Michaelangelica]

As I understand it, a volume of atmosphere with more [ce]CO2[/ce] is warmer than a volume with less [ce]CO2[/ce]. All I propose is examining experimental tests of this effect in the field, to see how it influences climate. If we can demonstrate restricting [ce]CO2[/ce] emissions or sequestering [ce]CO2[/ce] will significantly influence climate, that's good enough for me.

Would you like to tell the world how you would design an experiment that would show this?

 

Currently the 'field" most experimenters are looking at is called "Earth". I am sure they would appreciate your help with experimental design on a local level.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by BrianG

As I understand it, a volume of atmosphere with more is warmer than a volume with less . All I propose is examining experimental tests of this effect in the field, to see how it influences climate. If we can demonstrate restricting emissions or sequestering will significantly influence climate, that's good enough for me.

Would you like to tell the world how you would design an experiment that would show this?

 

Currently the 'field" most experimenters are looking at is called "Earth". I am sure they would appreciate your help with experimental design on a local level.

 

He will also need to simulate the atmospheric dynamics (to mimic the heat-transfer mechanisms) from the surface of the planet, up to the top of the atmosphere where the planet's heat (at about minus 45 degrees) is lost to space.

 

~ :)

[BrianG]

Would you like to tell the world how you would design an experiment that would show this?...

 

A series of measured GHG releases and captures, randomized over time, along with climate temperature measurements.

[freeztar]

If the CO2 acts a blanket to prevent heat escaping, why can't heat escape between all the holes in the blanket. PPM levels is not a very thick blanket. It would be like trying to stay warm with a fishing net. Even if we change the thickness of the string by 25%, it is still not a very good blanket. Does energy go out of its way to find only CO2.

 

The atmosphere is constantly permeated with radiation. If I shine a flashlight at a suspended net, there are millions of photons interacting with the netting. The same goes for IR.

 

Here's a neat animation of a CO2 molecule absorbing and re-emitting IR. Notice how the molecule oscillates.

 

Animation: GLOBAL WARMING: carbon dioxide absorbing and emitting infrared producing the greenhouse effect by Russell Kightley Media

 

I'm not sure what that has to do with carbon credits other than to say that we can't talk about carbon credits until we understand what they represent.

[freeztar]

A series of measured GHG releases and captures, randomized over time, along with climate temperature measurements.

 

Just FYI, the phrase "climate temperature measurements" is unnecessarily redundant.

 

Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these same elements over periods up to two weeks.

 

So, it is redundant because a measure of climate already includes a measure of temperature. As far as temperature, most people don't seem to fully grasp the scientific meaning.

 

Temperature is a physical property that underlies the common notions of hot and cold. Something that feels hotter generally has a higher temperature, though temperature is not a direct measurement of heat. Temperature is one of the principal parameters of thermodynamics. If no net heat flow occurs between two objects, the objects have the same temperature; otherwise, heat flows from the object with the higher temperature to the object with the lower one. This is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics.

 

Anyhow, we have been observing CO2 inputs and outputs from every where from researchers on the ground, to satellites in orbit. We also have temperature records.

 

What is missing? What is the evidence that might alter your opinion?

 

Also, as far as regional factors are concerned, you might find this interesting:

 

ESA - Observing the Earth - Envisat makes first ever observation of regionally elevated CO2 from manmade emissions

[Essay]

Where the CO2 is, in the upper atmosphere, it is very cold. So isn't what the CO2 reflecting back to the earth, cold IR? In other words, if we did an IR profile from the surface of the earth to the upper atmosphere, it gets colder and colder. Where the CO2 is, the radiation reflected is cold IR.

 

So maybe the reflection isn't correct. So does the CO2 act as an insulator, so when heat rises, the upper atmosphere gets warmer,lowering the thermal gradient to the surface, so the surface temperature rises?

 

No, you're absolutely correct with the first paragraph. Your only misunderstanding is thinking that the reflected "cold" IR is what we would be feeling on our skin ...from thinking CO2 is directly "causing" that heating.

The downward reflected "cold" IR causes the normal heat-transfer mechanism of the atmosphere to "back up" slightly, over what it would without the reflected IR, and so the "hotter" IR has more difficulty lengthening its wavelength - becoming cooler.

 

It's sorta like an enzyme-substrate reaction where, if you add extra products to the system, the substrate will interact less frequently with the enzyme.

 

The extra "cold" IR in the system shifts the equilibrium back toward the "hotter" IR, that we do feel on our skin. Does that make sense?

 

~ :)

[BrianG]

Just FYI, the phrase "climate temperature measurements" is unnecessarily redundant.

 

So, it is redundant because a measure of climate already includes a measure of temperature. As far as temperature, most people don't seem to fully grasp the scientific meaning.

 

Anyhow, we have been observing CO2 inputs and outputs from every where from researchers on the ground, to satellites in orbit. We also have temperature records.

 

Thanks, air temperature is what we need to measure with randomized, measured emissions of GHG and captures.

 

What is missing? What is the evidence that might alter your opinion?

 

Causality and quantification. CO2 is released by heating, perhaps as much or more than it causes heating. We need to understand how much CO2 causes how much heating, before we make climate mitigation policy.

[erich]

NASA gets cash to replace a failed carbon-emissions observatory, but concerns remain over future funding.

 

Access : Budget win for climate probe : Nature News

 

 

Satellites beam in biomass estimates

 

Additional detail could help bring woodland into a future climate treaty.

 

Satellites beam in biomass estimates : Nature News

 

 

 

The Orbiting Carbon Observer (OCO) (get it..CO2 molecule):). will read Tree top and below real time CO2 sources and sinks at a 1 Hector resolution, including biomass land cover live or dead.

 

After reading through the SMAP project workshop, I'm amazed that they can read soil moisture to a 3 foot depth.

 

My hope is the common bond of Soil Carbon will lead to program synergy for soil carbon in general & biochar in particular. The unity of purpose between NASA, USDA, EPA, Academics,Ag Interests, etc. etc.should drive these programs from the inside out & the outside in.

 

The full suite of earth observers, Remote sensor success would level the carbon credit playing field. No aggregaters, testers, heck, a farmer will just check his practices on Google earth with certain rewards for good behavior.

 

Cheers,

Erich

[BrianG]

In order to determine the benefits of CO₂ emission reductions or capture, won't we need experimental tests? How else will we test the theory that man made carbon dioxide emissions cause catastrophic climate change?

[HydrogenBond]

Here is a good experiment. A million acre forest fire will give off a large spike of CO2 in a short time. We can calculate the CO2 given off and then measure the CO2 impact all over the world, using reality world conditions. Simulation is good, but it is not as accurate as the real thing. This prevents fudging the data.

 

One forest fire that would have been good for an experiment, was the indonesian forest fire in 1997-1998. Below isa picture to get an idea of the amount of CO2 and smoke given off in that one experiment in one day. The entire thing lasted about a year and burned 8 million acres. The smoke will cool the atmosphere by blocking the sun. The CO2 will heat the earth via greenhouse. The smoke's impact will decay first, while the CO2 impact, in theory will linger. We should see temperature rising in in 2000-2001.

 

[BrianG]

Here is a good experiment. A million acre forest fire will give off a large spike of CO2 in a short time. We can calculate the CO2 given off and then measure the CO2 impact all over the world, using reality world conditions. Simulation is good, but it is not as accurate as the real thing. This prevents fudging the data.

 

One forest fire that would have been good for an experiment, was the indonesian forest fire in 1997-1998...

 

Controlled burns have been used to experimentally test the effects of man made particulates on climate. That's a short term cooling effect. Unfortunately, we can't use natural forest fires because we can't attribute cause, doesn't warm, dry weather increase the chance of forest fire?

 

http://www.iosc.org/papers/01365.pdf

 

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/biomass_burn/globe_impact.html