Robert H. Goddard, the Father of NASA Climate Science and Renewable Energy

Eli has been reading a number of vituperations on the involvement of NASA with climate science and renewable energy.  Sadly to say some of them have come true including cancellation of the greenhouse gas monitoring program following the current administration's line of if it is not measured nothing can be done.

One of the odder takes is that NASA GSFC and GISS, both named for Robert H. Goddard, who is the US pioneer of rocketry, must return to its Buzz Lightyear roots.  However, a little searching shows that as is often the case with those who value their attitudes above understanding, that they are clueless and that Goddard was indeed the father of NASA climate science.

In a 1920's presentation to the National Academy of Sciences, Goddard wrote

It is well understood that the pressure, temperature, wind velocity, and moisture content, which obtain at the top of the troposphere, i.e., at the 10 km. level, would be of much importance in weather forecasting; making possible the prediction of surface conditions many miles distant from the place of observation.  

The data would obviously be of greatest value if obtained simultaneously at a number of separated stations. If this were done, an accurate weather map, representing conditions at a definite high elevation could be made, and compared with that representing surface conditions. Such a high altitude weather map would also be of obvious importance in aviation.

Goddard worked through the requirements for an atmospheric sounding rocket program and discussed the need for a set of stations

In short, then, the most desirable method of obtaining high altitude data for weather forecasting, would consist in the sending of instruments to the 10 km. level daily, from a number of stations, the ascent and descent being as rapid as practicable; provision further being made, if desirable, for maintaining the instruments at this level during an appreciable interval of time.

He was involved in testing instruments to be used to measure meteorological variables using sounding rockets as discussed in a 1920s letter to Science Magazine.

But, Goddard was not only the father of US rocketry and climate science, but also one of the earliest proponents of solar energy, holder of several patents on solar heat engines and concentrators.  His contributions to solar energy, summarized in the early 1960s by Hagermann, were practical realizations of pie in the sky designs.  In 1929, Goddard summarized one of his inventions

In conclusion it may be said that, instead of being a necessarily inefficient heat engine, the properly designed solar engine may rival in efficiency and smallness of bulk any other type of heat engine that can be imagined. This results from the easy utilization of very high temperatures, together with low heat and frictional losses. Expressed in another way, the properly designed solar engine is capable of handling enormously concentrated energy, such concentration of energy making possible maximum heat absorption, together with minimum heat loss, and minimum size. An interesting feature of the solar engine herein described is an extreme of lightness, for a given power, which no other type of heat engine can approach. This results from the small size, possibility of using light materials, and absence of weight of fuel. 

Eli shudders to think how Robert H. Goddard would have been described by Steve S Goddard, aka Tony Heller   The Good Goddard was as a solar power enthusiast of the first water who developed practical and efficient solar powered engines and more.  In 1929, he wrote in Popular Science about a small, 30 HP, concentrated solar motor he was working on that could reach an efficiency of 50% and be used to power large farms, with excess energy generated in the day being used to charge batteries.  Goddard concluded that  "The practical and obvious first use for the new solar motor however is to supply abundant and cheap power for mankind."

Hagermann has an interesting speculation about an alternative history

It is--from a solar-energy development point of view --too bad that Colonel Lindbergh persuaded the Guggenheims to give Goddard $100,000. For, instead of devoting his time to solar experimentation, Goddard removed his equipment from Camp Devens where he had been conducting static tests and went to Roswell, New Mexico, for flight tests on his own proving grounds.

On Edith Foote's Experiment

There is a sort of  simmering discussion on Twitter and Facebook whether Edith Foote found the basis of the greenhouse effect before John Tyndall.  Eli is here to tell you what was done.  The TL:DR is no, she did not.

Her report can be found on the net in as a Google book,

Katherine Hayhoe describes it this way

In 1856, Mrs. Eunice Foote presented the results of a simple experiment at the annual meeting of the AAAS - The American Association for the Advancement of Science.

She filled up glass jars with different types of gases, including water vapour and carbon dioxide, and put them out in the sun. She then measured how much each jar heated up.

In her own words, "the highest effect I have found to be in carbonic acid gas" - that's what they used to call carbon dioxide back then.

She went on to say, "an atmosphere of that gas would give our earth a high temperature; and if as some suppose, at one period of its history the air had mixed with it a larger proportion than at present, an increased temperature from its own action must necessarily have resulted" - in other words, if there were more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, then it would trap more heat, and the earth would be warmer.

When Eunice did her experiment, average carbon dioxide levels were about 290 parts per million in the atmosphere. She probably never dreamed that by 2016, they'd be over 400 parts per million.

Next year, I'm attending the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. There will be plenty of talk about the latest, cutting-edge research. But the coolest thing is this: that the basic science connecting carbon dioxide to a warming planet is 160 years 

Eli's analysis of Foote's experiment and observations rests on three platforms.  First the observation of the solar spectrum at the surface of the Earth

The absorption of water vapor and CO2 in this spectrum are what are called combination and overtone absorption bands where there is a change of multiple vibrational quantum numbers as a result of absorbing  visible (380 - 800 nm) or NIR (near IR > 800 nm) photons.  For example if the three vibrational modes ν1, the symmetric stretch, ν2,the bend, and ν3, the asymmetric stretch are (0,0,0) in the ground state, a transition to (0,2,0) would be an overtone and to (1,0,1) a combination band.  As a general rule overtones and combination bands are about a factor of 100 to 10000 weaker than single quantum transitions.

Readers of Rabett Run also know that there is very little flux in the solar spectrum in the IR, particularly where the CO2 bending mode is active

The bunnies need one more piece of information, the transmission of glass

Got it?  OK, let's go

Foote used glass cylinders.  Glass cannot pass IR light beyond 4 microns.  The solar spectrum is weak beyond 2 microns.  Foote was not looking at absorption of thermal radiation from the warm surface.  She was measuring absorption in the overtone and combination bands of CO2 and H2O and a bit from the H2O stretching bands at 2.66 and 2.74 microns .

One further point, why did Foote observed a stronger effect from CO2 than H2O?  The answer is that she had a much higher partial pressure of CO2 in her containers than H2O because water vapor is condensible at 25-30 C, about 30 Torr.

The Best of Alsup

In the aftermath of Judge Alsup's dog and pony show, Eli thought it would be well to search out the best answers.

1. What caused the various ice ages (including the “little ice age” and prolonged cool periods) and what caused the ice to melt? When they melted, by how much did sea level rise? 
2. What is the molecular difference by which CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation but oxygen and nitrogen do not? 
3. What is the mechanism by which infrared radiation trapped by CO₂ in the atmosphere is turned into heat and finds its way back to sea level? 
4. Does CO₂ in the atmosphere reflect any sunlight back into space such that the reflected sunlight never penetrates the atmosphere in the first place? 
5. Apart from CO₂, what happens to the collective heat from tail pipe exhausts, engine radiators, and all other heat from combustion of fossil fuels? How, if at all, does this collective heat contribute to warming of the atmosphere? 
6. In grade school, many of us were taught that humans exhale CO₂ but plants absorb CO₂and return oxygen to the air (keeping the carbon for fiber). Is this still valid? If so, why hasn’t plant life turned the higher levels of CO₂ back into oxygen? Given the increase in human population on Earth (four billion), is human respiration a contributing factor to the buildup of CO₂? 
7. What are the main sources of CO₂ that account for the incremental buildup of CO₂ in the atmosphere? 
8. What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?

Now the bunny is more than fond of his answer to question 2, and as long as it is, Eli will book no contradiction on the point.  For question 3 Eli nominates John Nielsen-Gammon in a comment at Real Climate which has the virtues of being concise, clear and complete.

Q3: What is the mechanism by which infrared radiation trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere is turned into heat and finds its way back to sea level?  

A3: The extra heat at sea level comes from the Sun. CO2 reduces the rate at which the atmosphere loses its energy to space via infrared radiation, which in turn reduces the flow of energy from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere.  

Energy from absorbed sunlight at sea level is transferred from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere through direct heat exchange, evaporation, and exchange of infrared radiation. All three of these mechanisms slow down if the atmosphere is retaining extra energy, as it does if greenhouse gas concentrations increase.  

The resulting accumulation of energy from the Sun raises temperatures throughout the climate system. A warmer atmosphere is able to lose more energy to space, so the whole climate system eventually approaches a warmer equilibrium.

So what are the bunnies favorites and who won the boobie prizes?

Carbon tax survives in the US (as a tax credit)

Been meaning to blog about this for a while, so I'll just get it out here, a piece of good news that we're slowly creeping towards recognition of a carbon tax:

Among the energy credits tucked inside the budget deal eked out in early February lies a controversial measure: carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) credits designed to push the technology from the clean energy margins toward the mainstream. 

For years the technology has divided environmentalists and many working in the energy industry, even as some researchers argued for its essentiality in a decarbonized world. Now, modifications to an existing credit called Section 45Q offer more money per ton of carbon dioxide captured and remove a cap on how much plants can store.

“These changes to the tax code and the enhancements of the 45Q tax credit will absolutely make the difference between a whole bunch of projects being financed and a whole bunch of projects not making it,” said Julio Friedmann, formerly of the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy, and now a distinguished associate at the Energy Futures Initiative and CEO of Carbon Wrangler, LLC.

The changes extend tax credits to carbon capture projects constructed over the next six years. Projects formerly received $10 for each ton of carbon captured and used for enhanced oil recovery and $20 for each ton captured and put “in secure geological storage” underground. The new credit bumps those sums to $35 and $50, respectively. It also eliminates a pre-existing annual volumetric cap of 75 million tons of carbon dioxide.

A tax credit for reducing carbon is equivalent to a tax for producing it. Maybe not as flexible in this format, but it's a way to slowly get there.

I'll take good news where I can get it.

Shaking the Cup for Science

Having retired Eli is reduced to blegging.  He seeks but a cup of coffee and some help with the expenses, admission fees to exotic stuffy rooms with science talks and carfare there unto.  Maybe also a beer now and again.  Thus the Ko-Fi button in the upper left corner which links to PayPal.  Those wise enough to not have a PayPal account must suffer.

All expenses go to conference fees, spectroscopy apps and buying a jar of carrot juice or other beverage of choice for friends of Rabett Run who track the Bunny down.  Maybe some day even a Bunny Pin or T Shirt.

Mann, Bradley and Hughes Is 20

The first multiproxy global temperature reconstruction was published twenty years ago, almost to the date, April 23, 1998.  Michael Mann has an article in Scientific American about having fame thrust upon him.  Whether it was high sticking or spearing, Eli will leave to Willard.

Nothing in my training as a scientist could have prepared me for the very public battles I would soon face. The hockey stick told a simple story: There is something unprecedented about the warming we are experiencing today and, by implication, it has something to do with us and our profligate burning of fossil fuels. The story was a threat to companies that profited from fossil fuels, and government officials doing their bidding, all of whom opposed efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As the vulnerable junior first author of the article (I was a postdoctoral researcher), I found myself in the crosshairs of industry-funded attack dogs looking to discredit the iconic symbol of the human impact on our climate…by discrediting me personally. 

But, as Mann points out, the reconstruction has held up remarkably well.  Eli will borrow an image from Kevin Anchukaitis' Twitter feed.

IEHO proxy reconstructions have only been possible because of the rapid climate change accompanied by significant global warming in the past century. To achieve a useful relationship between proxies and instrumental measurements both have to change.  Given interfering factors if the change is not significant no reliable relationship can be found between a proxy and an instrumental set of measurements.  Eli is avoiding the words natural variability here, because, again, IEHO, the real problem is that changes in proxies such as tree rings, ice cores, whatever, are functions of many factors and the proxy is only useful to the extent that one of them dominates and can be related to a set of instrumental measurements or that all of the others vary randomly over periods that are relatively short.

During the period before 1850, nothing much changed, or it changed very slowly at least globally.  It would have been challenging or impossible to do a proxy reconstruction before then.  

Moreover, to achieve a useful calibration of the proxy record to an instrumental one local changes are more significant than global ones, especially where they are more extreme such as in the Arctic.  This raises an interesting point that if one were to go proxy hunting, it would be best to do so where you know that things have changed a lot, for example maybe if you are a borehole person, you want to look in a park in an urban area maybe.

This is recognized by PAGES 2K who only include records

. . . .when the original study described the relation between the proxy value and one or more climate variables, including temperature, or when the correlation with nearby instrumental temperature data was high enough to reject the null hypothesis of zero correlation at the 5% level, taking into account both temporal autocorrelation and test multiplicity.

It is not clear that all reconstructions use local instrumental data.  It would be best to calibrate all proxies against local instrumental data, It also suggests a strategy for paleo folks to set up high quality instrumental stations in areas where they (meaning the field) intend to work.  While it will require patience, over a forty or fifty year career the capstone calibration might be a useful thing to have.  Of course you gotta get tenure and funding in the meantime and there are only some types of proxies where this could pay dividends, but for areas where the paleo people return again and again, it would be useful.

Rabett Run, Where You Read It Before It Happens, Unless You Forget It In the Meantime

Some recent things have shown Eli how nothing changes.  Stuff that was a farce back then remains a farce today,  It's not that history occurs first as tragedy then as comedy, it always was comedy.  Now and again, Eli points out that Rabett Run is the Onion of climate blogging, America's best news source where you read it before it happens.

To frame this discussion Eli was reading Climate of Gavin

Two reasons spring to mind.
1) They're terrible communicators & continually fail to get the point they want across.
2) They're good communicators but they keep saying things that feed an existing narrative that they (nominally) don't agree with but keep getting swept up in.

— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) April 23, 2018

Eli thought this left something important out

You are much too nice.

There is always 3) they want to feed the political narrative but leave room to retreat to the facts or at least be able to make a risible claim of doing so.

— eli rabett (@EthonRaptor) April 23, 2018

A couple of days ago the Run featured an interchange between Roger Pielke Jr and Michael Mann, no strangers they to the climate wars

Your advice please
Tweeps.

Michael E Mann, the nation’s top science communicator, is using his forum to spread outright lies about me.

I have never had any relationship with The Heartland Institute. None in any way.

Yet, the lies contiue⤵️ pic.twitter.com/sMyhL6KCcW

— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) March 21, 2018

Mann has been informed of the facts.
Heartland has been notified.
Both need to stop their lies.

— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) March 21, 2018

Heartland has been notified.  Roger sorely put upon.   How dare they.  Whoo boy read the entire thing and you will need to wash the spit off.

A bit of poking in the archives and what turns up :)  Surprise, Roger played this tune before back when in 2012, big surprise to him, Heartland listed him as a Heartland Expert.  Knew nothing about it but the same lots of indignation that anybunny dare think he was a Heartland Expert (Heartland took it down too).  Even more spit.

Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think that this is a little close to 3), just enough implausible denial that you can't quite pin stuff on Roger, but strange that he didn't recall Act I.  Very strange.

Some, not Eli to be sure, might think that Roger is quite happy to cuddle in with Heartland as long as no one calls him on it, and if you do, be sure that he will react with indignation and bad words.

Gotta get back to science.  This is too depressing.

Apologia Pro Vita Sua

Recently the how to say it wars have picked up again and Eli thought he would have one.  Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think that there is neither rhyme nor reason over here, but a couple of things have popped up which have helped Eli recognize he has to be more like he was.  Also blog more, perhaps tweet less.

A watchword in the house of Eli is that when somebunny gives Ms. Rabett a hard time, she points to Eli and says:  Eli, you know how your are, be that way.  Sad to say after November 2016 the Bunny has been way too serious.  The point was brought home by an interview with one of the Parkland kids who was asked how do you deal with the gun nuts,


He provides a good answer.  Eli never has had to deal with the volume that the Parkland group has, but a bit comes his way, and Hogg's answer was pretty close to how Eli's position in the game of Climateball.

Over the last year, Eli has been increasingly caught up in the bullshit.  That is not the way to go because it validates the trolls.  The only response to idiocy that works is humor, turning fears and conspiracy theorists into jokes.

And when the conspiracy theorists clutch pearls and whine that you are not taking them seriously, well yeah.  It would be hard to, even if a bunny wanted to.

Responding seriously gives too much credit. They are only going to be taken seriously if you take them seriously, so why take them seriously?

David Hogg makes another point, when someone with a platform, a Laura Ingraham, goes after you, don't go after them, go after their money, their sponsors.  Don't go after the think tanks,find their sponsors and ask if they want to be associated with the nonsense. And yes, if one of your dearest friends is on an expert panel of Heartland, send them a tweet.

Your advice please
Tweeps.

Michael E Mann, the nation’s top science communicator, is using his forum to spread outright lies about me.

I have never had any relationship with The Heartland Institute. None in any way.

Yet, the lies contiue⤵️ pic.twitter.com/sMyhL6KCcW

— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) March 21, 2018

Mann has been informed of the facts.
Heartland has been notified.
Both need to stop their lies.

— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) March 21, 2018

Who Could Resist?

Pruitt's Sweetheart Deal Was With an Energy Lobbyist, Not Just the Wife

Seems like a minor point, but it's artificially lowering the level of sleaze to say Pruitt was only getting a sweet deal from the energy lobbyist's wife, and not from him.

Steve Hart's name was originally on the lease, presumably because he owns or co-owns the property through the LLC (really, a LLC for your residence? Seems like he planned something fishy from the beginning, although maybe he's just got a little empire going). Crossing his name off the contract doesn't remove his ownership interest in the property that Pruitt was renting.

The framing of this issue soft-pedals what's actually happened with this penny-ante corruption. Pruitt got a great deal on a property owned by energy lobbyist, who without a doubt was happy to tell his clients that the EPA Administrator lived in his condo.

For the Republican leadership, draining the swamp is only meant literally, not figuratively.

Pal Review

A rather scathing editorial comment on pal review has appeared in Global and Planetary Change  sadly behind a paywall, but Eli suspects soon to be featured, if not already on a number of blogs.  It concerns a paper published earlier by Hermann. Harde: “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere”. Global and Planetary Change 152 (2017), 19–26 which can be viewed on line.  This paper was much commented on, in the sense of how did this crap get published in an ostensibly useful journal as well as a Detailed Comment by a number of extremely distinguished lagomorphs,  and today we have an answer from the editorial board

During the initial manuscript submission, H. Harde suggested five potential reviewers. Most if not all of them are prominent individuals advocating that currently raising CO2 concentrations would be natural and not related to human influence. A careful assessment of their CVs, fields of expertise and publications lists leads to the conclusion that none of the five reviewers proposed by Harde can be considered as an expert or authority in carbon cycle, carbon or climate sensitivity or similar fields of research.

Two of them agreed to take on this onerous task.  This pal review kinda bothered the editors, nononono, not the editor who, shall Eli say, guided the Harde paper through the process that when they sent Harde's reply to the Detailed Comment itself out for review,

In reviewing the Reply, the reviewers felt that Harde's argument is “...too simplistic, based on invalid assumptions, ignores a whole body of observational evidence, and cites selectively literature that has long-time been disproved”. The experts confirm the suggestion by Köhler et al. (2018) that “...the paper be withdrawn by the author, editor or publisher due to fundamental errors in the understanding of the carbon cycle.” Most importantly, the expert reviewers clarified that Harde (2017) does not contribute to a seemingly open scientific debate or provides an alternative view. In contrast, it “...contains many mistakes, misconceptions and omissions and ignores a vast body of scholarly literature on the subject” (quotes from the reviews).

and the other editors and Elsevier were extremely not happy about how the reviewers of Harde's manuscript were selected and between the line, the editor who did the deed

. . .however in the case of the initial submission of Harde (2017), this was not done. Additional factors indicated the potential for there to be flaws with this submission: it is highly unlikely that a single author without any demonstrated scientific track record in this field can ‘scrutinize’ and disprove the work of dozens or hundreds of experts performed over several decades; work that has been verified with multiple lines of independent evidence and is regularly reviewed in an utmost transparent process such as the Assessment Reports of the IPCC (2013).

 Suggestions?  Of course, the editors had some including publishing the name of the handling editor for all papers and increase the involvement of the entire editorial board

The Editorial Board is more than decoration; it is an exclusive pool of highly qualified experts who are committed to support the entire review process and provide additional expert opinions in the case of conflicting reviews or doubt.

and the publisher agreed

in this case the author selected an editor who was not an expert in the field and that editor invited the reviewers suggested by the author without checking their credentials – the editor was therefore not in a position to perform a sufficiently critical evaluation of the manuscript.

 Elsevier agreed with the suggestion to publish the name of the editor who makes the decision to publish with on the publication, to appoint new editors to better cover the field and that authors should not suggest the names of possible reviewers.

This all reminds Eli of yesteryear.  Some here abouts may remember Gerlich and Tscheuschner published a 90 page paper on how atmospheric science was wrong in a condensed matter journal, the International Journal of Modern Physics B.  Georg Hoffman had something to say about the process which reminds us that this is not the first time that motivated editors have slipped nonsense into a journal.  It's in German so allow Eli to translate

I wanted to know a little more detail then. Who made what decision regarding G / T at the Journal? A request via the email address of the journal, which, as far as I can see, has a focus more in Asia, led me to editor Mr. Wong Chee Keong Benjamin, who was very proud of the 90 pages:

Physics is able to explain natural phenomena, such as climate change. Furthermore, heat transfer and thermodynamic concepts such as Gibbs theorem have numerous applications in solar technology and condensed matter physics.

I wondered if he had read the paper, and indeed, if anyone at IJMPB had read the paper. When asked who had accepted the paper, he sent me much to my surprise back to Germany. According to Mr. Keong Benjamin the final decision would have been made by Professor Wolfram Schommers. In turn, he was not pleased that I even considered reporting on this paper. He said that he had to stand by the decision of the house editor (not knowing who that was) and trust the reviewers. The only way to respond to G / T would be via peer-reviewed response in IJMPB.  

This appears to have been Prof. Schommers fall back position.  Unfortunately for him, the bunnies pushed on but that is another story.

When the lion roars, who will not fear? The same peer review, which not only allowed this paper through especially including comments about the "scientific misconduct of Raschke / Bakan"? I mean, you can do one thing (write this post) and you do not have to do the other one (provide a formal reply). Professor Schommers, I think, should be less worried about what I'm writing in this little blog at the end of the world than about how peer review works in his journal. The Gerlich / Tscheuschner paper is one of the saddest examples of how peer review can sometimes go down the drain, and it would be desirable if the journal would do something to limit the damage. An apology to Stephan Bakan and Ehrhard Raschke would be a first step.

Guns, Part 2: A "Well-Regulated" Militia for Concealed Carry

Borrowing in a way from William's prior comment that didn't like my idea of guns that didn't last forever:

I think this kind of thinking is just the wrong way to go. Overly complex, hard to sell. I'd go the other way: take the constitution more literally. Accept the right to bear arms, but in the context of "a well-regulated militia", which is your justification for extensive background checks, etc. etc. I think your path to success is convincing folk that the liberals aren't coming for their gunz, providing they are responsible. Offering them rubbish gunz that fall apart doesn't seem likely to work.

I could get distracted here:  I wasn't saying to sell guns that wouldn't work, but rather guns that wouldn't work forever. If you keep a gun for self-defense (mostly stupid, but whatever) then get your lazy butt off to a gun range once every five years and shoot a few rounds to make sure it works. You'll probably have to dump that gun after five to fifteen years and get another one. It won't kill you to do that.

That's not what I wanted to talk about though, but rather the well-regulated milita angle. I think that's a good one too. The gun-control researched often cited in favor of gun-control, John Donohue, said that the "good guy with a gun" that helped stop the Texas church shooter last year had the type of training that would fit into a well-regulated civilian militia. I've thought that is an area where the left side of the spectrum could say if someone is fixated by the idea of self defense with a gun, then get serious about and qualify for a civilian milita. If you're not willing to do that amount of work, then your self-perceived need for a gun couldn't actually be all that great.

The milita-service requirement could be to own a handgun or to have a concealed-carry permit, according to whatever the local politics will allow.

Guns for Self Defense Shouldn't Last Forever (And Maybe the Same for Ammo)

Kevin Drum lists the demands of the March For Our Lives:

Fund more gun violence research. We actually made a step in this direction when President Trump signed the 2018 budget, which clarifies that the 1996 Dickey Amendment doesn’t prohibit the CDC from conducting gun research.

Unleash the ATF. Let them store their background-check records on a computer, for example.

Universal background checks. In theory, everyone is in favor of this. In theory.

High-capacity magazine ban. This has long been my favorite. MFOL is calling for a 10-round limit. I’d make it six, myself.

Assault weapons ban. The gun folks are right when they say it’s tricky to define “assault weapon,” but it’s not actually impossible.

I agree with Kevin that more could be asked, so here's one more idea: guns (and maybe, ammunition) shouldn't last forever. It would help, slightly, in keeping our country from being overrun by guns if the guns had their own limited lifespans.

Simply requiring guns sold for self-defense be made of parts that tend to wear out and rust would be fine. If you want a gun that will last for decades and could be fired thousands of times (if say you're someone who actually goes to a range regularly) then pay an extra $50-$100 that will go into a fund that will help respond to violence made worse by guns flooding our country. I expect most people will go for a cheaper option.

Even more intriguing would be ammunition that degrades with normal atmospheric moisture but is fine is fine if kept sealed. The great advantage in this case is that idiots will stop leaving loaded guns lying around because they can't guarantee then that bullets will fire. I'm not sure this is feasible, but it doesn't seem impossible.

UPDATE:  borrowed this from a previous idea that weapons supplied in dicey situations like Syria, if they should be supplied at all, shouldn't last forever.

Dear Judge Alsup: The TL:DR

Gingerbaker asked for the TL:DR for the good Judge Alsup.  Eli had already written it over at Real Climate, but deep in the comments so here it is

Eli Rabett explains it all about question 2, whether N2 and O2 play a role in the greenhouse effect.

A three parter with some TL:DRs below

A bit on observations and spectroscopy: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/03/dear-judge-alsop-spectroscopic-basis.html showing that the collision free absorption of O2 and N2 can be ignored. Just too small

A discussion about the physics of molecular spectroscopy: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/03/dear-judge-alsop-quantum-interlude.html  Shifts the balance from the qm selection rules to how molecules interact with electromagnetic radiation (e.g. IR or light). Discusses how changes in charge distributions during transitions determines whether photons are absorbed or emitted. Makes contact with electromagnetic antenna theory, eg electric dipole allowed transitions w. dipole antennas, etc. 

Eli figured the good Judge, having been a ham radio operator should grok that.

Collisional effects http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/03/dear-judge-alsop-putting-on-pressure.html
Starting from the quantum interlude discusses (much paw-waving) how collisional induction of electric dipoles drives continuum absorptions for N2, O2, CO2 and H2O (by implication, need to add a paragraph, the water vapor continuum being an important part of the greenhouse effect, of course the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is dialed in on average by the non-condensible greenhouse gases.)

There were a couple of open questions in the discussion which the Bunny will get around to next week.  Hope that helps.

Dear Judge Alsup: Putting on the Pressure

Some may recall that at the end of the first episode, the Spectroscopic Basis,  Eli asked why the CO2 IR absorption spectrum at atmospheric pressure

Was different from that at 1/1000 th of an atmosphere

The answer lies in the second letter to the judge, the Quantum Interlude, where Eli discussed how the interaction of light with molecules is really an interaction with the charges, the electrons and nuclei, and how that interaction can be decomposed into a series of multipole moments, the dominant one being the electric dipole, an asymmetry in the distribution of charges.  Higher moments, like the quadrupole and shudder, octapole, only become important when the dipole is zero because the molecule is cylindrically symmetric as is the case for N2 and O2.

Comparing the two spectra above, bunnies notice that the baseline has lifted in the first, and if they look real close or blow the figure up, they would see that the absorption lines are wider.

Now those out there who have taken General Chemistry, or even maybe General Physics, can go get a drink while Eli goes on.  Turns out that the electrons and nuclei in one molecule or atom can interact with the electrons and nuclei in nearby ones and move the charge around.  If we are dealing with molecules that have a dipole moment a picture of what is happening would look like this.






But we need not restrict molecular interactions to only dipole-dipole forces, but can also include the interaction between a dipole and a molecule that has zero dipole moment.  In that case, the dipole can interact with the electrons on the dipoleless molecule and shove them around so that there is an induced dipole moment.  That is what is happening with the CO2 molecules in the first spectrum.  Collisions with N2 or O2 molecules induce a dipole on the N2 and O2 molecules, which then interact via the electric field with each other.  This spreads out the spectrum of the CO2 that we observe.

The symmetric N2 and O2 molecules are no longer so symmetric.  They can interact with IR light in the regions near their vibrational frequency via the induced electric dipole moment, but wait, there is more.  When two molecules with zero electric dipole collide, their electrons and nuclei can also rearrange (as a practical matter it takes a lot less energy in the collision to shove the electrons about than the nuclei, and a lot easier to move the outermost or valance electrons about.








So, let's take a look at what these collision induced dipole moments do to the absorption spectrum of N2 over 10 km at 70% N2.  The fuzz is the quadrupole absorption that was shown in the first letter to the judge.

O2, because of it's position at lower frequencies where the 300 K black body spectrum is more intense is perhaps more interesting

and we might better compare it's absorption spectrum with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4) which occur roughly at the same place in the spectrum at their measured mixing ratios in the atmosphere.  Even so, the effects of methane and ozone on the absorption are relatively small.

The upper scale shows the absorption coefficients of the molecular lines without boadening.

As a final (well semi-final) point, a Rabett could look for the absorption of O2 in the observed high resolution spectrum from the FIRST balloon ~60 km up

A definite maybe.

Now Eli did say semifinal.  Turns out there is a paper by Höpfner, Milz,Buehler,Orphal, and Stiller  from the Karlsruhr Institute of Technology that goes through the numbers.  They find

The effect of collision-induced absorption by molecularoxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) on the outgoing longwaveradiation (OLR) of the Earth’s atmosphere has been quantified. We have found that on global average under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2 by 0.11 W/m² and due to N2 by 0.17 W/m². Together this amounts to 15% of the OLR-reduction caused by CH4 at present atmospheric concentrations. Over Antarctica the combined effect of O2 and N2 increases on average to about 38% of CH4 with single values reaching up to 80%. This is explained by less interference of H2O spectral bands on the absorption features of O2 and N2 for dry atmospheric conditions.

An important point in interpreting these results (Eli's and the KIT group) is that while the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed from 280 to 410 ppm (see Keeling, Charles) in the last 150 years or more and the concentration of CH4 has more than doubled, the concentration of O2 has changed by a few ppm (see Keeling, Ralph), and N2 bugger all.  The small absorptions of O2 and N2 have remained constant only changing really in very deep time.

Eli has written to Dr. Hoepfner about a few questions but has not yet received a reply.

Sounds More Like Glacial Geo-Adaptation to Me

 (Source)

Interesting article in Nature speculating that certain possibly feasible, artificial interventions in major ice flows from Antarctica and Greenland could slow the pace of sea level rise. The ideas are artifical barriers that slow the flow of "warm" ocean waters that undercut and speed up ice flows, creating artificial islands that partially pin ice floating sheets in place, allowing them to brake ice flows from land, and pumping out lubricating water flows from underneath ice sheets that speed up their flow.

The authors acknowledge the difficulties and potential environmental damage caused by these interventions and consider them no substitute for reversing GHG emissions. To the extent that the effort is to reduce ice flow velocities to speeds closer to what happened prior to climate change, it sounds to me like it's approximating a more natural system than doing nothing. That's why I'd consider it more of an adaptation approach than a geoengineering approach that is meant to subsitute for actions on GHG emissions.

I'd be interested to know if these adaptations can help stabilize and recover the ice sheets that in the long term seem doomed, even with some level of recovery from climate change.

Definitely seems worth further research.

A Simple Model for Why the Greenhouse Effect Warms the Surface

While working on the answers to Judge Alsop's second question a very simple model that explains what is happening occurred to Eli about the third,

3.  What is the mechanism by which infrared radiation trapped by CO₂ in the atmosphere is turned into heat and finds its way back to sea level?

The thought goes back to the early days of thermodynamics when it was realized that heat flows and interrupting or slowing a flow while maintaining constant delivery rates requires increasing the pressure head of the pump

Heat from the Sun flows to the Earth's surface at a constant rate determined by its ~6000 K black body temperature.  The Earth's surface transforms the visible light from the sun into ~290 K IR emission which escapes to space.  The flow of energy from the Sun to the Earth has to EXACTLY (them's Nikolov caps folks) match the flow of energy from the Earth to space.

Greenhouse gases function as a regulating valve.  If their concentration increases, the valve restricts the energy flow and the Surface has to pump harder to maintain the flow.  If the concentrations decrease the pressure the pump is delivering decreases.  

The operating mechanism of the valve is simple. The higher the mixing ratio (concentration) of greenhouse gases, the more absorbing the atmosphere is at frequencies that the greenhouse gases can absorb. The optical density of the atmosphere at those frequencies sets the level at which each greenhouse gas can emit to space without being re-adsorbed, i.e. it sets the level below which emission is blocked.  The rate of emission from the level at which the greenhouse gas IR emissions can reach space thus rises with concentration.  Since the temperature decreases with altitude, the higher the effective level, the slower the emission, the more the valve closes.

OK, make a copy of this and take it to your festive dinner.  Haul it out when Uncle Ralph starts.

Dear Judge Alsup: The Quantum Interlude

In Part I, the Spectroscopic Basis, Eli looked at measurements of the O2, N2 and CO2 spectra and found that the CO2 is absorption is many times stronger than the O2, and N2 absorption even taking into acount the much higher density of the diatomics .  Strong enough that one can neglect the absorption of the other two molecules as a practical matter, however let the Bunny not stop there but go on to the quantum basis of all this trying not to get either too mathematical or too esoteric (esoteric comes in Part III:  Putting the Pressure On where the surprises are).  Eli will attempt to be correct, but not perfect and certainly not complete, that is a two semester course.

Starting back with neolithic quantum physics, let us now look at the emission spectrum of a blackbody.  We can treat the surface of the Earth as one in the IR with unit emissivity (OK ice is a bit different but it is a lot colder so it emits a lot less) and look at the spectrum.we would expect at 290 K

where your gracious host has marked where our three players, O2, N2 and CO2 would absorb and what the black body emission would be at 290K.  The observant among Eli's readers have noticed that there is simply no IR, or darn near none of it out where N2 and the CO2 asymmetric stretch absorbs.

If you want to know what the bending and symmetric stretching vibrations are, make sure your significant other or keeper is not around.  Place your fists on either side of your head and move them up and down or forward and back.  Your head is the model of the C atom and the fists are oxygen.  That is the bending vibration.  There are two such, forward and back and up and down.  They have the same frequency and Eli calls them degenerate.  If somebunny catches you doing this, you may be so called also.  For the asymmetric stretch move one of your fists toward your head and the other away while bending the noggin toward the fist that is trying to hit it.  Then reverse.  Folks doing this too enthusiastically can knock themselves out.

Rabett Run now needs to crawl a bit further down the physics tree to Electricity and Magnetism.  Light (Eli will use the word light to describe IR, which strictly speaking annoys the fussbudgets who reserve light for visible light, but what the heck), is electromagnetic radiation, from the gamma ray to the radio waves and beyond in both directions.

Molecules are composed of atoms, which are composed of positively charged nuclei and negatively charged electrons.  The charges have electric fields, which interact with each other and the electromagnetic field.  The forces created by the interaction can move the charges relative to each other and in space.

We can describe the field created by the electrons and nuclei one by one or we can describe the potential energy in the field at a point  a large distance r from the molecule as a power series in (1/r)ⁿ.  If r is large, the importance of each term decreases with n. It is pretty well hopeless to describe the field created by the charges one by one especially if they are moving, and the power series converges quickly.  That means that each term is a lot bigger than the next so in practice we only need to keep the first non zero term, maybe the second.  This power series is called a multipole expansion.

You can look up the details of the multipole expansion, but it is just a bunch of geometry where each charge qi is some distance ri from a point in space P which is quite far away.  For convenience in what follows we can let the origin of the coordinate system be at the center of charge of the molecule.

The first term in the multipole expansion is proportional to the sum over all the charges divided by (r).  Since molecules are neutral the sum of charges is zero and the first term is zero for a molecule.

The second term, for which the potential would vary as 1/r² is called the electric dipole and is equal to Σ qi di where Σ is the sum over all the charges and di  is a vector pointing towards charge i.  Rather than bothering about the math, let's look at some examples CO2 and H2O.

In the case of CO2 the molecule is cylindrically symmetric. The distance rc for the carbon nucleus is zero and the contribution to the dipole moment will be zero.  Each of the oxygen nuclei has the same charge, but the distance from the carbon nucleus is +d for one and -d for the other so their contributions to the net electric dipole cancel.

For the electrons, the image is an electron anomaly distribution, with the blue areas being electron rich and the red electron poor, but the point is that the distribution is also cylindrically symmetric and for every point that contributes positively to to the electric dipole moment there is one that contributes negatively.  They cancel, and the net electric dipole moment of ground state CO2 is zero. 
The same is true for O2 and N2

The case for H2O is different.  The shape of the molecule is bent, there is a region of high electron density on the side of the molecule facing away from the hydrogen atoms and the electron density on the side of the hydrogen atoms facing away from the oxygen atom is electron poor.  H2O will have a permanent dipole moment. The blue arrow points towards the region of higher negative charge 

When a molecule with a permanent dipole moment rotates (there are three axes that water vapor can rotate about) the dipole moment moves and that movement interacts with light because light is an electro-magnetic field that is influenced by moving dipoles and/or can influence them.  By this mechanism rotating water vapor molecules can either gain (absorption) or lose (emission) light (IR or better put Far IR) between 0 and 800 cm^-1 accompanied by a change in rotational state.  Molecules with zero dipole moment can spin merrily on their way but they do not interact with light in this way.  We can see these rotational transition in the  spectrum of water vapor between 0 and 800 cm^-1

The semi-log plot comes from another handy dandy web app Spectral Plot.  The rotational lines (the bunch on the left) overlap the CO2 bending vibration as can be seen in the high resolution FIRST balloon specta taken at about 60 km looking down.

The bunch of water vapor lines at 1700 cm^-1 are the result of the bending vibrational transition.  Looking at the electron density map of HOH, it is clear that changing the molecule bends the H-O-H angle will change, vibrating about the equilibrium ground state position as shown in this gif from Marc Henry.

If we averaged the dipole moment over one, or many cycles of the vibration it would not change, but it obviously does change during the cycle and this change can both generate an electromagnetic field and absorb energy from one. It is the CHANGE in the dipole moment during a transition that couples the molecule to light.  

The instantaneous change in the dipole moment is called the transition dipole moment.  It is the non-zero transition dipole moment that makes the bend  (Source at UVA)

 

 and asymmetric stretch of CO2 IR active,

while the symmetric stretch is not.  A little thought will show that when homonuclear diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 begin to vibrate there is no change in the dipole moment and therefore they cannot absorb or emit IR accompanied by a change in vibrational state.



A really good analogy to this is a dipole antenna such as the ones used for receiving FM radio.




So how do N2 and O2 interact with light?  Well, the next element in the multipole expansion beyond the electric dipole moment is the quadrupole moment.  Eli will not bother you with how to calculate it. It turns out that, both N2 and O2 have ferocious quadrupole transition moments, essentially because they are so cylindrically symmetric and the same is true of the symmetric stretch of CO2, but even with a strong quadrupole transition moment the fact that the interaction of a quadrupole with light is proportional to 1/r³ rather than 1/r² makes their absorption much weaker. There is also an antenna analogy.  The Adcock antenna, used for direction finding, is a quadrupole array.

The TL:DR version of this is that it is the interaction of the electromagnetic field of light with the charge distribution of molecules that gives rise to absorption and emission of IR radiation. Although not dealt with here, quantum mechanics tells us about what changes in rotational and vibrational levels are allowed if the electromagnetic interaction is non-zero.  If the electric dipole is nonzero, vibrational transitions with unit change in quantum number are strongly favored, the same is true for rotational transitions.  Overtones with changes of two or more quanta are very weak.

So stay tuned for the exciting finale.

Dear Judge Alsup: The Spectroscopic basis

In a suit brought by cities in California against Exxon, Judge Alsup has asked of the parties a set of questions which some parties on the INTERNET are busy crowd sourcing the answers to.  Now Eli has never been one to avoid a pile on, so the Bunny thought he might essay an answer to two of the questions

2.  What is the molecular difference by which CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation but oxygen and nitrogen do not? 

3.  What is the mechanism by which infrared radiation trapped by CO₂ in the atmosphere is turned into heat and finds its way back to sea level?

Let Rabett Run start with question 2. Many of the answers start and end with what was learned in Modern Physics or Physical Chemistry.  Real Climate has settled on

Greenhouse gases are those that are able to absorb and emit radiation in the infrared, but this is highly dependent on the gases molecular structure. Diatomic molecules (like N2 or O2) have stretching modes (with the distance between the two molecules expanding and contracting), but these require a lot of energy (so they absorb only at higher energies. Vibrational modes in molecules with three or more atoms (H2O, CO2, O3, N2O, CH4, CFCs, HFCs…) include bending motions that are easier to excite and so will absorb and emit lower energy photons which coincide with the infrared radiation that the Earth emits. Thus it is these molecules that intercept the radiation that the Earth emits, delaying its escape to space.

This is approximately true, but not quite the whole story and much can be learned by going a bit deeper.  It is not that N2 or O2 cannot absorb or emit IR, but their absorption and emission is many orders of magnitude weaker than H2O, CO2 and other greenhouse gases found in the atmosphere.   How many orders of magnitude?  Well about ten.

A good place to start is the HITRAN data base maintained by the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.  HITRAN stands for High Resolution Transmission.  The database, just like the JANAF tables, is a fruit of the cold war started when the US Air Force was interested in learning more about the propagation of light in the atmosphere for such things as aiming missiles and such.  It is essentially a list of lines in the transmission spectra of various molecules under different conditions of  temperature, and pressure.  Using the database one can generate spectra of self-same molecules which are eerily accurate.  GATS among others provides a front end to calculate spectra using HITRAN, so let us start to explore.

The first question is does N2 or O2 absorb IR light. We know the vibrational frequency of these molecules, so we can look at what the database tells us how much light nitrogen would absorb in the atmosphere at a pressure of 1 mbar (1000th of atmospheric pressure. Be patient the reason for this choice will become clear in a few minutes), a temperature of 296 K and a path length of 1000 km.  Yes Eli knows that such a gas cell is not currently available, but with HITRAN we can accurately model this.

The alternating intensities of the lines are due to the symmetry of the nitrogen molecule but that is another story with which we need not concern ourselves at this time.  We can do the same for O2 

Turns out that the triplets seen in this spectrum are the source of the signal that the Microwave Sounding Units that measure tropospheric temperatures monitor.

But now we can do the same for CO2

The difference in path length for absorbing about the same amount of light by CO2 is 0.1 cm, or, if you wish 10^-6 km.  So the difference in the absorption would be a factor of 10^-9.  

But you say, the mixing ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere is 410 parts per million or 0.00041, and the concentration of N2 is 0.70 thus the number  of N2 molecules per CO2 molecule is just 1.75 x 10⁴ while the N2 absorption is 10^-9th of the CO2 absorption.  Put that together and the amount of IR absorbed by N2 is roughly 0.00002 of that absorbed by CO2.

Ms. Rabett is calling, so let Eli provide a bit of a teaser for Part II.  Here is the absorption of 400 ppm CO2 at atmospheric pressure across a 3 m cell.

Breakthrough Institute and The Politics of Limits

The Interchange is an interesting renewable energy/renewables business podcast by GreenTech Media, and the most controversial podcast I've heard so far is an interview with Breakthrough Institute's Alex Trembath.

Some thoughts:

• Alex says they've consciously decided to be less critical of mainstream environmental groups, less obnoxious and rock-throwing, and good for them for this change. There are some times when obnoxious rock-throwing is appropriate - that wasn't the case regarding past BI behavior, so it's good that they've changed it and are willing to say they've decided to change it.

• Alex rightly says the environmental movement prior to 2004 (when the Breakthrough guys started doing their thing) had a much stronger emphasis on limits to growth then it does today, but is wrong to say there was something wrong about that. I'm sure plenty of people back then realized solar and wind costs were dropping dramatically, but I don't know if anyone would've said you can count on renewable energy being cheaper than fossil fuels, even without subsidies or accounting for externalities. That meant some type of limit was a necessary argument back then for energy issues (and remains a component of many other environmental issues).

• He goes on to argue that limits to growth and saying no in general is a bad political tactic. I'm open to that argument but I'm not sure what BI is doing with it or backing it up with solid research (might be a little unfair to demand that of a podcast).

• Alex says BI started off with a focus on renewables and EVs. That's sure not how I remember it, which was nuclear power all the time. He says they're now into nuclear as well. Yep.

• He claims power systems get unstable with renewables are 50% of the total. I thought we were over that, and the discussion really is 80% versus 100%.

• Alex makes an unnecessary dig at energy efficiency, with the Jevons Paradox etc.  That's a miss - I think the political economy vastly underestimates the unsexy value of efficiency, the complete opposite of what he was saying.

All in all, too much techno-optimism, but it could be worse, and BI seems to be moving in a better direction. It's less clear to me whether they have the chops to make any real contribution, though.