2015, yes, the warmest on record.

[80zephyr]

Actually yes it is possible, based upon the climate history of the planet. There's nothing vague about it.

Look at history, and when I say look at history, look at all of it, not the micro-fractions of it people like you seem incapable of looking beyond.

The history clearly demonstrates that earth has been on a slow cooling trend for the past 6000 - 8000 years. Based on previous cycles, the earth was on schedule to keep cooling for at least another 20,000 years, until the next ice age was reached.

Yet, contrary to those natural cycles, the earth suddenly started warming quickly. Given how the current natural cycle is cooling, the current fast warming is clearly not part of a natural cycle.

If you were ignorant that the current natural cycle should be slow cooling, you really need to learn the basics of climate history.

Hmm. So you say that the earth has been cooling for 6 to 8,000 years? OK. So that means that 8,000 years ago, the earth was warmer than it is now. Now tell me, was the earth of 8,000 years ago(and according to you, warmer) an inhospitable place?

 

[Wuwei]

We've conducted experiments to demonstrate magnetism can create an electric current, we've conducted countless experiments to demonstrate anti-particles, but none can show a single experiment demonstrating how 120ppm of CO2 will increase temperature or change the climate of planet Earth.

AGW: It just's not science, folks

As I said before the AGW community is satisfied that CO2 has an effect. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong; they have the world under their thumb now. They have no motivation to prove to the world or prove to themselves AGW is right or wrong. So who is going to do your particular experiment? Try whining at the NIPCC or Heritage foundation or some such organization to do the experiment to prove the warmers wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

We've conducted experiments to demonstrate magnetism can create an electric current, we've conducted countless experiments to demonstrate anti-particles, but none can show a single experiment demonstrating how 120ppm of CO2 will increase temperature or change the climate of planet Earth.

AGW: It just's not science, folks

As I said before the AGW community is satisfied that CO2 has an effect. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong; they have the world under their thumb now. They have no motivation to prove to the world or prove to themselves AGW is right or wrong. So who is going to do your particular experiment? Try whining at the NIPCC or Heritage foundation or some such organization to do the experiment to prove the warmers wrong.

We are actually DOING the experiment right now.. By adding the mere 5% of CO2 to the carbon cycle that already exists. But the controls on this experiment really suck. Because it's ASSUMED that about 1/2 of that 5% is soaked up in excess sink capacity in the Carbon Cycle. AND it's assumed that the natural sink/source rates of the carbon cycle are static. They are also largely UNKNOWN or poorly quantized and are spatially and temporally variant.

The empirical data so far --- as measured by the MASTemp, is VERY CLOSE to the fundamental calculation of CO2 atmos heating.. WITHOUT any feedbacks or magic multipliers on climate sensitivity. And that number is about 1 degC/doubling CO2.. Now that 5% or 2.5% yearly increase might cause a FRACTION of the MAST change between say 20% and 100% of the warming.

The 1st industrial doubling won't end til 2040 or so --- and the NEXT (which requires the twice the amount of CO2 because of logarithmic relation) won't happen until maybe ever --- or at least in the latter 2100s..

So therein lies the issue.. If what we're actually measuring as temp rise vs CO2 concentration --- there are NO BOLD headlines, no bold political power grabs, no fuss in the enviro forum and we can all go back to old timey environmental arguments about beavers..

 

[Wuwei]

We are actually DOING the experiment right now.. By adding the mere 5% of CO2 to the carbon cycle that already exists. But the controls on this experiment really suck. Because it's ASSUMED that about 1/2 of that 5% is soaked up in excess sink capacity in the Carbon Cycle. AND it's assumed that the natural sink/source rates of the carbon cycle are static. They are also largely UNKNOWN or poorly quantized and are spatially and temporally variant.

That is the operative sentence, "But the controls on this experiment really suck."
I think you are saying that your "experiment earth" is very unreliable. There are long term variations for many of the climate variables which would be very hard to separate out.

The variables of "experiment earth" would have to be known well within 1 W/mm^2 for it to reliably match the value that Trenberth and other warmers assume.

I think what the guys are clamoring for here is, what is the backradiation of CO2 under controlled static (laboratory?) conditions.

Yeah, I think that it would take a lot more decades to be convincing one way or another.

 

[mamooth]

Hmm. So you say that the earth has been cooling for 6 to 8,000 years? OK. So that means that 8,000 years ago, the earth was warmer than it is now. Now tell me, was the earth of 8,000 years ago(and according to you, warmer) an inhospitable place?

No, because it was less than 0.5C warmer.

The amount of warming matters. We're already at around 0.9C, and that's causing problems. 2.0C is unavoidable, and that will be painful. 4.0C would be catastrophic. That's what we're trying to avoid.

 

[flacaltenn]

We are actually DOING the experiment right now.. By adding the mere 5% of CO2 to the carbon cycle that already exists. But the controls on this experiment really suck. Because it's ASSUMED that about 1/2 of that 5% is soaked up in excess sink capacity in the Carbon Cycle. AND it's assumed that the natural sink/source rates of the carbon cycle are static. They are also largely UNKNOWN or poorly quantized and are spatially and temporally variant.

That is the operative sentence, "But the controls on this experiment really suck."
I think you are saying that your "experiment earth" is very unreliable. There are long term variations for many of the climate variables which would be very hard to separate out.

The variables of "experiment earth" would have to be known well within 1 W/mm^2 for it to reliably match the value that Trenberth and other warmers assume.

I think what the guys are clamoring for here is, what is the backradiation of CO2 under controlled static (laboratory?) conditions.

Yeah, I think that it would take a lot more decades to be convincing one way or another.

I'm thinking of waiting for an administration change in DC and then going and getting a mere $100K GW grant to do "the experiment".. It would modeled after my desert camping experiences where at night -- when a high cloud deck moves in -- you can FEEL the backradiation !!!

All you need is room exposed to a cold night sky (astronomical observatory?) and build in an IR transparent ceiling about a couple yards thick. You model a blackbody heater distributed on the floor that cannot keep up with the cooling of the room. Just pump atmos into the "glass ceiling" and wait until all the "deniers" are freezing their bunz off.

And then add 150ppm of CO2 to the ceiling.. Wait for their teeth to stop chattering and record the results..
You MIGHT have to pump a bit higher concentration to bring them out of hypothermia tho..

Pretty sure I could get that grant if I had the right PR...

 

[Wuwei]

All you need is room exposed to a cold night sky (astronomical observatory?) and build in an IR transparent ceiling about a couple yards thick. You model a blackbody heater distributed on the floor that cannot keep up with the cooling of the room. Just pump atmos into the "glass ceiling" and wait until all the "deniers" are freezing their bunz off.

Your experiment would show a blanketing effect, but may not satisfy all warmers and deniers on the question of how much CO2 affects global warming.

If you want to relate an experiment to atmospheric physics you really have to consider that equilibrium requires that the warmth of the earth be radiated largely by what's at the TOA, which is in turn affected by everything on down. Since CO2, CH4, H2O, absorptions saturate very easily, the only way the GHGs allow radiation to escape to space is where it becomes thin enough so that the logarithmic transmittance relation does not completely block it. That is very high in the atmosphere where it is very cold and the Stefan Boltzman law does not allow much radiation to escape. That cold radiation is what causes the GHGs to become a good blanket.

 

[jc456]

Old rocks thinks we had sattelites orbiting earth in 1902 when in fact a few old guys wearing bifocals were checking and recording temperature to a tenth of a degree using a thermometer

Rational people, of course, just chuckle at how stupid the deniers are. Some people understand basic statistics. Those who fail at it, those are deniers.

We could try to explain the statistics to Bear, or Sassy or Billy, but all of them are literally too stupid to ever understand. You can't teach a chimp to talk, no matter how much you try.

Deniers just need to understand that they're not ignored and laughed at because of a socialist conspiracy. They're ignored and laughed at because they're profoundly stupid people.

logical people think logically and know better.

 

[jc456]

Should the earth be warming? Simple yes or no answer.

As that question is very vague, a simple yes or no answer is not possible.

Are you asking whether the earth should be warming naturally? The answer to that would be "no", as the world was on a long-term cooling trend before humans pumped out the CO2.

Are you asking whether the earth should be warming given all the changes humans have made? The answer to that would be "yes", as that's what the physics requires.

Are you asking if warming would be a good thing that we should do? The answer to that would be "no", as the amount of warming being created by humans is a bad thing.

warming is a bad thing. And you say it with conviction like you have evidence. Post it up dude/dudette!!!

 

[jc456]

We've conducted experiments to demonstrate magnetism can create an electric current, we've conducted countless experiments to demonstrate anti-particles, but none can show a single experiment demonstrating how 120ppm of CO2 will increase temperature or change the climate of planet Earth.

AGW: It just's not science, folks

Of course, the non-liars all know that Frank is just proudly lying, being there have been hundreds of experiments showing the absorption spectrum of all the gases.

HITRAN

So, what's it like Frank, being correctly classified as a cult liar by the entire world? For your sake, I hope that the emotional validation you get from your mutual crying jags with the other cultists makes up for the pain of your constant humiliation.

Frank is spot on. What is it he lied about, please post up that lie for us since you wish to discuss him?

 

[flacaltenn]

All you need is room exposed to a cold night sky (astronomical observatory?) and build in an IR transparent ceiling about a couple yards thick. You model a blackbody heater distributed on the floor that cannot keep up with the cooling of the room. Just pump atmos into the "glass ceiling" and wait until all the "deniers" are freezing their bunz off.

Your experiment would show a blanketing effect, but may not satisfy all warmers and deniers on the question of how much CO2 affects global warming.

If you want to relate an experiment to atmospheric physics you really have to consider that equilibrium requires that the warmth of the earth be radiated largely by what's at the TOA, which is in turn affected by everything on down. Since CO2, CH4, H2O, absorptions saturate very easily, the only way the GHGs allow radiation to escape to space is where it becomes thin enough so that the logarithmic transmittance relation does not completely block it. That is very high in the atmosphere where it is very cold and the Stefan Boltzman law does not allow much radiation to escape. That cold radiation is what causes the GHGs to become a good blanket.

I just want to have fun freezing a few GHouse deniers in a locked mirrored room. And having them beg for a little more CO2 to warm things up... Hopefully get paid for doing that..

That should resolve the existence of "back-radiation" dont you think??
Then --- as you say -- the issue of differentiating the contribution of CO2 to everything else in the climate system is not really acheivable.

I agree with your analysis to a point. In the absence of H2O -- those other absorption lines have to work very hard to saturate before the TOA. That effect alone makes it very hard to generalize about TOA measurements and assign blame to other GH gases. TOA measurements can be made globally and seasonally, but are usually presented as the same kind of GLOBAL measurement that obscures most other GW metrics -- like global climate sensitivities, or global cyclonic energy or even global temperature. ..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We've conducted experiments to demonstrate magnetism can create an electric current, we've conducted countless experiments to demonstrate anti-particles, but none can show a single experiment demonstrating how 120ppm of CO2 will increase temperature or change the climate of planet Earth.

AGW: It just's not science, folks

As I said before the AGW community is satisfied that CO2 has an effect. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong; they have the world under their thumb now. They have no motivation to prove to the world or prove to themselves AGW is right or wrong. So who is going to do your particular experiment? Try whining at the NIPCC or Heritage foundation or some such organization to do the experiment to prove the warmers wrong.

WHAT KIND OF STUPID, NON-SCIENTIFIC RESPONSE WAS THAT???????

Oh, the AGWCult is happy, hmmmkap

 

[jc456]

We are actually DOING the experiment right now.. By adding the mere 5% of CO2 to the carbon cycle that already exists. But the controls on this experiment really suck. Because it's ASSUMED that about 1/2 of that 5% is soaked up in excess sink capacity in the Carbon Cycle. AND it's assumed that the natural sink/source rates of the carbon cycle are static. They are also largely UNKNOWN or poorly quantized and are spatially and temporally variant.

That is the operative sentence, "But the controls on this experiment really suck."
I think you are saying that your "experiment earth" is very unreliable. There are long term variations for many of the climate variables which would be very hard to separate out.

The variables of "experiment earth" would have to be known well within 1 W/mm^2 for it to reliably match the value that Trenberth and other warmers assume.

I think what the guys are clamoring for here is, what is the backradiation of CO2 under controlled static (laboratory?) conditions.

Yeah, I think that it would take a lot more decades to be convincing one way or another.

so the question is, did the scientist state their would be an increase in hurricanes? And has there been? We know that CO2 went up, no one is disputing that.

 

[jc456]

All you need is room exposed to a cold night sky (astronomical observatory?) and build in an IR transparent ceiling about a couple yards thick. You model a blackbody heater distributed on the floor that cannot keep up with the cooling of the room. Just pump atmos into the "glass ceiling" and wait until all the "deniers" are freezing their bunz off.

Your experiment would show a blanketing effect, but may not satisfy all warmers and deniers on the question of how much CO2 affects global warming.

If you want to relate an experiment to atmospheric physics you really have to consider that equilibrium requires that the warmth of the earth be radiated largely by what's at the TOA, which is in turn affected by everything on down. Since CO2, CH4, H2O, absorptions saturate very easily, the only way the GHGs allow radiation to escape to space is where it becomes thin enough so that the logarithmic transmittance relation does not completely block it. That is very high in the atmosphere where it is very cold and the Stefan Boltzman law does not allow much radiation to escape. That cold radiation is what causes the GHGs to become a good blanket.

I just want to have fun freezing a few GHouse deniers in a locked mirrored room. And having them beg for a little more CO2 to warm things up... Hopefully get paid for doing that..

That should resolve the existence of "back-radiation" dont you think??
Then --- as you say -- the issue of differentiating the contribution of CO2 to everything else in the climate system is not really acheivable.

I agree with your analysis to a point. In the absence of H2O -- those other absorption lines have to work very hard to saturate before the TOA. That effect alone makes it very hard to generalize about TOA measurements and assign blame to other GH gases. TOA measurements can be made globally and seasonally, but are usually presented as the same kind of GLOBAL measurement that obscures most other GW metrics -- like global climate sensitivities, or global cyclonic energy or even global temperature. ..

hey Flac, what happens to the CO2 when there are no clouds to keep the heat in at night? We are pumping CO2 into the night air right? So where is the magic backradiation when there are no clouds?

BTW, I'm freezing my ass off today and you are already claiming back radiation. how is that working for the folks in Chicago and Minnesota?

 

[flacaltenn]

All you need is room exposed to a cold night sky (astronomical observatory?) and build in an IR transparent ceiling about a couple yards thick. You model a blackbody heater distributed on the floor that cannot keep up with the cooling of the room. Just pump atmos into the "glass ceiling" and wait until all the "deniers" are freezing their bunz off.

Your experiment would show a blanketing effect, but may not satisfy all warmers and deniers on the question of how much CO2 affects global warming.

If you want to relate an experiment to atmospheric physics you really have to consider that equilibrium requires that the warmth of the earth be radiated largely by what's at the TOA, which is in turn affected by everything on down. Since CO2, CH4, H2O, absorptions saturate very easily, the only way the GHGs allow radiation to escape to space is where it becomes thin enough so that the logarithmic transmittance relation does not completely block it. That is very high in the atmosphere where it is very cold and the Stefan Boltzman law does not allow much radiation to escape. That cold radiation is what causes the GHGs to become a good blanket.

I just want to have fun freezing a few GHouse deniers in a locked mirrored room. And having them beg for a little more CO2 to warm things up... Hopefully get paid for doing that..

That should resolve the existence of "back-radiation" dont you think??
Then --- as you say -- the issue of differentiating the contribution of CO2 to everything else in the climate system is not really acheivable.

I agree with your analysis to a point. In the absence of H2O -- those other absorption lines have to work very hard to saturate before the TOA. That effect alone makes it very hard to generalize about TOA measurements and assign blame to other GH gases. TOA measurements can be made globally and seasonally, but are usually presented as the same kind of GLOBAL measurement that obscures most other GW metrics -- like global climate sensitivities, or global cyclonic energy or even global temperature. ..

hey Flac, what happens to the CO2 when there are no clouds to keep the heat in at night? We are pumping CO2 into the night air right? So where is the magic backradiation when there are no clouds?

BTW, I'm freezing my ass off today and you are already claiming back radiation. how is that working for the folks in Chicago and Minnesota?

CO2 back radiation is there 24 hours a day. If it wasn't -- you wouldn't just have a frozen ass, you'd be missing fingers and toes. IIRC -- CO2 accounts for something like 12degC in the nominal surface temperatures.
(Could be wrong -- look it up)..

 

[jc456]

All you need is room exposed to a cold night sky (astronomical observatory?) and build in an IR transparent ceiling about a couple yards thick. You model a blackbody heater distributed on the floor that cannot keep up with the cooling of the room. Just pump atmos into the "glass ceiling" and wait until all the "deniers" are freezing their bunz off.

Your experiment would show a blanketing effect, but may not satisfy all warmers and deniers on the question of how much CO2 affects global warming.

If you want to relate an experiment to atmospheric physics you really have to consider that equilibrium requires that the warmth of the earth be radiated largely by what's at the TOA, which is in turn affected by everything on down. Since CO2, CH4, H2O, absorptions saturate very easily, the only way the GHGs allow radiation to escape to space is where it becomes thin enough so that the logarithmic transmittance relation does not completely block it. That is very high in the atmosphere where it is very cold and the Stefan Boltzman law does not allow much radiation to escape. That cold radiation is what causes the GHGs to become a good blanket.

I just want to have fun freezing a few GHouse deniers in a locked mirrored room. And having them beg for a little more CO2 to warm things up... Hopefully get paid for doing that..

That should resolve the existence of "back-radiation" dont you think??
Then --- as you say -- the issue of differentiating the contribution of CO2 to everything else in the climate system is not really acheivable.

I agree with your analysis to a point. In the absence of H2O -- those other absorption lines have to work very hard to saturate before the TOA. That effect alone makes it very hard to generalize about TOA measurements and assign blame to other GH gases. TOA measurements can be made globally and seasonally, but are usually presented as the same kind of GLOBAL measurement that obscures most other GW metrics -- like global climate sensitivities, or global cyclonic energy or even global temperature. ..

hey Flac, what happens to the CO2 when there are no clouds to keep the heat in at night? We are pumping CO2 into the night air right? So where is the magic backradiation when there are no clouds?

BTW, I'm freezing my ass off today and you are already claiming back radiation. how is that working for the folks in Chicago and Minnesota?

CO2 back radiation is there 24 hours a day. If it wasn't -- you wouldn't just have a frozen ass, you'd be missing fingers and toes. IIRC -- CO2 accounts for something like 12degC in the nominal surface temperatures.
(Could be wrong -- look it up)..

sure, just post up that experiment that proves back radiation. Oh that's right you ain't got one. Tell me how warm it is at about 30 thousand feet? And what is the pressure, can you breath there?

Edit, why is there moisture in a greenhouse? And why doesn't the temperatures continue to climb with CO2 added?

 

[flacaltenn]

All you need is room exposed to a cold night sky (astronomical observatory?) and build in an IR transparent ceiling about a couple yards thick. You model a blackbody heater distributed on the floor that cannot keep up with the cooling of the room. Just pump atmos into the "glass ceiling" and wait until all the "deniers" are freezing their bunz off.

Your experiment would show a blanketing effect, but may not satisfy all warmers and deniers on the question of how much CO2 affects global warming.

If you want to relate an experiment to atmospheric physics you really have to consider that equilibrium requires that the warmth of the earth be radiated largely by what's at the TOA, which is in turn affected by everything on down. Since CO2, CH4, H2O, absorptions saturate very easily, the only way the GHGs allow radiation to escape to space is where it becomes thin enough so that the logarithmic transmittance relation does not completely block it. That is very high in the atmosphere where it is very cold and the Stefan Boltzman law does not allow much radiation to escape. That cold radiation is what causes the GHGs to become a good blanket.

I just want to have fun freezing a few GHouse deniers in a locked mirrored room. And having them beg for a little more CO2 to warm things up... Hopefully get paid for doing that..

That should resolve the existence of "back-radiation" dont you think??
Then --- as you say -- the issue of differentiating the contribution of CO2 to everything else in the climate system is not really acheivable.

I agree with your analysis to a point. In the absence of H2O -- those other absorption lines have to work very hard to saturate before the TOA. That effect alone makes it very hard to generalize about TOA measurements and assign blame to other GH gases. TOA measurements can be made globally and seasonally, but are usually presented as the same kind of GLOBAL measurement that obscures most other GW metrics -- like global climate sensitivities, or global cyclonic energy or even global temperature. ..

hey Flac, what happens to the CO2 when there are no clouds to keep the heat in at night? We are pumping CO2 into the night air right? So where is the magic backradiation when there are no clouds?

BTW, I'm freezing my ass off today and you are already claiming back radiation. how is that working for the folks in Chicago and Minnesota?

CO2 back radiation is there 24 hours a day. If it wasn't -- you wouldn't just have a frozen ass, you'd be missing fingers and toes. IIRC -- CO2 accounts for something like 12degC in the nominal surface temperatures.
(Could be wrong -- look it up)..

sure, just post up that experiment that proves back radiation. Oh that's right you ain't got one. Tell me how warm it is at about 30 thousand feet? And what is the pressure, can you breath there?

Edit, why is there moisture in a greenhouse? And why doesn't the temperatures continue to climb with CO2 added?

I don't need an experiment -- I measure IR photon energy constantly in my work. I know that materials eject IR photons in all directions as a function of their temperature. That's how an IR thermometer works. And the basis for CO2 back radiation is covered in every textbook on Atmos Physics. Furthermore the backradiation HAS been measured reliably and repeatedly for over 60 years.

And the Earth is not literally a GreenHouse. It's just a convienent analogy for folks that don't want to take 4 or 6 semesters of specialized physics. The Earth surface temperatures are NOT just a function of added CO2. That's where the simplistic GW models went off the rails in PREDICTING short term surface warming. But that does not mean that CO2 has NO effect on the general surface temperature of the planet.. It DOES..

Have you SEEN a paper measuring back radiation? I'll certainly provide some for you if you promise to never state you've that it hasn't been done..

 

[jc456]

Your experiment would show a blanketing effect, but may not satisfy all warmers and deniers on the question of how much CO2 affects global warming.

If you want to relate an experiment to atmospheric physics you really have to consider that equilibrium requires that the warmth of the earth be radiated largely by what's at the TOA, which is in turn affected by everything on down. Since CO2, CH4, H2O, absorptions saturate very easily, the only way the GHGs allow radiation to escape to space is where it becomes thin enough so that the logarithmic transmittance relation does not completely block it. That is very high in the atmosphere where it is very cold and the Stefan Boltzman law does not allow much radiation to escape. That cold radiation is what causes the GHGs to become a good blanket.

I just want to have fun freezing a few GHouse deniers in a locked mirrored room. And having them beg for a little more CO2 to warm things up... Hopefully get paid for doing that..

That should resolve the existence of "back-radiation" dont you think??
Then --- as you say -- the issue of differentiating the contribution of CO2 to everything else in the climate system is not really acheivable.

I agree with your analysis to a point. In the absence of H2O -- those other absorption lines have to work very hard to saturate before the TOA. That effect alone makes it very hard to generalize about TOA measurements and assign blame to other GH gases. TOA measurements can be made globally and seasonally, but are usually presented as the same kind of GLOBAL measurement that obscures most other GW metrics -- like global climate sensitivities, or global cyclonic energy or even global temperature. ..

hey Flac, what happens to the CO2 when there are no clouds to keep the heat in at night? We are pumping CO2 into the night air right? So where is the magic backradiation when there are no clouds?

BTW, I'm freezing my ass off today and you are already claiming back radiation. how is that working for the folks in Chicago and Minnesota?

CO2 back radiation is there 24 hours a day. If it wasn't -- you wouldn't just have a frozen ass, you'd be missing fingers and toes. IIRC -- CO2 accounts for something like 12degC in the nominal surface temperatures.
(Could be wrong -- look it up)..

sure, just post up that experiment that proves back radiation. Oh that's right you ain't got one. Tell me how warm it is at about 30 thousand feet? And what is the pressure, can you breath there?

Edit, why is there moisture in a greenhouse? And why doesn't the temperatures continue to climb with CO2 added?

I don't need an experiment -- I measure IR photon energy constantly in my work. I know that materials eject IR photons in all directions as a function of their temperature. That's how an IR thermometer works. And the basis for CO2 back radiation is covered in every textbook on Atmos Physics. Furthermore the backradiation HAS been measured reliably and repeatedly for over 60 years.

And the Earth is not literally a GreenHouse. It's just a convienent analogy for folks that don't want to take 4 or 6 semesters of specialized physics. The Earth surface temperatures are NOT just a function of added CO2. That's where the simplistic GW models went off the rails in PREDICTING short term surface warming. But that does not mean that CO2 has NO effect on the general surface temperature of the planet.. It DOES..

Have you SEEN a paper measuring back radiation? I'll certainly provide some for you if you promise to never state you've that it hasn't been done..

sure post up a paper? is it in laymens terms or full of math that I haven't used in my life before and therefore can't understand anyway? I'm open to the challenge.

you act like me being a non scientist I am somehow off base, and yet there are scientist who don't believe. You agree?

 

[flacaltenn]

I just want to have fun freezing a few GHouse deniers in a locked mirrored room. And having them beg for a little more CO2 to warm things up... Hopefully get paid for doing that..

That should resolve the existence of "back-radiation" dont you think??
Then --- as you say -- the issue of differentiating the contribution of CO2 to everything else in the climate system is not really acheivable.

I agree with your analysis to a point. In the absence of H2O -- those other absorption lines have to work very hard to saturate before the TOA. That effect alone makes it very hard to generalize about TOA measurements and assign blame to other GH gases. TOA measurements can be made globally and seasonally, but are usually presented as the same kind of GLOBAL measurement that obscures most other GW metrics -- like global climate sensitivities, or global cyclonic energy or even global temperature. ..

hey Flac, what happens to the CO2 when there are no clouds to keep the heat in at night? We are pumping CO2 into the night air right? So where is the magic backradiation when there are no clouds?

BTW, I'm freezing my ass off today and you are already claiming back radiation. how is that working for the folks in Chicago and Minnesota?

CO2 back radiation is there 24 hours a day. If it wasn't -- you wouldn't just have a frozen ass, you'd be missing fingers and toes. IIRC -- CO2 accounts for something like 12degC in the nominal surface temperatures.
(Could be wrong -- look it up)..

sure, just post up that experiment that proves back radiation. Oh that's right you ain't got one. Tell me how warm it is at about 30 thousand feet? And what is the pressure, can you breath there?

Edit, why is there moisture in a greenhouse? And why doesn't the temperatures continue to climb with CO2 added?

I don't need an experiment -- I measure IR photon energy constantly in my work. I know that materials eject IR photons in all directions as a function of their temperature. That's how an IR thermometer works. And the basis for CO2 back radiation is covered in every textbook on Atmos Physics. Furthermore the backradiation HAS been measured reliably and repeatedly for over 60 years.

And the Earth is not literally a GreenHouse. It's just a convienent analogy for folks that don't want to take 4 or 6 semesters of specialized physics. The Earth surface temperatures are NOT just a function of added CO2. That's where the simplistic GW models went off the rails in PREDICTING short term surface warming. But that does not mean that CO2 has NO effect on the general surface temperature of the planet.. It DOES..

Have you SEEN a paper measuring back radiation? I'll certainly provide some for you if you promise to never state you've that it hasn't been done..

sure post up a paper? is it in laymens terms or full of math that I haven't used in my life before and therefore can't understand anyway? I'm open to the challenge.

you act like me being a non scientist I am somehow off base, and yet there are scientist who don't believe. You agree?

Not poking at atcha. Just would like to help you understand how well understood IR radiation is understood. Maybe you should go first with all the "scientists" who don't believe that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas..

So you go me the BEST denier of the GHouse and I'll give you a start on ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS of back radiation from the atmosphere..

Atmospheric back radiation in the tropical pacific: Intercomparison of in-situ measurements, simulations and satellite retrievals - Springer

The back radiation has been measured with an Eppley pyrgeometer on board the R/V Vickers in the tropical Pacific Ocean during the field campaigns COARE (Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment) and CEPEX (Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment) in February and March 1993, respectively. As part of these compaigns radiosondes have been launched from the Vickers several times per day and cloud cover was observed frequently. The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to calculate the back radiation for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements. Another means of comparison is derived from space-borne SSM/I (Special Sensor Microwave/Imager) measurements. The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and simulated downwelling irradiance at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2. The comparison of satellite measurements with pyrgeometer readings shows a mean difference of-3 W/m2 and a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. The mean difference between satellite-derived back radiation and simulated one is 3 W/m2 with a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. Comparisons with results obtained from bulk formulae applied to surface meteorological observations show a good performance of the bulk parameterisations in the cloud-free case but a general overestimation of the back radiation in cloudy situations.

1.Aldos-Arboledas, L., Vida, J., Jiménez, J. I., 1988: Effects of solar radiation on the performance of pyrgeometers with silicon domes.J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.,5, 666–670.
2.Albrecht, B., Cox, S. K., 1977: Procedures for improving pyrgeometer performance.J. Appl. Meteor.,16, 188–197.
3.Albrecht, B., Poellot, M., Cox, S. K., 1974: Pyrgeometer measurements from aircraft.Rev. Sci. Instrum.,45, 33–38.
4.Anderson, E. R., 1952: Energy budget studies,U. S. Geol. Surv. Circ.,229, 138–144.
5.Bauer, P., Schlüssel, P., 1993: Rainfall, total water, ice water and water vapour over sea from polarized microwave simulations and SSM/I data.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 20737–20760.
6.Berdahl, P., Fromberg, R., 1982: The thermal radiance of clear skies,Solar Energy,29, 299–314.
7.Brutsaert, W., 1975: On a derivable formula for longwave radiation from clear skies.Water Resour. Res.,11, 742–744.
8.Darnell, W. L., Gupta, S. K., Staylor, W. F., 1983: Downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite measurements.J. Climate Appl. Meteor.,22, 1956–1960.
9.Frouin, R., Gautier, C., Morcrette, J. J., 1988: Downward longwave irradiance at the ocean surface from satellite data: Methodology and in situ validation.J. Geophys. Res.,93, 597–619.
10.Gupta, S. K., Darnell, W. L., Staylor, W. F., 1983: A parameterization for downward longwave radiation from satellite meteorological data, Preprints, Fifth Conf. on Atmospheric Radiation, Baltimore, 436–439.
11.Hinzpeter, H., 1977: Atmospheric radiation instruments.Atmospheric Radiation, 491–507.
12.Hollweg, H. D., 1993: A k distribution method considering centres and wings of atmospheric absorption lines.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 2747–2756.
13.Idso, S. B., 1981: A set of equations for the full spectrum and 8–14 micron and 10.5–12.5 micron thermal radiation from cloudless skies.Water Resour. Res.,17, 295–304.
14.Idso, S. B., Jackson, R. D., 1969: Thermal radiation from the atmosphere.J. Geophys. Res.,74, 5397–5403.
15.Lind, R. J., Katsaros, K. B., 1982: A model of longwave irradiance for use with surface observations.J. Appl. Meteor.,2, 1015–1023.
16.Martin, M., Berdahl, P., 1984: characteristics of infrared sky radiation in the United States.Solar Energy,33, 321–336.
17.McClatchey, R. A., Fenn, R. W., Selby, J. E. A., Volz, F. E., Garing, J. S., 1972: Optical properties of the atmosphere, AFCRL-Report 72-0497.
18.Morcrette, J. J., Deschamps, P. Y., 1986: Downward longwave radiation at the surface in clear-sky atmosphere: comparison of measured, satellite-derived and calculated fluxes, ISLSCP Conference, Rome, Italy, ESA SP-248, 257–261.
19.Ramanathan, V., Subasilar, B., Zhang, G. J., Conant, W., Cess, R. D., Kiehl, J. T., Grassl, H., Shi, L., 1995: Warm pool heat budget and shortwave cloud forcing: A missing physics?Science,267, 499–503.
20.Schlüssel, P., Emery, W. J., 1990: Atmospheric water vapour over oceans from SSM/I measurements.Int. J. Remote Sens.,11, 705–721.
21.Schlüssel, P., Schanz, L., Englisch, G., 1995: Retrieval of latent heat flux and longwave irradiance at the sea surface from SSM/I and AVHRR measurements.Adv. Space Res., (10)107–(10)116.
22.Schmetz, J., 1989: Towards a surface radiation climatology: Retrieval of downward irradiances from satellites.Atmos. Res.,23, 287–321.
23.Schmetz, J., 1991: Retrieval of radiation fluxes from satellite data.Dynam. Atmosph. Oceans,16, 61–72.
24.Schmetz, P., Schmetz, J., Raschke, E., 1986: Estimation of daytime downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite and grid point data.Theor. Appl. Climatol.,37, 136–149.
25.Smith, W. L., Woolf, H. M., 1983: Geostationary satellite sounder (VAS) observations of longwave radiation flux. Conf. on Satellite Systems to Measure Radiation Budget Parameters and Climate Change Signal, International Radiation Commission, Igls, Austria.
26.Wessel, P., Smith, W. H. F., 1991: Free software helps map and display data.Trans. Am. Geophys. U.,72, 441 and 445–446.

REFERENCE NUMBERS 7,8,9 & 14 would probably be the next stuff for you to read..
ENJOY !!!

 

[jc456]

hey Flac, what happens to the CO2 when there are no clouds to keep the heat in at night? We are pumping CO2 into the night air right? So where is the magic backradiation when there are no clouds?

BTW, I'm freezing my ass off today and you are already claiming back radiation. how is that working for the folks in Chicago and Minnesota?

CO2 back radiation is there 24 hours a day. If it wasn't -- you wouldn't just have a frozen ass, you'd be missing fingers and toes. IIRC -- CO2 accounts for something like 12degC in the nominal surface temperatures.
(Could be wrong -- look it up)..

sure, just post up that experiment that proves back radiation. Oh that's right you ain't got one. Tell me how warm it is at about 30 thousand feet? And what is the pressure, can you breath there?

Edit, why is there moisture in a greenhouse? And why doesn't the temperatures continue to climb with CO2 added?

I don't need an experiment -- I measure IR photon energy constantly in my work. I know that materials eject IR photons in all directions as a function of their temperature. That's how an IR thermometer works. And the basis for CO2 back radiation is covered in every textbook on Atmos Physics. Furthermore the backradiation HAS been measured reliably and repeatedly for over 60 years.

And the Earth is not literally a GreenHouse. It's just a convienent analogy for folks that don't want to take 4 or 6 semesters of specialized physics. The Earth surface temperatures are NOT just a function of added CO2. That's where the simplistic GW models went off the rails in PREDICTING short term surface warming. But that does not mean that CO2 has NO effect on the general surface temperature of the planet.. It DOES..

Have you SEEN a paper measuring back radiation? I'll certainly provide some for you if you promise to never state you've that it hasn't been done..

sure post up a paper? is it in laymens terms or full of math that I haven't used in my life before and therefore can't understand anyway? I'm open to the challenge.

you act like me being a non scientist I am somehow off base, and yet there are scientist who don't believe. You agree?

Not poking at atcha. Just would like to help you understand how well understood IR radiation is understood. Maybe you should go first with all the "scientists" who don't believe that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas..

So you go me the BEST denier of the GHouse and I'll give you a start on ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS of back radiation from the atmosphere..

Atmospheric back radiation in the tropical pacific: Intercomparison of in-situ measurements, simulations and satellite retrievals - Springer

The back radiation has been measured with an Eppley pyrgeometer on board the R/V Vickers in the tropical Pacific Ocean during the field campaigns COARE (Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment) and CEPEX (Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment) in February and March 1993, respectively. As part of these compaigns radiosondes have been launched from the Vickers several times per day and cloud cover was observed frequently. The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to calculate the back radiation for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements. Another means of comparison is derived from space-borne SSM/I (Special Sensor Microwave/Imager) measurements. The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and simulated downwelling irradiance at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2. The comparison of satellite measurements with pyrgeometer readings shows a mean difference of-3 W/m2 and a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. The mean difference between satellite-derived back radiation and simulated one is 3 W/m2 with a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. Comparisons with results obtained from bulk formulae applied to surface meteorological observations show a good performance of the bulk parameterisations in the cloud-free case but a general overestimation of the back radiation in cloudy situations.

1.Aldos-Arboledas, L., Vida, J., Jiménez, J. I., 1988: Effects of solar radiation on the performance of pyrgeometers with silicon domes.J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.,5, 666–670.
2.Albrecht, B., Cox, S. K., 1977: Procedures for improving pyrgeometer performance.J. Appl. Meteor.,16, 188–197.
3.Albrecht, B., Poellot, M., Cox, S. K., 1974: Pyrgeometer measurements from aircraft.Rev. Sci. Instrum.,45, 33–38.
4.Anderson, E. R., 1952: Energy budget studies,U. S. Geol. Surv. Circ.,229, 138–144.
5.Bauer, P., Schlüssel, P., 1993: Rainfall, total water, ice water and water vapour over sea from polarized microwave simulations and SSM/I data.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 20737–20760.
6.Berdahl, P., Fromberg, R., 1982: The thermal radiance of clear skies,Solar Energy,29, 299–314.
7.Brutsaert, W., 1975: On a derivable formula for longwave radiation from clear skies.Water Resour. Res.,11, 742–744.
8.Darnell, W. L., Gupta, S. K., Staylor, W. F., 1983: Downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite measurements.J. Climate Appl. Meteor.,22, 1956–1960.
9.Frouin, R., Gautier, C., Morcrette, J. J., 1988: Downward longwave irradiance at the ocean surface from satellite data: Methodology and in situ validation.J. Geophys. Res.,93, 597–619.
10.Gupta, S. K., Darnell, W. L., Staylor, W. F., 1983: A parameterization for downward longwave radiation from satellite meteorological data, Preprints, Fifth Conf. on Atmospheric Radiation, Baltimore, 436–439.
11.Hinzpeter, H., 1977: Atmospheric radiation instruments.Atmospheric Radiation, 491–507.
12.Hollweg, H. D., 1993: A k distribution method considering centres and wings of atmospheric absorption lines.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 2747–2756.
13.Idso, S. B., 1981: A set of equations for the full spectrum and 8–14 micron and 10.5–12.5 micron thermal radiation from cloudless skies.Water Resour. Res.,17, 295–304.
14.Idso, S. B., Jackson, R. D., 1969: Thermal radiation from the atmosphere.J. Geophys. Res.,74, 5397–5403.
15.Lind, R. J., Katsaros, K. B., 1982: A model of longwave irradiance for use with surface observations.J. Appl. Meteor.,2, 1015–1023.
16.Martin, M., Berdahl, P., 1984: characteristics of infrared sky radiation in the United States.Solar Energy,33, 321–336.
17.McClatchey, R. A., Fenn, R. W., Selby, J. E. A., Volz, F. E., Garing, J. S., 1972: Optical properties of the atmosphere, AFCRL-Report 72-0497.
18.Morcrette, J. J., Deschamps, P. Y., 1986: Downward longwave radiation at the surface in clear-sky atmosphere: comparison of measured, satellite-derived and calculated fluxes, ISLSCP Conference, Rome, Italy, ESA SP-248, 257–261.
19.Ramanathan, V., Subasilar, B., Zhang, G. J., Conant, W., Cess, R. D., Kiehl, J. T., Grassl, H., Shi, L., 1995: Warm pool heat budget and shortwave cloud forcing: A missing physics?Science,267, 499–503.
20.Schlüssel, P., Emery, W. J., 1990: Atmospheric water vapour over oceans from SSM/I measurements.Int. J. Remote Sens.,11, 705–721.
21.Schlüssel, P., Schanz, L., Englisch, G., 1995: Retrieval of latent heat flux and longwave irradiance at the sea surface from SSM/I and AVHRR measurements.Adv. Space Res., (10)107–(10)116.
22.Schmetz, J., 1989: Towards a surface radiation climatology: Retrieval of downward irradiances from satellites.Atmos. Res.,23, 287–321.
23.Schmetz, J., 1991: Retrieval of radiation fluxes from satellite data.Dynam. Atmosph. Oceans,16, 61–72.
24.Schmetz, P., Schmetz, J., Raschke, E., 1986: Estimation of daytime downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite and grid point data.Theor. Appl. Climatol.,37, 136–149.
25.Smith, W. L., Woolf, H. M., 1983: Geostationary satellite sounder (VAS) observations of longwave radiation flux. Conf. on Satellite Systems to Measure Radiation Budget Parameters and Climate Change Signal, International Radiation Commission, Igls, Austria.
26.Wessel, P., Smith, W. H. F., 1991: Free software helps map and display data.Trans. Am. Geophys. U.,72, 441 and 445–446.

REFERENCE NUMBERS 7,8,9 & 14 would probably be the next stuff for you to read..
ENJOY !!!

here's the link!!

Back Radiation | Co2 Insanity