Correlation between temperature and CO2

[SSDD]

Convection is a macroscopic elevator ride that transports energy past the surface radiation bottleneck up to the cloudtops, and it is powered by gravity. Like I have said countless times before, and which you disagreed with, scoffed at. Apparently you have changed your mind.

There is no radiation bottleneck until you reach the top of the troposphere.....convection is so dominant in the troposphere that radiation is barely a bit player.

What is this billion to one nonsense in favour of convection? 10% of the surface radiating power (25% of the Sun's surface input) escapes directly through the atmospheric window band.[/uote]

Talk to Dr Happer about the billion to one "nonsense"...compare credentials and lifetime achievements regarding the topic and you two decide between yourselves who is spouting nonsense.

He is readily available via email and he will even answer questions from a magical thinker such as yourself.

I have seen the conversation between Happer and the journalist. Why didn't you cut and paste it again?

Because it doesn't mention convection! SSDD is confused about what convection actually is. Convection is a macroscopic movement of a volume of mass that takes its energy with it as it moves.

Radiation and molecular collision are atomic scale processes that redistribute energy between molecules.

Hey SSDD, why didn't you address any of my points above? Is it because you don't have any answers or explanations?

Are you going to continue your blustering and stonewalling? Are you going to admit you screwed up with the meaning of convection?

So you believe that molecular collision doesn't happen in the mass? You don't believe that the mass will receive incoming radiation or give it off?

Well; this explains why you still believe in the 'atmospheric bottle neck" that has NEVER manifested itself...

Come on Ian use your damn head!

All three processes are part of the Convection flow and they can not be separated. This is precisely why the "Atmospheric bottle neck" is fallacy.

And it is all moving from warm to cool...hell, even if it were possible for energy to move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth, what is the chance it would actually make it to the earth without being absorbed by some other molecule which would then 999999999 times out of a billion then simply pass it along to another molecule via collision..a molecule being moved on by the convective movement upwards towards cooler pastures.

 

[mamooth]

So your claim is that IR gets conducted and convected into space? Is that your claim hairball?

Obviously not. That retard theory appears to be entirely your invention. Don't ask me to explain why your diseased mind thought up such nonsense.

Now, let's do what you hate most, and just go right back to what you're deflecting from.

You say the stratosphere is transparent to IR.

The military disagrees with you.

Given that you're just a cult retard crying on the internet, why should we believe you over the military?

 

[SSDD]

So your claim is that IR gets conducted and convected into space? Is that your claim hairball?

Obviously not. That retard theory appears to be entirely your invention. Don't ask me to explain why your diseased mind thought up such nonsense.

I said " Once it gets to the top of the troposphere, it is all radiated away.."

To which you apparently claimed that it didn't...as if there were some other means of transporting energy on out of the atmosphere than radiation...above the troposphere, convection and conduction are merely bit players in the movement of energy just as radiation is a bit player within the troposphere. Sorry you are so stupid.

Given that you're just a cult retard crying on the internet, why should we believe you over the military?[/QUOTE]

Frankly, I could give a shit what you believe hairball...and alas, it is always you who is crying bitter tears...trying to defend the indefensible, trying to make excuses for the inexcusable....such is the nature of bitter crazy old cat ladies I guess.

 

[mamooth]

I said " Once it gets to the top of the troposphere, it is all radiated away.."

To which you apparently claimed that it didn't...

Because that's obvious to normal people, given that the stratosphere is not transparent to IR.

as if there were some other means of transporting energy on out of the atmosphere than radiation...

The correct statement "Energy does not freely radiate to space from the top of the troposphere" in no way leads to your deranged conclusion there. Your cult logic is nothing like our mere earth logic, so our earth logic can't explain it.

above the troposphere, convection and conduction are merely bit players in the movement of energy just as radiation is a bit player within the troposphere. Sorry you are so stupid.

That's why the greenhouse effect predominates in that area. Are you finally grasping the basics that you've failed so completely at for so many years?

Frankly, I could give a shit what you believe hairball...and alas, it is always you who is crying bitter tears...trying to defend the indefensible, trying to make excuses for the inexcusable....such is the nature of bitter crazy old cat ladies I guess.

My sweet little bitch, your snowflake tears are like a bitter but sweet nectar to me. Now, back to what you're running from, to make you cry some more. Mmmm. So tasty.

The military says you're a shit-gobbling moron, so why shouldn't everyone laugh hard at your reality-defying cult babbling?

Answer: They do laugh. And it's so delightful to watch you cry about it.

 

[IanC]

Convection is a macroscopic elevator ride that transports energy past the surface radiation bottleneck up to the cloudtops, and it is powered by gravity. Like I have said countless times before, and which you disagreed with, scoffed at. Apparently you have changed your mind.

There is no radiation bottleneck until you reach the top of the troposphere.....convection is so dominant in the troposphere that radiation is barely a bit player.

What is this billion to one nonsense in favour of convection? 10% of the surface radiating power (25% of the Sun's surface input) escapes directly through the atmospheric window band.[/uote]

Talk to Dr Happer about the billion to one "nonsense"...compare credentials and lifetime achievements regarding the topic and you two decide between yourselves who is spouting nonsense.

He is readily available via email and he will even answer questions from a magical thinker such as yourself.

I have seen the conversation between Happer and the journalist. Why didn't you cut and paste it again?

Because it doesn't mention convection! SSDD is confused about what convection actually is. Convection is a macroscopic movement of a volume of mass that takes its energy with it as it moves.

Radiation and molecular collision are atomic scale processes that redistribute energy between molecules.

Hey SSDD, why didn't you address any of my points above? Is it because you don't have any answers or explanations?

Are you going to continue your blustering and stonewalling? Are you going to admit you screwed up with the meaning of convection?

So you believe that molecular collision doesn't happen in the mass? You don't believe that the mass will receive incoming radiation or give it off?

Well; this explains why you still believe in the 'atmospheric bottle neck" that has NEVER manifested itself...

Come on Ian use your damn head!

All three processes are part of the Convection flow and they can not be separated. This is precisely why the "Atmospheric bottle neck" is fallacy.

There are three basic methods of moving energy. Radiation, which does not require either a media for transport, nor proximity. Conduction, which transports energy by physical contact. And convection, which moves the substrate containing the energy, and needs gravity to function.

Got that? Radiation has no constraints, no necessary preconditions other than to have energy to move.

Conduction needs intimate contact. We could go into more detail by comparing conduction in solids, liquids and gases but that would defeat the purpose of defining the basic mechanism.

Convection is the odd man out. It needs both gravity and a fluid. It is not a particle to particle transfer, it is a bulk movement of mass.


Are all three happening at the same time? Of course. That doesn't mean we can't catagorize energy transfer into the three basic pathways.

Gravity also affects conduction in fluids by constraining the shape of the volume. Is this an integral part of the mechanism of conduction, or just a macroscopic complexity?

Radiation is a free agent, that cares not about gravity, media etc. But it does depend on available energy. So do we say gravity, media, etc are an integral part of the radiation process? I don't think so.

Local conditions are what they are. Nature finds the most efficient way of shedding energy. It combines radiation, conduction and convection (and other processes that we haven't specifically named such as latent heat) to accomplish this.


I have tried to point out specific parts of the puzzle, and give them a general direction without giving them a precise quantification. We can't know the affect of one puzzle piece without knowing all the other pieces.

CO2 absorbs more surface radiation than it eventually releases in the upper atmosphere. Therefore it is a warming influence on the atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere accepts less conduction energy from the surface. This reduced energy loss from the surface leads to a higher equilibrium seeking temperature when the Sun is shining.

I can't give you an exact figure for how much warming should happen by increasing CO2 but I can give you the direction. Even if cooling happened while CO2 increased that would not disproves CO2's warming influence, that would just mean the warming influence was overwhelmed by other competing influences.

If you want to convince me that CO2 has no influence then you have to break the chain of logic for the mechanism.

Prove that there is not enough CO2 specific radiation emitted by the surface, or that CO2 doesn't absorb it, or that CO2 emits the same amount at the TOA, or that the atmosphere doesn't warm by absorbing surface radiation, or that conduction isn't reduced by a smaller temperature gradient, or that the ability to lose energy isn't just as important to equilibrium temperature when something is being actively warmed by an outside power source.

I have looked at all those facets of the problem and found them to be conclusive. CO2 is a warming influence.

 

[SSDD]

above the troposphere, convection and conduction are merely bit players in the movement of energy just as radiation is a bit player within the troposphere. Sorry you are so stupid.

That's why the greenhouse effect predominates in that area. Are you finally grasping the basics that you've failed so completely at for so many years?

You know hairball..just when I think you have pegged out on the stupid meter...you go and say some thing like that and redefine the whole damned term. You believe the greenhouse effect predominates in the stratosphere? Let me just ask the question?...how f'ing stupid are you?

My sweet little bitch, your snowflake tears are like a bitter but sweet nectar to me. Now, back to what you're running from, to make you cry some more. Mmmm. So tasty.

You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you hairball. I will say it again, you should change your name to Barco, because you are a top shelf projector. Imagine, even suggesting that I am an extremist liberal who gets offended by any view that doesn't match my own?...again, just how stupid are you hairball? Can you point to anything that I have ever said that would make a thinking person think that I am even a little bit liberal?...much less a f'ing snowflake like you? You just get further and further out into the deep end..

 

[mamooth]

You know hairball..just when I think you have pegged out on the stupid meter...you go and say some thing like that and redefine the whole damned term. You believe the greenhouse effect predominates in the stratosphere? Let me just ask the question?...how f'ing stupid are you?

You clearly still don't know what the greenhouse effect is.

Again, let's get back to what you keep running from. You won't address it, because you're a seriously cowardly beeyatch, but it's fun to watch you wet yourself and run.

The military says your kook theories about the stratosphere being transparent to IR are laughable bullshit. Is it your contention that the US military is part of the great conspiracy?

How do you explain the fact that IR-seeking missiles work very well, given that they're based on the science that you say is wrong?

And do you have those court documents about Mann yet?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Convection is a macroscopic elevator ride that transports energy past the surface radiation bottleneck up to the cloudtops, and it is powered by gravity. Like I have said countless times before, and which you disagreed with, scoffed at. Apparently you have changed your mind.

There is no radiation bottleneck until you reach the top of the troposphere.....convection is so dominant in the troposphere that radiation is barely a bit player.

What is this billion to one nonsense in favour of convection? 10% of the surface radiating power (25% of the Sun's surface input) escapes directly through the atmospheric window band.[/uote]

Talk to Dr Happer about the billion to one "nonsense"...compare credentials and lifetime achievements regarding the topic and you two decide between yourselves who is spouting nonsense.

He is readily available via email and he will even answer questions from a magical thinker such as yourself.

I have seen the conversation between Happer and the journalist. Why didn't you cut and paste it again?

Because it doesn't mention convection! SSDD is confused about what convection actually is. Convection is a macroscopic movement of a volume of mass that takes its energy with it as it moves.

Radiation and molecular collision are atomic scale processes that redistribute energy between molecules.

Hey SSDD, why didn't you address any of my points above? Is it because you don't have any answers or explanations?

Are you going to continue your blustering and stonewalling? Are you going to admit you screwed up with the meaning of convection?

So you believe that molecular collision doesn't happen in the mass? You don't believe that the mass will receive incoming radiation or give it off?

Well; this explains why you still believe in the 'atmospheric bottle neck" that has NEVER manifested itself...

Come on Ian use your damn head!

All three processes are part of the Convection flow and they can not be separated. This is precisely why the "Atmospheric bottle neck" is fallacy.

There are three basic methods of moving energy. Radiation, which does not require either a media for transport, nor proximity. Conduction, which transports energy by physical contact. And convection, which moves the substrate containing the energy, and needs gravity to function.

Got that? Radiation has no constraints, no necessary preconditions other than to have energy to move.

Conduction needs intimate contact. We could go into more detail by comparing conduction in solids, liquids and gases but that would defeat the purpose of defining the basic mechanism.

Convection is the odd man out. It needs both gravity and a fluid. It is not a particle to particle transfer, it is a bulk movement of mass.


Are all three happening at the same time? Of course. That doesn't mean we can't catagorize energy transfer into the three basic pathways.

Gravity also affects conduction in fluids by constraining the shape of the volume. Is this an integral part of the mechanism of conduction, or just a macroscopic complexity?

Radiation is a free agent, that cares not about gravity, media etc. But it does depend on available energy. So do we say gravity, media, etc are an integral part of the radiation process? I don't think so.

Local conditions are what they are. Nature finds the most efficient way of shedding energy. It combines radiation, conduction and convection (and other processes that we haven't specifically named such as latent heat) to accomplish this.


I have tried to point out specific parts of the puzzle, and give them a general direction without giving them a precise quantification. We can't know the affect of one puzzle piece without knowing all the other pieces.

CO2 absorbs more surface radiation than it eventually releases in the upper atmosphere. Therefore it is a warming influence on the atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere accepts less conduction energy from the surface. This reduced energy loss from the surface leads to a higher equilibrium seeking temperature when the Sun is shining.

I can't give you an exact figure for how much warming should happen by increasing CO2 but I can give you the direction. Even if cooling happened while CO2 increased that would not disproves CO2's warming influence, that would just mean the warming influence was overwhelmed by other competing influences.

If you want to convince me that CO2 has no influence then you have to break the chain of logic for the mechanism.

Prove that there is not enough CO2 specific radiation emitted by the surface, or that CO2 doesn't absorb it, or that CO2 emits the same amount at the TOA, or that the atmosphere doesn't warm by absorbing surface radiation, or that conduction isn't reduced by a smaller temperature gradient, or that the ability to lose energy isn't just as important to equilibrium temperature when something is being actively warmed by an outside power source.

I have looked at all those facets of the problem and found them to be conclusive. CO2 is a warming influence.

Everything you just stated has been modeled and has failed to produce what empirical evidence shows is actually happening.

So what part of your theory is flawed?

"Are all three happening at the same time? Of course. That doesn't mean we can't catagorize energy transfer into the three basic pathways."

Your calculations of what affects what and by how much are garbage.

"CO2 absorbs more surface radiation than it eventually releases in the upper atmosphere."

This statement is a factually wrong, unproven, hypothesis that has been shown wrong by empirical evidence. CO2 does in fact radiate the same amount that it absorbs at both altitudes when you consider the mass reduction at the top of the troposphere.

The major loss is to other gases and water vapor in the convection cycle. LWIR is 999,999,996 times more likely to release its energy to water vapor than it is to strike another CO2 molecule.

Tell me Ian, Why does the lOG of CO2 expect just 1.2 deg C of warming per doubling, yet we have seen just 0.2 deg C that can be attributed to it and not to other processes?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Prove that there is not enough CO2 specific radiation emitted by the surface, or that CO2 doesn't absorb it, or that CO2 emits the same amount at the TOA, or that the atmosphere doesn't warm by absorbing surface radiation, or that conduction isn't reduced by a smaller temperature gradient, or that the ability to lose energy isn't just as important to equilibrium temperature when something is being actively warmed by an outside power source.

How about you prove that it does... Empirical evidence says that it does not. Only your modeling says that it does and that has been shown wrong over 179 times with current GCM's.

 

[SSDD]

You clearly still don't know what the greenhouse effect is.

And neither do you...Unlike you, however, I do know what it isn't....it isn't anything like the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science....and the observed, measured, quantified evidence tells us that.

Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would result in decreased LW at the top of the atmosphere...observed, measured, quantified evidence tells us that this isn't happening.

Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses would invariably lead to a tropospheric hot spot. More than a million radiosondes sent up through the troposphere, and two satellites which were put there to measure the temperature of the troposphere tell us that it is conspicously absent. The observed, measured, quantified evidence tells us that it is not there.

Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would invariably result in more evaporation from the oceans and in turn, more water vapor in the atmosphere. Once again, the observed, measured, quantified data tell us that this simply is not happening.

Three major predictive failures....in real science, a single predictive failure whether it is major or not is enough to get a hypothesis tossed into the dust bin and initiate work on a new hypothesis that has better predictive value. The fact that the radiative greenhouse hypothesis has not..and that it is has been co opted by politics tells us that it is pseudoscience and not worthy of any serious thought beyond how to finally put it out of its misery and begin working on a new hypothesis...which, just happens to already be out there and which can accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...unlike the radiative greenhouse hypothesis which doesn't even work here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Because that's obvious to normal people, given that the stratosphere is not transparent to IR.

Where did you get this voodoo science bull shit from?

The stratosphere contains ozone, which is totally transparent to any transmissions in the 12um to 60um wave lengths.. Ozone only blocks downwelling radiation. Gawd your a total dupe...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...or_Aura_Ozone_Measuring_Instrument_validation

 

[IanC]

"CO2 absorbs more surface radiation than it eventually releases in the upper atmosphere."

....... CO2 does in fact radiate the same amount that it absorbs at both altitudes when you consider the mass reduction at the top of the troposphere.

Awkward phrasing, do you mean lower density when you say mass reduction?

I think I get your point. Equipartition Theorum states that a gas will emit the same amount of energy as it absorbs, if it is at a constant temperature. So if you examine a thin enough slice of the atmosphere, which is not undergoing convective currents, that should be approximately true.

Unfortunately that is seldom the case. The 'average' scenario is that the Sun heats the surface, the surface heats the lowest part of the atmosphere, then the atmosphere passes the heat to the next later of atmosphere, and so on, until you reach the tropopause where different radiative effects take over in the stratosphere and above.

CO2 absorbs ALL the surface 15 micron IR within the first 10 metres, although it doesn't matter for the principal if that height was 100 or 1000 metres. Absorption is not temperature dependant, it only requires CO2 to be present. If more CO2 is present then the height for total absorbance of surface 15 micron IR goes down. Putting the same amount of energy into a smaller volume must increase the temperature of that smaller volume.

Once absorbed the surface 15 micron IR is added to the total energy of the atmosphere by molecular collision. CO2 emission of 15 micron IS dependent on temperature. CO2 molecules are constantly getting excited and de-excited by molecular collision. If they remain in the excited state long enough they emit. Any 15 micron IR produced is immediately reabsorbed, and the cycle repeats.

This continues until the air is rarified enough that 15 micron IR is no longer fully recaptured but escapes to space. The atmospheric energy available to be converted into radiation is less here because the temperature is cooler than near the surface. All the 15 micron IR goes in, only the amount produced at roughly -50C goes out. As can easily be seen on the Planck style measured radiation graph of TOA outbound radiation.

The big CO2 chunk is reduced because none comes from the surface, the radiation produced is from higher up in the cold atmosphere. NB, the 15 micron band is in most radiant part of the curve.

 

[IanC]

Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would result in decreased LW at the top of the atmosphere...observed, measured, quantified evidence tells us that this isn't happening

I know this wasn't directed at me but I would like to respond.

I am only interested in CO2, the climate models fuck up water vapour and feedbacks. As I have stated multiple times in the past.

Your graphs that originally came from the AmericanThinker article confirm that radiation from CO2 decreased from 1970, even though the ocean temperature went up slightly.

 

[mamooth]

Where did you get this voodoo science bull shit from?

The stratosphere contains ozone, which is totally transparent to any transmissions in the 12um to 60um wave lengths..

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. Billy thinks the stratosphere is 100% ozone.

 

[mamooth]

Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would result in decreased LW at the top of the atmosphere...

No, that's absolutely not the case. The science says LW at the top of the atmosphere should be going up as temperature increases, just like your graphs said.

Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses would invariably lead to a tropospheric hot spot

And it's there. Only the most desperately dishonest cult liars still try to pretend otherwise. Stop it with the data faking, will you? It's not fooling anyone.
.

Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would invariably result in more evaporation from the oceans and in turn, more water vapor in the atmosphere.

And that's been measured over and over.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf

There's just one source. I show you many more. What's the source of your fraud? You never want to tell us where you get your fraud pieces.

..which, just happens to already be out there and which can accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere..

Except when it doesn't. And one exception disproves the kook loser theory.

The conclusion? Your mentors -- Stalin, Goebbels, and Alinksy -- have trained you well, little commie.

 

[12icer]

Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would result in decreased LW at the top of the atmosphere...

No, that's absolutely not the case. The science says LW at the top of the atmosphere should be going up as temperature increases, just like your graphs said.

Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses would invariably lead to a tropospheric hot spot

And it's there. Only the most desperately dishonest cult liars still try to pretend otherwise. Stop it with the data faking, will you? It's not fooling anyone.
.

Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would invariably result in more evaporation from the oceans and in turn, more water vapor in the atmosphere.

And that's been measured over and over.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf

There's just one source. I show you many more. What's the source of your fraud? You never want to tell us where you get your fraud pieces.

..which, just happens to already be out there and which can accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere..

Except when it doesn't. And one exception disproves the kook loser theory.

The conclusion? Your mentors -- Stalin, Goebbels, and Alinksy -- have trained you well, little commie.

A liberal calling ANYONE a commie or a nazi is the biggest joke of the decade on this forum! Global warming is a HOAX designed to steal money from the general fund. Funny that liberals at so stupid to believe something that even a smart child knows is wrong. Breathe in there and hold it till you all pass out liberals that will save the world and give us time to put a plastic bag over your heads to make a permanent change in co2 production. The last one that told ne about the greenhouse gas said it was co, not co2 at least he had the right major emission for an internal combustion engine.

 

[westwall]

Where did you get this voodoo science bull shit from?

The stratosphere contains ozone, which is totally transparent to any transmissions in the 12um to 60um wave lengths..

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. Billy thinks the stratosphere is 100% ozone.

You know hairball, when you resort to lying about another persons post you are losing your ass big time. Maybe you should stop lying about what people are saying. Just a thought.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Where did you get this voodoo science bull shit from?

The stratosphere contains ozone, which is totally transparent to any transmissions in the 12um to 60um wave lengths..

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. Billy thinks the stratosphere is 100% ozone.

Where did I say it was 100% ozone? Are you makin shit up again?

I wonder if you can tell me how that gas is supposed to warm up from LWIR when it is unaffected by its passage..? Is it magic?

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 absorbs ALL the surface 15 micron IR within the first 10 metres,

So your saying that the other 99.996% of the atmosphere near surface doesn't matter and has no effect? That's one wild ass assumption that has no basis in fact.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would result in decreased LW at the top of the atmosphere...observed, measured, quantified evidence tells us that this isn't happening

I know this wasn't directed at me but I would like to respond.

I am only interested in CO2, the climate models fuck up water vapour and feedbacks. As I have stated multiple times in the past.

Your graphs that originally came from the AmericanThinker article confirm that radiation from CO2 decreased from 1970, even though the ocean temperature went up slightly.

That question is easily answered.. When the water vapor decreases, LWIR escapes faster unimpeded. Thus that which CO2 could be responsible for diminishes...