Correlation between temperature and CO2

[westwall]

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD! I am serious. In the trace amounts of CO2 that exist in this atmosphere were all the water vapor to go away, what would the temp be?

Get to your point. I already answered your question in #117.

My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all. In a highly controlled lab experiment we can see that CO2 is indeed a GHG, however, the Earth is not a closed lab experiment, nor is it a greenhouse. It is an open system, thus CO2 is incapable of having a measurable effect in the vanishingly small amounts that it exists in our atmosphere.

Ultimately the greenhouse gas theory requires CO2 to do something that it can't. We know that the oceans are what regulate the temp of the Earth. We know that UV radiation is the prime mover in that regard. We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature? It can warm the rocks, but the rocks then radiate it away again and don't retain it. Only the oceans retain the heat.

So, you are pulling an SSDD.

You didn't even give an answer to the question you posted to me but you are avoiding like the plague confronting CO2 radiative effects.

You said- "We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature?"

In the last eight years I have answered this question a thousand times in a hundred different ways and yet even reasonable posters like you just don't get it.

There is no 'heat' coming back from the atmosphere ( inversions being the exception). There is a two way flow of energy, from the surface and atmosphere. The net flow is heat.

At night both the surface and the atmosphere are passively cooling but the surface cools more slowly than if the atmosphere was not there.

In daylight, the surface has an active power source and begins to heat up in an attempt to shed this incoming energy, chasing an equilibrium temperature where output matches input. This equilibrium temperature is a function of both energy gain and energy loss. If you increase the solar input the temperature goes up. If you decrease the outgoing energy loss the surface temperature also goes up.

In neither case, not passive cooling nor active heating, does the energy flow from the atmosphere 'heat' anything. I thought you knew enough science to understand that. Perhaps you do, but choose to use an incorrect argument because it sounds good and fools the masses. Did you learn the technique from climate scientists?

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD. I fully accept that CO2 backradiates to the ground. Of that there is no doubt. What we do know however is that Long Wave IR can not penetrate the skin of water. Thus it can not warm water. Water in the oceans we KNOW to be the heat reservoir of the planet. I am trying to get to the absolute bottom of the food chain when it comes to global heat retention.

I don't know the answers to the questions i am asking. I am asking them to help understand them. What i do know is I have been researching these questions of mine for years and have so far been able to come up with a compelling answer for them.

Okay, sorry.

I thought you had a 'gotcha' answer lined up.

The most important confusion in this whole AGW mess is the imprecise definition of backradiation 'heating' the surface, and all the claims that this contravenes the SLoT.

Backradiation doesn't actively heat the surface, and it doesn't disobey the Second Law.

Never said it does. Just have been saying that based on what we KNOW, at this point in time, it can't affect the global temps as the theory stands.. That's why I am trying to learn as much as possible. We simply don't even really understand the basics which is why all of these claims are simply silly.

 

[IanC]

Get to your point. I already answered your question in #117.

My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all. In a highly controlled lab experiment we can see that CO2 is indeed a GHG, however, the Earth is not a closed lab experiment, nor is it a greenhouse. It is an open system, thus CO2 is incapable of having a measurable effect in the vanishingly small amounts that it exists in our atmosphere.

Ultimately the greenhouse gas theory requires CO2 to do something that it can't. We know that the oceans are what regulate the temp of the Earth. We know that UV radiation is the prime mover in that regard. We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature? It can warm the rocks, but the rocks then radiate it away again and don't retain it. Only the oceans retain the heat.

So, you are pulling an SSDD.

You didn't even give an answer to the question you posted to me but you are avoiding like the plague confronting CO2 radiative effects.

You said- "We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature?"

In the last eight years I have answered this question a thousand times in a hundred different ways and yet even reasonable posters like you just don't get it.

There is no 'heat' coming back from the atmosphere ( inversions being the exception). There is a two way flow of energy, from the surface and atmosphere. The net flow is heat.

At night both the surface and the atmosphere are passively cooling but the surface cools more slowly than if the atmosphere was not there.

In daylight, the surface has an active power source and begins to heat up in an attempt to shed this incoming energy, chasing an equilibrium temperature where output matches input. This equilibrium temperature is a function of both energy gain and energy loss. If you increase the solar input the temperature goes up. If you decrease the outgoing energy loss the surface temperature also goes up.

In neither case, not passive cooling nor active heating, does the energy flow from the atmosphere 'heat' anything. I thought you knew enough science to understand that. Perhaps you do, but choose to use an incorrect argument because it sounds good and fools the masses. Did you learn the technique from climate scientists?

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD. I fully accept that CO2 backradiates to the ground. Of that there is no doubt. What we do know however is that Long Wave IR can not penetrate the skin of water. Thus it can not warm water. Water in the oceans we KNOW to be the heat reservoir of the planet. I am trying to get to the absolute bottom of the food chain when it comes to global heat retention.

I don't know the answers to the questions i am asking. I am asking them to help understand them. What i do know is I have been researching these questions of mine for years and have so far been able to come up with a compelling answer for them.

Okay, sorry.

I thought you had a 'gotcha' answer lined up.

The most important confusion in this whole AGW mess is the imprecise definition of backradiation 'heating' the surface, and all the claims that this contravenes the SLoT.

Backradiation doesn't actively heat the surface, and it doesn't disobey the Second Law.

Never said it does. Just have been saying that based on what we KNOW, at this point in time, it can't affect the global temps as the theory stands.. That's why I am trying to learn as much as possible. We simply don't even really understand the basics which is why all of these claims are simply silly.

You are not asking yourself the right questions.

The emissivity of the surface approximates a Blackbody. The atmosphere does not.

Radiation going through the atmospheric window is not affected by the atmosphere. It is simply escaping to space.

Radiation in the CO2 band is completely blocked. None gets through from the surface. It stays in the atmosphere adding to the total energy, hence warming the atmosphere.

Other bands are intermediate to these two extremes.

You should think about this until the consequences of this are clearer in your mind.

 

[jc456]

My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all. In a highly controlled lab experiment we can see that CO2 is indeed a GHG, however, the Earth is not a closed lab experiment, nor is it a greenhouse. It is an open system, thus CO2 is incapable of having a measurable effect in the vanishingly small amounts that it exists in our atmosphere.

Ultimately the greenhouse gas theory requires CO2 to do something that it can't. We know that the oceans are what regulate the temp of the Earth. We know that UV radiation is the prime mover in that regard. We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature? It can warm the rocks, but the rocks then radiate it away again and don't retain it. Only the oceans retain the heat.

So, you are pulling an SSDD.

You didn't even give an answer to the question you posted to me but you are avoiding like the plague confronting CO2 radiative effects.

You said- "We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature?"

In the last eight years I have answered this question a thousand times in a hundred different ways and yet even reasonable posters like you just don't get it.

There is no 'heat' coming back from the atmosphere ( inversions being the exception). There is a two way flow of energy, from the surface and atmosphere. The net flow is heat.

At night both the surface and the atmosphere are passively cooling but the surface cools more slowly than if the atmosphere was not there.

In daylight, the surface has an active power source and begins to heat up in an attempt to shed this incoming energy, chasing an equilibrium temperature where output matches input. This equilibrium temperature is a function of both energy gain and energy loss. If you increase the solar input the temperature goes up. If you decrease the outgoing energy loss the surface temperature also goes up.

In neither case, not passive cooling nor active heating, does the energy flow from the atmosphere 'heat' anything. I thought you knew enough science to understand that. Perhaps you do, but choose to use an incorrect argument because it sounds good and fools the masses. Did you learn the technique from climate scientists?

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD. I fully accept that CO2 backradiates to the ground. Of that there is no doubt. What we do know however is that Long Wave IR can not penetrate the skin of water. Thus it can not warm water. Water in the oceans we KNOW to be the heat reservoir of the planet. I am trying to get to the absolute bottom of the food chain when it comes to global heat retention.

I don't know the answers to the questions i am asking. I am asking them to help understand them. What i do know is I have been researching these questions of mine for years and have so far been able to come up with a compelling answer for them.

Okay, sorry.

I thought you had a 'gotcha' answer lined up.

The most important confusion in this whole AGW mess is the imprecise definition of backradiation 'heating' the surface, and all the claims that this contravenes the SLoT.

Backradiation doesn't actively heat the surface, and it doesn't disobey the Second Law.

Never said it does. Just have been saying that based on what we KNOW, at this point in time, it can't affect the global temps as the theory stands.. That's why I am trying to learn as much as possible. We simply don't even really understand the basics which is why all of these claims are simply silly.

You are not asking yourself the right questions.

The emissivity of the surface approximates a Blackbody. The atmosphere does not.

Radiation going through the atmospheric window is not affected by the atmosphere. It is simply escaping to space.

Radiation in the CO2 band is completely blocked. None gets through from the surface. It stays in the atmosphere adding to the total energy, hence warming the atmosphere.

Other bands are intermediate to these two extremes.

You should think about this until the consequences of this are clearer in your mind.

I love it, here you are making a statement of "believe like me or else" wow. Is that supposed to be like a trance for a hypnotic state or something? dude, really? nothing observed to back any of it. it's been repeated and repeated in here. and still today, you got nothing. adding C02 in the atmosphere has done nothing to warming. Nothing. and, you can't prove it. Can you?

 

[westwall]

My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all. In a highly controlled lab experiment we can see that CO2 is indeed a GHG, however, the Earth is not a closed lab experiment, nor is it a greenhouse. It is an open system, thus CO2 is incapable of having a measurable effect in the vanishingly small amounts that it exists in our atmosphere.

Ultimately the greenhouse gas theory requires CO2 to do something that it can't. We know that the oceans are what regulate the temp of the Earth. We know that UV radiation is the prime mover in that regard. We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature? It can warm the rocks, but the rocks then radiate it away again and don't retain it. Only the oceans retain the heat.

So, you are pulling an SSDD.

You didn't even give an answer to the question you posted to me but you are avoiding like the plague confronting CO2 radiative effects.

You said- "We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature?"

In the last eight years I have answered this question a thousand times in a hundred different ways and yet even reasonable posters like you just don't get it.

There is no 'heat' coming back from the atmosphere ( inversions being the exception). There is a two way flow of energy, from the surface and atmosphere. The net flow is heat.

At night both the surface and the atmosphere are passively cooling but the surface cools more slowly than if the atmosphere was not there.

In daylight, the surface has an active power source and begins to heat up in an attempt to shed this incoming energy, chasing an equilibrium temperature where output matches input. This equilibrium temperature is a function of both energy gain and energy loss. If you increase the solar input the temperature goes up. If you decrease the outgoing energy loss the surface temperature also goes up.

In neither case, not passive cooling nor active heating, does the energy flow from the atmosphere 'heat' anything. I thought you knew enough science to understand that. Perhaps you do, but choose to use an incorrect argument because it sounds good and fools the masses. Did you learn the technique from climate scientists?

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD. I fully accept that CO2 backradiates to the ground. Of that there is no doubt. What we do know however is that Long Wave IR can not penetrate the skin of water. Thus it can not warm water. Water in the oceans we KNOW to be the heat reservoir of the planet. I am trying to get to the absolute bottom of the food chain when it comes to global heat retention.

I don't know the answers to the questions i am asking. I am asking them to help understand them. What i do know is I have been researching these questions of mine for years and have so far been able to come up with a compelling answer for them.

Okay, sorry.

I thought you had a 'gotcha' answer lined up.

The most important confusion in this whole AGW mess is the imprecise definition of backradiation 'heating' the surface, and all the claims that this contravenes the SLoT.

Backradiation doesn't actively heat the surface, and it doesn't disobey the Second Law.

Never said it does. Just have been saying that based on what we KNOW, at this point in time, it can't affect the global temps as the theory stands.. That's why I am trying to learn as much as possible. We simply don't even really understand the basics which is why all of these claims are simply silly.

You are not asking yourself the right questions.

The emissivity of the surface approximates a Blackbody. The atmosphere does not.

Radiation going through the atmospheric window is not affected by the atmosphere. It is simply escaping to space.

Radiation in the CO2 band is completely blocked. None gets through from the surface. It stays in the atmosphere adding to the total energy, hence warming the atmosphere.

Other bands are intermediate to these two extremes.

You should think about this until the consequences of this are clearer in your mind.

And, we KNOW that the CO2 can't warm the oceans which are the heat reservoirs of the planet. Thus I AM asking the right questions.

 

[flacaltenn]

So, you are pulling an SSDD.

You didn't even give an answer to the question you posted to me but you are avoiding like the plague confronting CO2 radiative effects.

You said- "We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature?"

In the last eight years I have answered this question a thousand times in a hundred different ways and yet even reasonable posters like you just don't get it.

There is no 'heat' coming back from the atmosphere ( inversions being the exception). There is a two way flow of energy, from the surface and atmosphere. The net flow is heat.

At night both the surface and the atmosphere are passively cooling but the surface cools more slowly than if the atmosphere was not there.

In daylight, the surface has an active power source and begins to heat up in an attempt to shed this incoming energy, chasing an equilibrium temperature where output matches input. This equilibrium temperature is a function of both energy gain and energy loss. If you increase the solar input the temperature goes up. If you decrease the outgoing energy loss the surface temperature also goes up.

In neither case, not passive cooling nor active heating, does the energy flow from the atmosphere 'heat' anything. I thought you knew enough science to understand that. Perhaps you do, but choose to use an incorrect argument because it sounds good and fools the masses. Did you learn the technique from climate scientists?

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD. I fully accept that CO2 backradiates to the ground. Of that there is no doubt. What we do know however is that Long Wave IR can not penetrate the skin of water. Thus it can not warm water. Water in the oceans we KNOW to be the heat reservoir of the planet. I am trying to get to the absolute bottom of the food chain when it comes to global heat retention.

I don't know the answers to the questions i am asking. I am asking them to help understand them. What i do know is I have been researching these questions of mine for years and have so far been able to come up with a compelling answer for them.

Okay, sorry.

I thought you had a 'gotcha' answer lined up.

The most important confusion in this whole AGW mess is the imprecise definition of backradiation 'heating' the surface, and all the claims that this contravenes the SLoT.

Backradiation doesn't actively heat the surface, and it doesn't disobey the Second Law.

Never said it does. Just have been saying that based on what we KNOW, at this point in time, it can't affect the global temps as the theory stands.. That's why I am trying to learn as much as possible. We simply don't even really understand the basics which is why all of these claims are simply silly.

You are not asking yourself the right questions.

The emissivity of the surface approximates a Blackbody. The atmosphere does not.

Radiation going through the atmospheric window is not affected by the atmosphere. It is simply escaping to space.

Radiation in the CO2 band is completely blocked. None gets through from the surface. It stays in the atmosphere adding to the total energy, hence warming the atmosphere.

Other bands are intermediate to these two extremes.

You should think about this until the consequences of this are clearer in your mind.

And, we KNOW that the CO2 can't warm the oceans which are the heat reservoirs of the planet. Thus I AM asking the right questions.

Any step up in surface heat is gonna be a VERY LONG and delayed response at 500M down in the oceans. But IT WILL go there --- towards equilibrium. Be it from rain, runoff, melting ice, SMALL surface exchanges,
etc...

Except if the step in surface heat is not PRIMARY long wave but total solar daily pumping or frequency/power shifts in the spectrum of the irradiation.. So if BTK found it at 700M, and it was IMMEDIATE in time response, must be the Sun stupids....

 

[SSDD]

You are not asking yourself the right questions.

You are the one not asking yourself the right questions ian...you should be asking yourself how goofy an individual has to be in order to believe that a substance which increases the emissivity of a thing could possibly be responsible for warming that thing...can you think of any real world example of such a thing happening or does it only happen in the case of magical CO2?

 

[westwall]

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD. I fully accept that CO2 backradiates to the ground. Of that there is no doubt. What we do know however is that Long Wave IR can not penetrate the skin of water. Thus it can not warm water. Water in the oceans we KNOW to be the heat reservoir of the planet. I am trying to get to the absolute bottom of the food chain when it comes to global heat retention.

I don't know the answers to the questions i am asking. I am asking them to help understand them. What i do know is I have been researching these questions of mine for years and have so far been able to come up with a compelling answer for them.

Okay, sorry.

I thought you had a 'gotcha' answer lined up.

The most important confusion in this whole AGW mess is the imprecise definition of backradiation 'heating' the surface, and all the claims that this contravenes the SLoT.

Backradiation doesn't actively heat the surface, and it doesn't disobey the Second Law.

Never said it does. Just have been saying that based on what we KNOW, at this point in time, it can't affect the global temps as the theory stands.. That's why I am trying to learn as much as possible. We simply don't even really understand the basics which is why all of these claims are simply silly.

You are not asking yourself the right questions.

The emissivity of the surface approximates a Blackbody. The atmosphere does not.

Radiation going through the atmospheric window is not affected by the atmosphere. It is simply escaping to space.

Radiation in the CO2 band is completely blocked. None gets through from the surface. It stays in the atmosphere adding to the total energy, hence warming the atmosphere.

Other bands are intermediate to these two extremes.

You should think about this until the consequences of this are clearer in your mind.

And, we KNOW that the CO2 can't warm the oceans which are the heat reservoirs of the planet. Thus I AM asking the right questions.

Any step up in surface heat is gonna be a VERY LONG and delayed response at 500M down in the oceans. But IT WILL go there --- towards equilibrium. Be it from rain, runoff, melting ice, SMALL surface exchanges,
etc...

Except if the step in surface heat is not PRIMARY long wave but total solar daily pumping or frequency/power shifts in the spectrum of the irradiation.. So if BTK found it at 700M, and it was IMMEDIATE in time response, must be the Sun stupids....

I agree with almost everything except the "but it will go there". Here I disagree. Mixing can only take the heat down to around 40 meters. At that point the heat is rising ever faster towards the surface. The only heat we know of that can reach that deep is the high energy UV that will penetrate down to 500-600 meters. Then, you get mixing down to the thermocline at 700 meters. That's it. No magical Long Wave IR can exist at that depth. It just can't.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

Water has a residence time of hundreds of years, water vapor of less than ten days. Water vapor is a feedback to CO2 and CH4. Warm the atmosphere with those GHGs and you get more water vapor. Cool the atmosphere by reducing those GHGs, and you get less water vapor in the atmosphere.

The RT for CO2 is 15 years. The claim that CO2 warming takes effect over hundreds of years is ridiculous.

Link?

This peer reviewed study fixes the RT at FOUR years... When the absolute basics aren't understood, the wild claims that the alarmists make are just stupid beyond belief. But, they get the grants don't they. And it's all about those grants.

Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.
Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne

The removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence). Depending on the RCP scenario considered, about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. This very long time required by sinks to remove anthropogenic CO2 makes climate change caused by elevated CO2 irreversible on human time scale.

Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne


Abbildung 1: CO2-Verlauf der letzten 800.000 Jahre. Quelle: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, via Climate Central.

The residence of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is less than 5 years. But as one molecule is absorbed by the ocean or vegetation, another is emitted into the atmosphere. So the balance remains the same, and, as the author points out, we are looking at a thousand years or more to completely remove the CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere. And the author also points out it will be warming the atmosphere the whole time.

 

[westwall]

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

Water has a residence time of hundreds of years, water vapor of less than ten days. Water vapor is a feedback to CO2 and CH4. Warm the atmosphere with those GHGs and you get more water vapor. Cool the atmosphere by reducing those GHGs, and you get less water vapor in the atmosphere.

The RT for CO2 is 15 years. The claim that CO2 warming takes effect over hundreds of years is ridiculous.

Link?

This peer reviewed study fixes the RT at FOUR years... When the absolute basics aren't understood, the wild claims that the alarmists make are just stupid beyond belief. But, they get the grants don't they. And it's all about those grants.

Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.
Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne

The removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence). Depending on the RCP scenario considered, about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. This very long time required by sinks to remove anthropogenic CO2 makes climate change caused by elevated CO2 irreversible on human time scale.

Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne


Abbildung 1: CO2-Verlauf der letzten 800.000 Jahre. Quelle: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, via Climate Central.

The residence of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is less than 5 years. But as one molecule is absorbed by the ocean or vegetation, another is emitted into the atmosphere. So the balance remains the same, and, as the author points out, we are looking at a thousand years or more to completely remove the CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere. And the author also points out it will be warming the atmosphere the whole time.

Which is sheer and utter bullcrap. But who cares. CO2 doesn't drive global temps. Never has, never will. And it is my contention that it in fact has no measurable affect., and to date there is not a single experiment that can show it does. Not one.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey.....bottom line is, by far, most Americans have little concern about climate change............

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/23/most-americans-believe-in-climate-change-but-give-it-low-priority/

Everybody talks about the weather. But the climate? Only in some places.
Counties where adults discuss global warming at least occasionally

Mapping How Americans Think About Climate Change

 

[Old Rocks]

Americans want to restrict carbon emissions from coal power plants. The White House and Congress may do the opposite.
Percentage of adults per congressional district who support strict CO2 limits on existing coal-fired power plants

20%

30

40

50

6
Mapping How Americans Think About Climate Change

 

[Old Rocks]

My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all

The surface radiates about 400w. CO2 captures all the 15 micron surface radiation but the atmosphere regenerates a portion further up. About 35w is missing and was added to the total energy of the atmosphere.

How can you convinced yourself that this is insignificant?

This is especially important at near surface levels. All the surface 15 micron IR goes into the first few 10s of metres of atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere is then less capable of receiving energy by conduction.

You have seen more than enough evidence to understand that CO2, even at a small concentration, has a significant effect.

No, I haven't because the historical and paleo records show beyond question that the global temp swings hot and cold no matter what the CO2 concentration has been. The Vostock cores show a period of cooling when the CO2 levels were above now, and likewise show warming when they were lower. There IS no correlation between CO2 and global temp. There just isn't. There is only theory and models.

The only time we see a temperature impact from CO2 is in very highly controlled lab experiments. And even there the scientist halved the potential rate of temp increase after further experimentation. And to date there has been no lab experimentation on the GHG effect of CO2 since then. We have instrumentation that is far more sophisticated than he did, my hope is that the subject will be revisited.

What fucking bullshit.



Dr. Richard Alley, a real scientist.

 

[IanC]

You are not asking yourself the right questions.

You are the one not asking yourself the right questions ian...you should be asking yourself how goofy an individual has to be in order to believe that a substance which increases the emissivity of a thing could possibly be responsible for warming that thing...can you think of any real world example of such a thing happening or does it only happen in the case of magical CO2?

Good ole SSDD. He says things he thinks are smart but they usually come back to bite him in the ass.

This post of his is no exception. I told Westwall to consider the emissivity of the atmospheric window at zero, and the CO2 band at one.

What are the consequences? The atmosphere in the atmospheric window has none. It is as if it wasn't there at all. At those wavelengths the surface is radiating at full power into space, unimpeded. This is a case of the single object S-B equation being in play. All radiation loss, none coming back. You don't have to consider net power because the flow is only in one direction.

On the other hand, CO2 is absorbing ALL of the 15 micron radiation that the surface produces within metres of its emission. If the surface was warm enough to produce twice as much 15 micron radiation it would still be all totally absorbed.

This is where the two object S-B equation comes into play. Emissivity is very close to one for both objects, the area is equal because one object is enclosed by the other, only the temperature makes a difference between outgoing and incoming radiation at the surface.

Two things must be repeated for clarification. The ability to absorb a certain wavelength is exactly the same as the ability to emit the same wavelength, for any substance. It is called emissivity.

Area for a gas is a bit of a misnomer. The volume of gas that is capable of absorbing the radiation is a closer definition. Therefore the average temperature of the whole slab must be used in the S-B equation. Even this is not quite right but is close enough for our purposes. For 15 micron radiation the depth of the slab is roughly 10 metres, at STP.

Any object that absorbs and emits will affect a nearby object if it is replacing area exposed to a cooler environment, like space. If the nearby object has a power source then the equilibrium temperature will rise, if the nearby object is only warmer but not powered then the heat loss will be reduced.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, you are pulling an SSDD.

You didn't even give an answer to the question you posted to me but you are avoiding like the plague confronting CO2 radiative effects.

You said- "We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature?"

In the last eight years I have answered this question a thousand times in a hundred different ways and yet even reasonable posters like you just don't get it.

There is no 'heat' coming back from the atmosphere ( inversions being the exception). There is a two way flow of energy, from the surface and atmosphere. The net flow is heat.

At night both the surface and the atmosphere are passively cooling but the surface cools more slowly than if the atmosphere was not there.

In daylight, the surface has an active power source and begins to heat up in an attempt to shed this incoming energy, chasing an equilibrium temperature where output matches input. This equilibrium temperature is a function of both energy gain and energy loss. If you increase the solar input the temperature goes up. If you decrease the outgoing energy loss the surface temperature also goes up.

In neither case, not passive cooling nor active heating, does the energy flow from the atmosphere 'heat' anything. I thought you knew enough science to understand that. Perhaps you do, but choose to use an incorrect argument because it sounds good and fools the masses. Did you learn the technique from climate scientists?

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD. I fully accept that CO2 backradiates to the ground. Of that there is no doubt. What we do know however is that Long Wave IR can not penetrate the skin of water. Thus it can not warm water. Water in the oceans we KNOW to be the heat reservoir of the planet. I am trying to get to the absolute bottom of the food chain when it comes to global heat retention.

I don't know the answers to the questions i am asking. I am asking them to help understand them. What i do know is I have been researching these questions of mine for years and have so far been able to come up with a compelling answer for them.

Okay, sorry.

I thought you had a 'gotcha' answer lined up.

The most important confusion in this whole AGW mess is the imprecise definition of backradiation 'heating' the surface, and all the claims that this contravenes the SLoT.

Backradiation doesn't actively heat the surface, and it doesn't disobey the Second Law.

Never said it does. Just have been saying that based on what we KNOW, at this point in time, it can't affect the global temps as the theory stands.. That's why I am trying to learn as much as possible. We simply don't even really understand the basics which is why all of these claims are simply silly.

You are not asking yourself the right questions.

The emissivity of the surface approximates a Blackbody. The atmosphere does not.

Radiation going through the atmospheric window is not affected by the atmosphere. It is simply escaping to space.

Radiation in the CO2 band is completely blocked. None gets through from the surface. It stays in the atmosphere adding to the total energy, hence warming the atmosphere.

Other bands are intermediate to these two extremes.

You should think about this until the consequences of this are clearer in your mind.

And, we KNOW that the CO2 can't warm the oceans which are the heat reservoirs of the planet. Thus I AM asking the right questions.

LOL Only every single Scientific Society of Physicists in the world states that you are dead wrong. And go ahead and claim it is an international conspiracy of greedy scientists in every nation in the world. Shows you up for the dumb ass you truly are.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

Water has a residence time of hundreds of years, water vapor of less than ten days. Water vapor is a feedback to CO2 and CH4. Warm the atmosphere with those GHGs and you get more water vapor. Cool the atmosphere by reducing those GHGs, and you get less water vapor in the atmosphere.

The RT for CO2 is 15 years. The claim that CO2 warming takes effect over hundreds of years is ridiculous.

Link?

This peer reviewed study fixes the RT at FOUR years... When the absolute basics aren't understood, the wild claims that the alarmists make are just stupid beyond belief. But, they get the grants don't they. And it's all about those grants.

Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.
Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne

The removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence). Depending on the RCP scenario considered, about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. This very long time required by sinks to remove anthropogenic CO2 makes climate change caused by elevated CO2 irreversible on human time scale.

Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne


Abbildung 1: CO2-Verlauf der letzten 800.000 Jahre. Quelle: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, via Climate Central.

The residence of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is less than 5 years. But as one molecule is absorbed by the ocean or vegetation, another is emitted into the atmosphere. So the balance remains the same, and, as the author points out, we are looking at a thousand years or more to completely remove the CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere. And the author also points out it will be warming the atmosphere the whole time.

Here rocks...have a look at some actual science...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

And it isn't like this is something new...we have known this for quite a while...it has just been ignored by the politically motivated climate pseudoscientists.

https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

“The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

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

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.
(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

“[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

“[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”

http://journals.sagepub.com.sci-hub.cc/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509789876772

“The increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide for the period from 1980 to 2007 can be statistically explained as being a function solely of the global mean temperature. Throughout the period, the temperature differences seem to have caused differences around a base trend of 1.5 ppmv/year. The atmospheric CO2 increase rate was higher when the globe was warmer, and the increase rate was lower when the globe was cooler. This can be explained by wind patterns, biological processes, or most likely by the fact that a warmer ocean can hold less carbon dioxide. This finding indicates that knowledge of the rate of anthropogenic emission is not needed for estimation of the increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

IPCC AR4 (2007): “Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years.”

Caillon et al., 2003 “The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.”

Fischer et al., 1999 “High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.”

Monnin et al., 2001 “The start of the CO2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ± 600 years.”

Kawamura et al., 2007 “Our chronology also indirectly gives the timing of the CO2 rise at [glacial] terminations, which occurs within 1 kyr of the increase in Antarctic temperature.”

Indermuhle et al., 2000 “The [CO2] lag was calculated for which the correlation coefficient of the CO2 record and the corresponding temperatures values reached a maximum. The simulation yields a [CO2] lag of (1200 ± 700) yr.

Landais et al., 2013 “[F]rom 130.5 to 129,000 years ago, the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations lagged that of Antarctic temperature unequivocally….At mid-slope, there is an unequivocal lead of δ15N[temperature] over CO2 of 900 ± 325 yr”.

Schneider et al., 2013 “Furthermore, a 5,000 yr lag in the CO2 decline relative to EDC [East Antarctica] temperatures is confirmed during the glacial inception at the end of MIS5.5 (120,000 yrs before present).”

Stott et al., 2007 “Deep-sea temperatures warmed by ∼2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical–surface-ocean warming by ∼1000 years.”

“However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction” – Hansen et al., 2013

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

And it goes on and on and on...not only are your claims that we are causing a change in the global climate via our CO2 emissions bullshit, the very claim that we are the primary drivers of atmospheric CO2 is bullshit. Research shows that it is as I have said all along...we don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the variations in the Earth's own CO2 making machinery year to year.

 

[SSDD]

You are not asking yourself the right questions.

You are the one not asking yourself the right questions ian...you should be asking yourself how goofy an individual has to be in order to believe that a substance which increases the emissivity of a thing could possibly be responsible for warming that thing...can you think of any real world example of such a thing happening or does it only happen in the case of magical CO2?

Good ole SSDD. He says things he thinks are smart but they usually come back to bite him in the ass.

This post of his is no exception. I told Westwall to consider the emissivity of the atmospheric window at zero, and the CO2 band at one.

.

Bottom line ian...are you arguing that additional CO2 does not increase the emissivity of the atmosphere even though the observed, measured, quantified experimental evidence says that it does? Is that what you are saying?

Your claims and though experiments mean exactly squat in the face of observed, repeatable experimental evidence that says flatly that you are wrong...magical thinking simply can't overcome reality.

 

[IanC]

Bottom line ian...are you arguing that additional CO2 does not increase the emissivity of the atmosphere even though the observed, measured, quantified experimental evidence says that it does? Is that what you are saying?

Are you stupid, or what? I just said that CO2 adds an emissivity of one for the 15 micron wavelength. More CO2 widens the wings a bit. The other two vibrational states are not as important because they are overlapped by H2O.

SSDD is confused because the presence of CO2 has different consequences depending on where in the atmosphere it is.

High up in the atmosphere CO2 takes energy from molecular collisions and transforms it into 15 micron photons that can escape because the air is so rarified. This is the only piece of the puzzle that interests him.

At the surface CO2 absorbs all the available 15 micron radiation. That energy is transferred to the rest of the atmosphere by molecular collision or occasionally re-emitted. The atmosphere is also exciting CO2 molecules at the same time. All the 15 micron energy is constantly being switched back and forth between kinetic and potential energy, none can escape. This piece of the puzzle is ignored by SSDD.

Emission of radiation is temperature dependant while absorption is not. The surface radiates an amount commensurate to about 15C. The height at which CO2 emits 15 micron radiation that can finally escape is much colder, -50C or less.

The amount of 15 micron energy the atmosphere receives at the surface is more than the atmosphere loses higher up, because of the temperature difference. This surplus of energy warms the air which in turn warms the surface (edit- causes the surface to warm towards a higher equilibrium temperature by solar radiation input), until radiation loss in other wavelengths balances the energy budget again.

This is a relatively simple concept, born out in the data collected during the satellite era. How anyone can deny it is unfathomable to me.

 

[SSDD]

I just said that CO2 adds an emissivity

That was enough...a substance that reduces the emissivity of the atmosphere might cause warming...a substance that increase the emissivity does not, will not, and can not cause warming...THE END...FINI...

 

[jc456]

Americans want to restrict carbon emissions from coal power plants. The White House and Congress may do the opposite.
Percentage of adults per congressional district who support strict CO2 limits on existing coal-fired power plants

20%

30

40

50

6
Mapping How Americans Think About Climate Change

polls are unacceptable, you wish a change put it to a fking vote. kapeesh?

 

[jc456]

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD. I fully accept that CO2 backradiates to the ground. Of that there is no doubt. What we do know however is that Long Wave IR can not penetrate the skin of water. Thus it can not warm water. Water in the oceans we KNOW to be the heat reservoir of the planet. I am trying to get to the absolute bottom of the food chain when it comes to global heat retention.

I don't know the answers to the questions i am asking. I am asking them to help understand them. What i do know is I have been researching these questions of mine for years and have so far been able to come up with a compelling answer for them.

Okay, sorry.

I thought you had a 'gotcha' answer lined up.

The most important confusion in this whole AGW mess is the imprecise definition of backradiation 'heating' the surface, and all the claims that this contravenes the SLoT.

Backradiation doesn't actively heat the surface, and it doesn't disobey the Second Law.

Never said it does. Just have been saying that based on what we KNOW, at this point in time, it can't affect the global temps as the theory stands.. That's why I am trying to learn as much as possible. We simply don't even really understand the basics which is why all of these claims are simply silly.

You are not asking yourself the right questions.

The emissivity of the surface approximates a Blackbody. The atmosphere does not.

Radiation going through the atmospheric window is not affected by the atmosphere. It is simply escaping to space.

Radiation in the CO2 band is completely blocked. None gets through from the surface. It stays in the atmosphere adding to the total energy, hence warming the atmosphere.

Other bands are intermediate to these two extremes.

You should think about this until the consequences of this are clearer in your mind.

And, we KNOW that the CO2 can't warm the oceans which are the heat reservoirs of the planet. Thus I AM asking the right questions.

LOL Only every single Scientific Society of Physicists in the world states that you are dead wrong. And go ahead and claim it is an international conspiracy of greedy scientists in every nation in the world. Shows you up for the dumb ass you truly are.

no they don't. simply a lie. sheez