In summary...

[IanC]

Okay, CO2 does not warm the planet. I can agree with that, depending on the definition of the verb 'to 'warm'. Does CO2 warm the atmosphere by intercepting certain bands of IR that react specifically to CO2? Remember, that energy would directly escape to space if CO2 was not present. It enters at the surface but does not all come out at the TOA. Where did the energy go, if not to warm the atmosphere?

the energy escapes to space either way...energy moves from warm to cool...it doesn't come back to the ground...that being the case, the energy absorbed by CO2 which is not transferred by convection (most energy exchanges) is moved along to space by the more rapid means of radiation...it is all moving out into space....not slowing down as evidenced by the lack of a hot spot...it is amazing that you still believe energy is slowing down even when it is clear that there is not hot spot...the inevitable fingerprint of energy movement as you believe it to be happening.

I'm not trying to trick you. I just want to know how you mentally deal with this conundrum.

Of course you are trying to trick him...you are willing to try and trick anyone so that you don't have to be wrong all by yourself...as if getting someone else to ride the crazy train with you makes it anything other than a crazy train.

I am having a hard time trying to follow your contortions.

CO2 specific IR enters the atmosphere at the surface, and only a small fraction comes out at the top. Where does the remaining energy go?

Please respond to this specific question.

And precisely how much CO2 specific IR radiates from the surface?....no idea...right....you are simply assuming a number that supports what you believe...radiation plays the smallest part of transporting energy to the upper atmosphere ian...if the atmosphere had no radiative gasses, the planet would be warmer as convection would be the only means of transporting energy to the upper atmosphere.

No reply to my specific question I see.

The amount total radiation coming off various surface components has been thoroughly measured for a wide range of temperatures. The CO2 specific band is also well identified. The amount radiated at the surface is much larger than the amount finally released at the top of the atmosphere.

My question to you was 'What happened to the missing energy?'. You refuse to give your opinion on this.

Without water going through phase changes in the atmosphere there would be much less convection and conduction would be the major player in atmospheric energy transport. Without GHGs in the atmosphere the surface would shed heat by direct radiation to space and we would be much colder.

Did you catch that? Without GHGs the surface would radiate directly to space! Both the atmosphere and surface would be colder. Much colder.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Okay, CO2 does not warm the planet. I can agree with that, depending on the definition of the verb 'to 'warm'. Does CO2 warm the atmosphere by intercepting certain bands of IR that react specifically to CO2? Remember, that energy would directly escape to space if CO2 was not present. It enters at the surface but does not all come out at the TOA. Where did the energy go, if not to warm the atmosphere?

the energy escapes to space either way...energy moves from warm to cool...it doesn't come back to the ground...that being the case, the energy absorbed by CO2 which is not transferred by convection (most energy exchanges) is moved along to space by the more rapid means of radiation...it is all moving out into space....not slowing down as evidenced by the lack of a hot spot...it is amazing that you still believe energy is slowing down even when it is clear that there is not hot spot...the inevitable fingerprint of energy movement as you believe it to be happening.

I'm not trying to trick you. I just want to know how you mentally deal with this conundrum.

Of course you are trying to trick him...you are willing to try and trick anyone so that you don't have to be wrong all by yourself...as if getting someone else to ride the crazy train with you makes it anything other than a crazy train.

I am having a hard time trying to follow your contortions.

CO2 specific IR enters the atmosphere at the surface, and only a small fraction comes out at the top. Where does the remaining energy go?

Please respond to this specific question.

And precisely how much CO2 specific IR radiates from the surface?....no idea...right....you are simply assuming a number that supports what you believe...radiation plays the smallest part of transporting energy to the upper atmosphere ian...if the atmosphere had no radiative gasses, the planet would be warmer as convection would be the only means of transporting energy to the upper atmosphere.

if the atmosphere had no radiative gasses, the planet would be warmer as convection would be the only means of transporting energy to the upper atmosphere.

Which is why desert areas are warmer at night than humid areas. DERP!

It is like talking to a 4 year old and it never ends with you. I suppose you think such comments sound good in your head and make you seem smart...deserts lack water vapor, which, unlike the rest of the so called greenhouse gasses, actually absorbs and retains heat....Water vapor doesn't hasten the movement of IR to the upper atmosphere because it absorbs and retains the heat...it is just that sort of stupidity that keeps me from paying much attention to what you write...one liners composed with the intellect of a 4 year old just aren't that interesting.

deserts lack water vapor

Isn't water a radiative gas?

unlike the rest of the so called greenhouse gasses, actually absorbs and retains heat.

Right. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses can't absorb and retain heat....because smart photons talked them out of it?

Water vapor doesn't hasten the movement of IR to the upper atmosphere because it absorbs and retains the heat..

CO2 doesn't hasten the movement of IR to the upper atmosphere because it absorbs and emits IR.
In all directions. Even back toward the warmer surface, because photons don't measure the temperature of their targets.

It is like talking to a 4 year old and it never ends with you.

I agree, and like a 4 year old....you're very stubborn.
But we'll keep trying.....you can't stay stupid forever.

 

[SSDD]

No reply to my specific question I see.

The amount total radiation coming off various surface components has been thoroughly measured for a wide range of temperatures. The CO2 specific band is also well identified. The amount radiated at the surface is much larger than the amount finally released at the top of the atmosphere.

My question to you was 'What happened to the missing energy?'. You refuse to give your opinion on this.

It isn't missing Ian...it is exiting at the top of the atmosphere exactly where it should be....if one is looking for CO2 specific band at the top of the atmosphere, one is likely to find less than is emitting from the surface...every time a CO2 molecule absorbs and then emits a theoretical photon, that theoretical photon would be at a slightly lower frequency than when it was absorbed and therefore no longer to be found within the CO2 specific band. Surprised that you would be unaware of that ian...or are you aware, but perfectly willing to ignore the fact because it f@cks with what you believe.

 

[SSDD]

deserts lack water vapor

Isn't water a radiative gas?

and off we go into the land of 4 year old questions

Right. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses can't absorb and retain heat....because smart photons talked them out of it?

CO2 has no mechanism with which to hold heat in the atmosphere...any energy absorbed is immediately emitted...so no...they can't...water vapor is the only gas known that can absorb and retain energy in the open atmosphere...if you were half as smart as you believe yourself to be...you might know that...perhaps you should ask yourself why you don't.

 

[IanC]

No reply to my specific question I see.

The amount total radiation coming off various surface components has been thoroughly measured for a wide range of temperatures. The CO2 specific band is also well identified. The amount radiated at the surface is much larger than the amount finally released at the top of the atmosphere.

My question to you was 'What happened to the missing energy?'. You refuse to give your opinion on this.

It isn't missing Ian...it is exiting at the top of the atmosphere exactly where it should be....if one is looking for CO2 specific band at the top of the atmosphere, one is likely to find less than is emitting from the surface...every time a CO2 molecule absorbs and then emits a theoretical photon, that theoretical photon would be at a slightly lower frequency than when it was absorbed and therefore no longer to be found within the CO2 specific band. Surprised that you would be unaware of that ian...or are you aware, but perfectly willing to ignore the fact because it f@cks with what you believe.

????? now you are saying that resonant frequencies change? a CO2 molecule can only absorb certain bands of radiation. once excited, it can only re-emit the same frequency photon. at least for the three main vibrational modes which probably account for 99.99% of normal interactions. atoms and molecules can only make quantum leaps between allowed states. otherwise electrons would radiate their energy away and fall into the nucleus and the universe as we know it would not exist.

some electron leaps in atoms can be large enough that they return to groundstate in two or more partial jumps down, giving off a photon every time. the combined energy of the partial jumps equals the original leap. there is no loss of energy when swapping orbital or vibrational states. no conversion to lower frequency photons unless it is in multiple photons.


you still have not accounted for the missing energy. the total amount of IR leaving the TOA is less than the total amount of IR being emitted by the surface. this is different than my original question on CO2 specific IR only. you keep saying absorption/emission does not equal warming. so where did the energy go?

 

[IanC]

deserts lack water vapor

Isn't water a radiative gas?

and off we go into the land of 4 year old questions

Right. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses can't absorb and retain heat....because smart photons talked them out of it?

CO2 has no mechanism with which to hold heat in the atmosphere...any energy absorbed is immediately emitted...so no...they can't...water vapor is the only gas known that can absorb and retain energy in the open atmosphere...if you were half as smart as you believe yourself to be...you might know that...perhaps you should ask yourself why you don't.

water vapour absorbs and emits and collides with other atmospheric molecules in the same fashion as CO2. the retained energy is in phase change, latent heat. absorbed at the surface, released during condensation and precipitation.

...if you were half as smart as you believe yourself to be...you might know that...perhaps you should ask yourself why you don't.

your words, and they apply to you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

deserts lack water vapor

Isn't water a radiative gas?

and off we go into the land of 4 year old questions

Right. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses can't absorb and retain heat....because smart photons talked them out of it?

CO2 has no mechanism with which to hold heat in the atmosphere...any energy absorbed is immediately emitted...so no...they can't...water vapor is the only gas known that can absorb and retain energy in the open atmosphere...if you were half as smart as you believe yourself to be...you might know that...perhaps you should ask yourself why you don't.

and off we go into the land of 4 year old questions

And 4 year olds not answering.

CO2 has no mechanism with which to hold heat in the atmosphere

Ummm...electrons in higher orbits and increased kinetic energy. DERP!

...any energy absorbed is immediately emitted...

Yeah, back radiation keeps us warmer as well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No reply to my specific question I see.

The amount total radiation coming off various surface components has been thoroughly measured for a wide range of temperatures. The CO2 specific band is also well identified. The amount radiated at the surface is much larger than the amount finally released at the top of the atmosphere.

My question to you was 'What happened to the missing energy?'. You refuse to give your opinion on this.

It isn't missing Ian...it is exiting at the top of the atmosphere exactly where it should be....if one is looking for CO2 specific band at the top of the atmosphere, one is likely to find less than is emitting from the surface...every time a CO2 molecule absorbs and then emits a theoretical photon, that theoretical photon would be at a slightly lower frequency than when it was absorbed and therefore no longer to be found within the CO2 specific band. Surprised that you would be unaware of that ian...or are you aware, but perfectly willing to ignore the fact because it f@cks with what you believe.

every time a CO2 molecule absorbs and then emits a theoretical photon, that theoretical photon would be at a slightly lower frequency than when it was absorbed

Does your stupidity burn?

 

[SSDD]

????? now you are saying that resonant frequencies change? a CO2 molecule can only absorb certain bands of radiation. once excited, it can only re-emit the same frequency photon.

So you are claiming that zero energy is used in moving up to a more excited state and emitting a photon? Sorry Ian...simply not true. Energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule has two possible paths....either it can be passed on as kinetic energy by a collision with another molecule such as O2 or N2...or it can be emitted as a theoretical photon at a slightly lower frequency...this is not arcane and obscure knowledge ian....and if you are looking for CO2 specific radiation frequencies at the top of the atmosphere, you are only going to see that energy which has not been absorbed and re emitted along the way.

you still have not accounted for the missing energy. the total amount of IR leaving the TOA is less than the total amount of IR being emitted by the surface. this is different than my original question on CO2 specific IR only. you keep saying absorption/emission does not equal warming. so where did the energy go?

Since there is no tropospheric hot spot, where do you think it is going...it certainly isn't doing what you think it is doing because the requisite fingerprint is simply not there.

 

[IanC]

atomic and molecular gas spectra are measured in two ways.

first way, you can shine broad spectrum light through the gas and find out which frequencies are absorbed.

second way, you can heat the gas and see which frequencies are emitted.

the two ways are exact opposites of each other. the absorbed frequencies in one method are exactly the same as the emitted frequencies in the other.

SSDD is simply wrong in stating that CO2 emits lower and lower energy frequencies

 

[IanC]

the tropospheric hotspot is formed by clouds condensing and releasing energy higher up in the atmosphere. this is obviously happening

consensus science states that a warming atmosphere/warming surface causes more evaporation as a feedback to cause even more warming. their models predict an obvious increase in the hotspot. that obvious increase is not happening at the rate predicted. the models are wrong again.

CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere. CO2 can become excited by molecular collisions. if the time between collisions is longer than the average time for excitation>emission then a photon is likely to be emitted. the Stratosphere is thin enough that when a CO2 molecule is excited by collision (or absorbing a photon) that it will both emit a photon and that photon will escape to space without being reabsorbed (if it is travelling in a direction that leads to space). the increase of CO2 levels in the stratosphere leads to a prediction that the stratosphere will cool because of more radiation being produced and then lost to space. measurements have found that the stratosphere is indeed cooling. models are probably right in this prediction.

 

[Crick]

Just keep in mind that model predict a tropospheric hotspot for ANY form of warming; not just greenhouse.

 

[IanC]

Just keep in mind that model predict a tropospheric hotspot for ANY form of warming; not just greenhouse.

good point!

does the lack of tropospheric hotspot warming suggest that the current methodology for determining global temperatures and trends is somehow exaggerating the results? adding phantom warming that isnt really there, otherwise the troposphere would have warmed more?

 

[Crick]

No. I think it suggests that satellite drift has the greatest effect at the equator.

 

[IanC]

No. I think it suggests that satellite drift has the greatest effect at the equator.

to each, his own.

I think the Iris Effect has the greatest effect at the equator.

 

[Crick]

Perhaps, though your contention that it shouldn't matter who an idea comes from would have to be called for on any theory of Lindzen's.

 

[IanC]

Perhaps, though your contention that it shouldn't matter who an idea comes from would have to be called for on any theory of Lindzen's.

dipping into Old Rock's bag of tricks now? Lindzen was ahead of his time, the Iris Effect being incorporated into climate models now, albeit under a different name. at the turn of the millenium the climate science elite could shout down anyone they wanted, and disrupt the publishing of even established scientists.

 

[Crick]

The Iris Effect may well turn out to be real and significant, but Lindzen...
Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia
Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[50] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51] These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53]The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."[56]

I suspect his mind is not as sharp as it once was.

 

[IanC]

The Iris Effect may well turn out to be real and significant, but Lindzen...
Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia
Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[50] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51] These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53]The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."[56]

I suspect his mind is not as sharp as it once was.

There have been many climate science papers that have published with grotesque errors in them. Mann08 tried to make a non tree ring reconstruction but to do so he used the Tiljander cores upsidedown. Did the climate science community demand that he fix it? No. Has it been fixed ? No. Is it still being referenced and incorporated into other studies? Yes. Eg Marcott.

 

[IanC]

for those who dont know what the Iris Effect is.... Basically it functions because sunshine heats the water, causing evaporation, leading to clouds, which then reflect the sunshine, decreasing the surface warming.

this effect doesn't necessarily even affect the amount of evaporation or clouds. just the timing is enough. if the clouds form at 11AM instead of noon the amount of light reaching the surface is reduced.