Math and Science of Warming

[CrusaderFrank]

I think that IPCC4 claimed that atmospheric CO2 heats the ocean and therefore added that datasets to their overall warming computation.

I'll double check later

Heat moves away from and around the earth surface largely by convection (updrafts, wind) phase changes in water, and long wave radiation (IR). Analytically it's a mess.
Ultimately heat can only escape the planet by LWIR. If there were no GHGs, that LWIR would be so much that the earth surface would be well below freezing (-18C)

As you know, GHG's holds back some of the radiation that would otherwise escape, so the earth doesn't freeze at -18C, but maintains an average of +15C. If more GHGs were added to the atmosphere, less radiation would escape and the earth would be warmer.

This is the crux which many do not understand:
Adding more CO2 does not directly heat anything. CO2 prevents heat from escaping, thus causing the temperature to rise. When people mock others and think they are foolishly saying "CO2 heats the ocean", they are forgetting the nature of the process - that it is preventing more heat from escaping.

In short, the sun heats the ocean. GHG's slow that heat from escaping.


.

If what you say is true, it should be easy be to show this "excess heat" in a lab setting from a 120PPM CO2 increase

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think that IPCC4 claimed that atmospheric CO2 heats the ocean and therefore added that datasets to their overall warming computation.

I'll double check later

Heat moves away from and around the earth surface largely by convection (updrafts, wind) phase changes in water, and long wave radiation (IR). Analytically it's a mess.
Ultimately heat can only escape the planet by LWIR. If there were no GHGs, that LWIR would be so much that the earth surface would be well below freezing (-18C)

As you know, GHG's holds back some of the radiation that would otherwise escape, so the earth doesn't freeze at -18C, but maintains an average of +15C. If more GHGs were added to the atmosphere, less radiation would escape and the earth would be warmer.

This is the crux which many do not understand:
Adding more CO2 does not directly heat anything. CO2 prevents heat from escaping, thus causing the temperature to rise. When people mock others and think they are foolishly saying "CO2 heats the ocean", they are forgetting the nature of the process - that it is preventing more heat from escaping.

In short, the sun heats the ocean. GHG's slow that heat from escaping.


.

Doc, the IPCC totally Schruted the "heat trapped by the ocean" fictional narrative

 

[Wuwei]

Got a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere? Didn't think so..

Forgot so soon? Or are you just trolling? We gave you a link to Foote's experiment, videos, and theory involving the conservation of energy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Got a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere? Didn't think so..

Forgot so soon? Or are you just trolling? We gave you a link to Foote's experiment, videos, and theory involving the conservation of energy.

OK, if what you say is true, there should be lab working testing for heat retained, added, etc for varying levels of incremental CO2 additions. Is it an exponential relationship? Does 10PPM addition CO2 generate .5C while 20PPM generate 5C?

What is it?

 

[Wuwei]

OK, if what you say is true, there should be lab working testing for heat retained, added, etc for varying levels of incremental CO2 additions. Is it an exponential relationship? Does 10PPM addition CO2 generate .5C while 20PPM generate 5C?

What is it?

Only the real skeptics demand this. The science of energy absorption in a gas and the temperature rise is so straightforward that is not necessary to do all that. Beer-Lambert's law covers absorption of radiant energy. Where does absorbed energy go? The conservation of energy must apply.

If the energy doesn't go to raising the temperature it can go into chemical change, phase changes, etc.

But in a laboratory setting with CO2 there is none of that. So the energy ends up as temperature change.

Your demand of experiments is like demanding Newton's second law of motion be questioned. People simply don't continue questioning and testing it with different forces and masses when the theory is so straightforward.

.

 

[jc456]

well I thought that 99% of CO2 absorption is handed off through collisions and is converted to conduction and convection?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OK, if what you say is true, there should be lab working testing for heat retained, added, etc for varying levels of incremental CO2 additions. Is it an exponential relationship? Does 10PPM addition CO2 generate .5C while 20PPM generate 5C?

What is it?

Only the real skeptics demand this. The science of energy absorption in a gas and the temperature rise is so straightforward that is not necessary to do all that. Beer-Lambert's law covers absorption of radiant energy. Where does absorbed energy go? The conservation of energy must apply.

If the energy doesn't go to raising the temperature it can go into chemical change, phase changes, etc.

But in a laboratory setting with CO2 there is none of that. So the energy ends up as temperature change.

Your demand of experiments is like demanding Newton's second law of motion be questioned. People simply don't continue questioning and testing it with different forces and masses when the theory is so straightforward.

.

I'm not understanding your statement. Are you saying because "The conservation of energy must apply" that there would be no difference in temperature between an atmosphere that's 80% N, 19.98% O and .2% CO2 and one that 100% CO2?

 

[Wuwei]

well I thought that 99% of CO2 absorption is handed off through collisions

Exactly. A collision transfers the CO2 absorbed energy to kinetic energy of air molecules. Those collisions increase the average kinetic energy of air molecules. A measure of the average kinetic energy is called temperature. When the kinetic energy increases, the temperature increases. It's as simple as that.

 

[jc456]

well I thought that 99% of CO2 absorption is handed off through collisions

Exactly. A collision transfers the CO2 absorbed energy to kinetic energy of air molecules. Those collisions increase the average kinetic energy of air molecules. A measure of the average kinetic energy is called temperature. When the kinetic energy increases, the temperature increases. It's as simple as that.

well that isn't IR and wouldn't radiate back to the surface!

 

[Wuwei]

I'm not understanding your statement. Are you saying because "The conservation of energy must apply" that there would be no difference in temperature between an atmosphere that's 80% N, 19.98% O and .2% CO2 and one that 100% CO2?

At the current percent all the radiant energy from the earth surface is absorbed in a few dozen meters. If the percent of CO2 increases to 100% it will be absorbed at a much shorter distance. The final temperature of the surface is determined by the heat loss at the top of the atmosphere.


.

 

[Wuwei]

well that isn't IR and wouldn't radiate back to the surface!

The atmosphere is swarming with IR and it comes from collisions and not just earth heat. That is where the equipartition theory comes in. And it radiates isotropically.

 

[jc456]

well that isn't IR and wouldn't radiate back to the surface!

The atmosphere is swarming with IR and it comes from collisions and not just earth heat. That is where the equipartition theory comes in. And it radiates isotropically.

and any picked up by CO2 isn't radiated back to the surface, it is handed off. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much CO2 is actually in the air.

 

[jc456]

well I thought that 99% of CO2 absorption is handed off through collisions and is converted to conduction and convection?

well I thought

You're lying.

was the thought wrong?

Hey, BTW, if 99% is lost through collision, how does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward the surface?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm not understanding your statement. Are you saying because "The conservation of energy must apply" that there would be no difference in temperature between an atmosphere that's 80% N, 19.98% O and .2% CO2 and one that 100% CO2?

At the current percent all the radiant energy from the earth surface is absorbed in a few dozen meters. If the percent of CO2 increases to 100% it will be absorbed at a much shorter distance. The final temperature of the surface is determined by the heat loss at the top of the atmosphere.

.

So the temperature at the surface would be LOWER in a 100% CO2 environment?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

well I thought that 99% of CO2 absorption is handed off through collisions and is converted to conduction and convection?

well I thought

You're lying.

was the thought wrong?

Hey, BTW, if 99% is lost through collision, how does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward the surface?

If you thought, "IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere if the energy is then transferred via collision", yes, you were wrong.

how does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward the surface?

How does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward space?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not understanding your statement. Are you saying because "The conservation of energy must apply" that there would be no difference in temperature between an atmosphere that's 80% N, 19.98% O and .2% CO2 and one that 100% CO2?

At the current percent all the radiant energy from the earth surface is absorbed in a few dozen meters. If the percent of CO2 increases to 100% it will be absorbed at a much shorter distance. The final temperature of the surface is determined by the heat loss at the top of the atmosphere.

.

So the temperature at the surface would be LOWER in a 100% CO2 environment?

So the temperature at the surface would be LOWER in a 100% CO2 environment?

Like on Venus?

 

[jc456]

well I thought that 99% of CO2 absorption is handed off through collisions and is converted to conduction and convection?

well I thought

You're lying.

was the thought wrong?

Hey, BTW, if 99% is lost through collision, how does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward the surface?

If you thought, "IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere if the energy is then transferred via collision", yes, you were wrong.

how does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward the surface?

How does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward space?

How does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward space

2nd law

IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere
sure it warms, through conduction.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm not understanding your statement. Are you saying because "The conservation of energy must apply" that there would be no difference in temperature between an atmosphere that's 80% N, 19.98% O and .2% CO2 and one that 100% CO2?

At the current percent all the radiant energy from the earth surface is absorbed in a few dozen meters. If the percent of CO2 increases to 100% it will be absorbed at a much shorter distance. The final temperature of the surface is determined by the heat loss at the top of the atmosphere.

.

So the temperature at the surface would be LOWER in a 100% CO2 environment?

So the temperature at the surface would be LOWER in a 100% CO2 environment?

Like on Venus?

Venus is hot due to atmospheric pressure, but you knew that right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

well I thought that 99% of CO2 absorption is handed off through collisions and is converted to conduction and convection?

well I thought

You're lying.

was the thought wrong?

Hey, BTW, if 99% is lost through collision, how does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward the surface?

If you thought, "IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere if the energy is then transferred via collision", yes, you were wrong.

how does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward the surface?

How does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward space?

How does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward space

2nd law

IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere
sure it warms, through conduction.

The 2nd Law causes CO2 to radiate toward space?
Or does the 2nd Law cause the gasses warmed by conduction to radiate?

IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere?​

​

sure it warms, through conduction.​

​

Excellent. Don't tell SSDD you caught his error.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not understanding your statement. Are you saying because "The conservation of energy must apply" that there would be no difference in temperature between an atmosphere that's 80% N, 19.98% O and .2% CO2 and one that 100% CO2?

At the current percent all the radiant energy from the earth surface is absorbed in a few dozen meters. If the percent of CO2 increases to 100% it will be absorbed at a much shorter distance. The final temperature of the surface is determined by the heat loss at the top of the atmosphere.

.

So the temperature at the surface would be LOWER in a 100% CO2 environment?

So the temperature at the surface would be LOWER in a 100% CO2 environment?

Like on Venus?

Venus is hot due to atmospheric pressure, but you knew that right?

Venus in Neptune's orbit would be hotter or colder than it is now?