Multiple experiments confirm that CO2 lowers absorptivity & emissivity of air

[polarbear]

↑
2. The greenhouse effect warms the atmosphere by capturing and recycling surface radiation energy that otherwise would be directly lost to space. Undeniable.


Water vapor and gravity...nothing else.

Then explain where the energy goes. It enters the atmosphere at the surface, is absorbed, and much less comes out the upper atmosphere. Where did it go? Inquiring minds want to know.

Then explain where the energy goes. It enters the atmosphere at the surface, is absorbed, and much less comes out the upper atmosphere. Where did it go? Inquiring minds want to know.
What do you mean"much less comes out, where did it go?"
its all there going out:

Also who cares if the first 10 meters absorb all the CO2 can absorb. It means shit as far as temperature is concerned, else it would be measurably hotter 1 meter off the ground than at 10 meters.
And that should apply for indoors as well, but does not.
Matter of fact the temperature drops by over 50 C at the lower altitudes where all the denser CO2 is and then increases again:

Up top in the Thermosphere where there is no CO2 the T drops at only 1/2 the rate radiating into space as it does near the surface in the Troposphere. Which should make it clear that CO2 "back radiation" matters sweet f-all in getting rid of surface heat.

 

[IanC]

↑
2. The greenhouse effect warms the atmosphere by capturing and recycling surface radiation energy that otherwise would be directly lost to space. Undeniable.


Water vapor and gravity...nothing else.

Then explain where the energy goes. It enters the atmosphere at the surface, is absorbed, and much less comes out the upper atmosphere. Where did it go? Inquiring minds want to know.

Then explain where the energy goes. It enters the atmosphere at the surface, is absorbed, and much less comes out the upper atmosphere. Where did it go? Inquiring minds want to know.
What do you mean"much less comes out, where did it go?"
its all there going out:

Also who cares if the first 10 meters absorb all the CO2 can absorb. It means shit as far as temperature is concerned, else it would be measurably hotter 1 meter off the ground than at 10 meters.
And that should apply for indoors as well, but does not.
Matter of fact the temperature drops by over 50 C at the lower altitudes where all the denser CO2 is and then increases again:

Up top in the Thermosphere where there is no CO2 the T drops at only 1/2 the rate radiating into space as it does near the surface in the Troposphere. Which should make it clear that CO2 "back radiation" matters sweet f-all in getting rid of surface heat.

Your own diagram shows 9% of the total solar input directly escapes from the surface. That 9% is 20% of the total solar input at the surface. 9 and 20 are not significantly different than my estimates of 10 and 25. My rebuttal of SSDD stands.

The next stage of the argument is to quantity how much solar radiation reaches and is absorbed by the surface. By easy math that I will not show here, the amount of solar radiation intercepted by the Earth divided by the area is 1/4. Roughly 1400w divided by four equals 375w. Your diagram shows less than half makes it into the surface, say 175w.

So the surface gains and loses 175w on average. But wait a minute!?!? The surface temperature is about 16C, which corresponds to a radiation of 400w. Where is the extra 225w coming from? If the surface is losing 400w but only receiving 175w it would be cooling dramatically.

The answer is relatively simple. The surface is losing 400w into the atmosphere by various pathways but getting back 225w from the atmosphere by various pathways, leaving a NET loss of 175w.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Every one of those 'nuggets' can be shown empirically.

The choice not to go into great depth is the level of understanding of the audience. AGW oversimplifies the actions of our atmosphere in an effort to mislead and create fear.

The reason many of the luke-warmers don't want to try and understand is obvious, what is shown does not fall in line with your beliefs

None of your 'nuggets' count for anything because they are irretrievably mixed with bullshit.

Your first paragraph was-

One of the biggest glaring issues is the size of the atmosphere is directly related to solar wind and its pressure on the ionosphere. The mass of the atmosphere, as anyone who studies atmospheric physics knows, is relatively stable due to earths magnetic field. The position of that mass is determined by pressures applied externally and the rotation of the earth.

The only reasonable thing you said is that the height of the atmosphere is affected by the rotation of the Earth. Everything else is nonsense. I can't give you credit for one non-incorrect point when the idea presented in the paragraph is nonsensical.

On the other hand, when you steer clear of science, you sometimes say insightful things. eg-

The choice not to go into great depth is the level of understanding of the audience. AGW oversimplifies the actions of our atmosphere in an effort to mislead and create fear

I totally agree with the first sentence although the media deserves much of the blame. The second sentence is true but I dislike attributing motive because it can easily be mistaken. In this case I think you are certainly at least partially correct.

I consider myself a lukewarmer, and I assure you that I am trying to understand. My beliefs are malleable according to evidence and explanation. My position has changed considerably over the last decade, although more in the fine details rather than the overall picture.

Interesting;

Because those hypothesis do not fall within your "belief" structure you dismiss them out of hand.

The mass of our atmosphere is indeed affected by solar wind striking the earths atmosphere and applying pressure, just as blowing air against a balloon that is spinning will change its displacement. Earths magnetic fields have a lot to do with how much solar wind affects the displacement of our atmosphere. We are in a time of very low magnetic field strength. Our atmosphere is very malleable due to this.

You can dismiss this, as you probably will, but it allows our atmosphere to change its distribution. When you change the amount of atmosphere above the pole you change how fast the earth can cool or you allow the earth to warm. Inversely the thickness above that equator will slow incoming radiation. This is a double edged sword.

How does atmospheric pressure change with depth? | Socratic

We can play these games all day Ian.. We know during times of weak earth magnetism it allows the Hadley cells to enlarge above the equator and the cells above the pole to thin. This is why we have increased tornadic and cyclonic activity during cooling cycles of the earth.

Guess what shifted early February... Polar atmosphere height decreased by about 20,000 feet, thinning the cells effective size while cells above the equator rose about 5,000- 7,000 feet.

Low solar output and weak magnetism...

The image above shows how solar wind affects the magnetism which holds our atmosphere in place. The weaker the earths strength is the more it affects the atmosphere.

I was at odds with some of my colleagues who stated that there would be no change in ACE (Accumulated Storm-Cyclonic Energy). SO far, tornado season has been above average and I am waiting to see how the Tropical Storm season pans out. Just guessing, but I think this is the year we get a cat 3 on-shore here in the US due to the shift in Hadley Cell size.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Back to topic.

How does mixing gases respond to solar radiation.

The image below shows how individual gases respond.

I'm looking for the second in his series where he actually mixes the gases and looks at the response change.

Scientific Explorer: January 2012

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is a good version because it identifies the type of molecules that take chunks out of the Planck curve.

The missing chunks are the amount of surface radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, there by warming it.

The warmer atmosphere in turn warms the surface. This process continues until the surface warms enough to equal the output of the solar input. A full Planck curve at a lower temperature outputs the same amount of energy as does a Planck curve with missing chunks but at a higher temperature. The GHGs raise the temperature of both the atmosphere and surface by blocking certain bands of radiation and retaining it in the atmosphere until the surface warms enough to again release the equivalent amount of solar energy through the available bands.

ie 75% of 400w equals 100% of 300w. That would correspond to roughly 17C and -3C. I have no idea how much is blocked by GHGs but it is likely more than 25% because my example only produced a 20C greenhouse effect whereas 33C is the typical amount claimed.

There are other factors involved which I have chosen to ignore. I am only interested in the basic mechanism, the direction, and a rough estimate of the size.

Bump for polarbear.

There is a big chunk missing ~15 microns due to CO2. The band between 8-13 microns is radiating at surface temperature (except for a notch due to O3). If you look at the absorbance due to H2O, it starts radiating again at a temperature close to the freezing point of water, when condensation and precipitation occur. CO2 radiation does not escape until it reaches a height where it is unlikely to be reabsorbed, about -60C.

We know all the 15 micron CO2 specific radiation produced by the surface is absorbed within about ten metres of the atmosphere. We know it doesn't reappear until a height commensurate with -60C. The amount of radiation produced at the surface is much more than at -60C. The difference is the warming influence of CO2.

If you increase the amount of CO2, then two things happen. First the surface radiation is absorbed in less than ten metres. The same energy in a smaller volume means the near-surface atmosphere temperature must go up. The second thing is that the height where CO2 starts to send its emissions to space must increase, therefore it is at a cooler temperature and radiates less.

Are these the only factors or mechanisms involved? No. But in isolation it can clearly be seen that CO2 has a warming influence now, and that it increases as the amount of CO2 in the air rises.

If you look closely at the bandpass graph, water absorbs about 96-98% of the energy in the 12um-18um band. CO2 can only affect 0.04%of that band due to its percentage of the total atmosphere, even though it, by itself, has a 100% absorption ratio. When you consider the residency time of CO2 holding that energy is near zero and fails to warm the CO2 molecule, it must react with other molecules in order to warm anything.

Having this in mind, changing the mix will change the ability of this trace gas to warm the atmosphere. IF the atmosphere was just O2 and CO2 at 0.04% nothing would warm. If the atmosphere was just N2 and CO2 0.04% nothing would warm because the two molecules do not have the ability to interact productively.

We could go on for days with this, but when we look at how the molecules interact, any mixture change will have an impact on the overall interactions. Its simple Physics.

Without water vapor, in significant amounts, CO2 has little to no impact. Want proof...? Go to any desert on earth.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Conclusions
This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming caused by an increase of absorptivity of infrared radiation (IR) by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature

As CO2 has a very narrow bandwidth that it shares with H2O, and that CO2 has a 100% absorption in that region (as I have shown in an above post), there is no way to 'increase' it.. It can not happen. Neither can its ability to interact increase...

When you do the math, even upwards of 6,000 ppm will have little effect without water vapor. Water vapor has been shown to NOT react to increased CO2 because convection increases exponentially, negating any benefit from increased heat retention time.

What we find is a spike in temperature and then a very fast response of cooling to maintain equilibrium. The earth is incredibly fast in its responses to maintain equilibrium. Long term changes however, happen very slowly, unless our power source changes output.

 

[IanC]

If you look closely at the bandpass graph, water absorbs about 96-98% of the energy in the 12um-18um band

Been getting help from crick on reading graphs and diagrams?

12 and 13 microns are still in the atmospheric window where most of the radiation gets through. 14,15,16 are when CO2 absorption is dominant. 17 appears to have a notch where up to 25% gets through, 18 about 10%, and by 20 microns it is all blocked.

H2O does have an overlap with CO2. It would absorb about half of the 15 micron surface radiation during the transit of the whole atmosphere. If CO2 hadn't already absorbed it to extinction during the first 10 meters.

Your 96%-98% claim is very reminiscent of the climate alarmists' claim of consensus.

I'll get back to your second sentence if I have the time and inclination.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you look closely at the bandpass graph, water absorbs about 96-98% of the energy in the 12um-18um band

Been getting help from crick on reading graphs and diagrams?

12 and 13 microns are still in the atmospheric window where most of the radiation gets through. 14,15,16 are when CO2 absorption is dominant. 17 appears to have a notch where up to 25% gets through, 18 about 10%, and by 20 microns it is all blocked.

H2O does have an overlap with CO2. It would absorb about half of the 15 micron surface radiation during the transit of the whole atmosphere. If CO2 hadn't already absorbed it to extinction during the first 10 meters.

Your 96%-98% claim is very reminiscent of the climate alarmists' claim of consensus.

I'll get back to your second sentence if I have the time and inclination.

I see your taking lessons from crick...

 

[IanC]

The mass of our atmosphere is indeed affected by solar wind striking the earths atmosphere and applying pressure, just as blowing air against a balloon that is spinning will change its displacement.

The mass is affected? Most of the atmospheric matter is within the first few kilometers of the surface. You are talking about a location that is less dense than a commercial grade vacuum. What is your point? How does it pertain to what I have been talking about? Are you trying to rebut something I said, or are you just babbling insignificant trivia for the fun of it?

 

[IanC]

If you look closely at the bandpass graph, water absorbs about 96-98% of the energy in the 12um-18um band

Been getting help from crick on reading graphs and diagrams?

12 and 13 microns are still in the atmospheric window where most of the radiation gets through. 14,15,16 are when CO2 absorption is dominant. 17 appears to have a notch where up to 25% gets through, 18 about 10%, and by 20 microns it is all blocked.

H2O does have an overlap with CO2. It would absorb about half of the 15 micron surface radiation during the transit of the whole atmosphere. If CO2 hadn't already absorbed it to extinction during the first 10 meters.

Your 96%-98% claim is very reminiscent of the climate alarmists' claim of consensus.

I'll get back to your second sentence if I have the time and inclination.

I see your taking lessons from crick...

I'll see your taking lessons from crick, and raise you one polarbear strawman and two Billy Bob bafflegabs.

 

[IanC]

We know during times of weak earth magnetism it allows the Hadley cells to enlarge above the equator and the cells above the pole to thin

Cool. Link me up. I don't trust your interpretation of something you read.

 

[IanC]

.

How does atmospheric pressure change with depth? | Socratic

THIS is the one link that you find worthy of posting?

 

[IanC]

Also who cares if the first 10 meters absorb all the CO2 can absorb. It means shit as far as temperature is concerned, else it would be measurably hotter 1 meter off the ground than at 10 meters.
And that should apply for indoors as well, but does not.

You don't think it is measurably warmer at one metre than at 10 metres? Hmm....

Indoors contains convection. You know...the other greenhouse effect.

 

[IanC]

Conclusions
This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming caused by an increase of absorptivity of infrared radiation (IR) by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature

As CO2 has a very narrow bandwidth that it shares with H2O, and that CO2 has a 100% absorption in that region (as I have shown in an above post), there is no way to 'increase' it.. It can not happen. Neither can its ability to interact increase...

When you do the math, even upwards of 6,000 ppm will have little effect without water vapor. Water vapor has been shown to NOT react to increased CO2 because convection increases exponentially, negating any benefit from increased heat retention time.

What we find is a spike in temperature and then a very fast response of cooling to maintain equilibrium. The earth is incredibly fast in its responses to maintain equilibrium. Long term changes however, happen very slowly, unless our power source changes output.

As CO2 has a very narrow bandwidth that it shares with H2O, and that CO2 has a 100% absorption in that region (as I have shown in an above post), there is no way to 'increase' it.. It can not happen. Neither can its ability to interact increase

Why does your link go to one of my posts? I see no comment from you on that page, not even an embedded quote.

When you do the math, even upwards of 6,000 ppm will have little effect without water vapor. Water vapor has been shown to NOT react to increased CO2 because convection increases exponentially, negating any benefit from increased heat retention time.

WTF is that supposed to mean? I see some words but they don't make any sense.

 

[jon_berzerk]

"BELIEVING C02 CONTROLS THE CLIMATE IS ‘PRETTY CLOSE TO BELIEVING IN MAGIC"-MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen




https://overpassesforamerica.com/?p=51566

 

[polarbear]

Also who cares if the first 10 meters absorb all the CO2 can absorb. It means shit as far as temperature is concerned, else it would be measurably hotter 1 meter off the ground than at 10 meters.
And that should apply for indoors as well, but does not.

You don't think it is measurably warmer at one metre than at 10 metres? Hmm....

Indoors contains convection. You know...the other greenhouse effect.

.
Indoors contains convection. You know...the other greenhouse effect
Indoors you can actually measure how much warmer it's near the ceiling than near the floor even if your basement is heated, heating the floor from below. So where is your "back radiation" ?
Of course the ceiling will radiate down and even though it does and I'm pretty sure it has a higher emissivity than air it's no match for convection....which nixes this entirely ridiculous concept where (cooler) air is supposed to be heating a warmer surface below.
You don't think it is measurably warmer at one metre than at 10 metres? Hmm....
I don't just think so I know so:

FOG INGREDIENTS
Nocturnal radiational cooling of the earth's surface, which results in cooling the lowest layer of air near the surface.
If the lower 10 meters of air were warmer than the air higher up then the fog would not be in the lower 10 meters which according to you is the CO2 back radiation photon cross fire zone, killing the planet.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The mass of our atmosphere is indeed affected by solar wind striking the earths atmosphere and applying pressure, just as blowing air against a balloon that is spinning will change its displacement.

The mass is affected? Most of the atmospheric matter is within the first few kilometers of the surface. You are talking about a location that is less dense than a commercial grade vacuum. What is your point? How does it pertain to what I have been talking about? Are you trying to rebut something I said, or are you just babbling insignificant trivia for the fun of it?

As I posted Here, You can see the bands which are never allowed to hit the surface of the earth leaving about 20% of incoming radiation with the ability to hit the surface. If we change the distance that energy has to travel, less energy hits the surface, resulting in less warming. (note the log curves on the graphing)

The point is simple, this mechanism is capable of changing the amount of energy, that hits the equator region, from hitting the surface by a factor of approximately 4 - 12 w/m^2 in incoming energy and at the poles, will allow energy loss of 6 - 16 w/m^2. IF there is ice cover the number is low for loss (6-8 w/m^2) but if there is open water the number jumps up rapidly above 10 w/m^2.

If you plug these numbers into the energy balance equations, the simple change in solar output will have an effect of 2-4 deg C. And all because of solar wind impact or lack of impact on our currently weak magnetosphere/atmosphere changing its distribution on a global scale.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Conclusions
This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming caused by an increase of absorptivity of infrared radiation (IR) by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature

As CO2 has a very narrow bandwidth that it shares with H2O, and that CO2 has a 100% absorption in that region (as I have shown in an above post), there is no way to 'increase' it.. It can not happen. Neither can its ability to interact increase...

When you do the math, even upwards of 6,000 ppm will have little effect without water vapor. Water vapor has been shown to NOT react to increased CO2 because convection increases exponentially, negating any benefit from increased heat retention time.

What we find is a spike in temperature and then a very fast response of cooling to maintain equilibrium. The earth is incredibly fast in its responses to maintain equilibrium. Long term changes however, happen very slowly, unless our power source changes output.

As CO2 has a very narrow bandwidth that it shares with H2O, and that CO2 has a 100% absorption in that region (as I have shown in an above post), there is no way to 'increase' it.. It can not happen. Neither can its ability to interact increase

Why does your link go to one of my posts? I see no comment from you on that page, not even an embedded quote.

When you do the math, even upwards of 6,000 ppm will have little effect without water vapor. Water vapor has been shown to NOT react to increased CO2 because convection increases exponentially, negating any benefit from increased heat retention time.

WTF is that supposed to mean? I see some words but they don't make any sense.

CO2 has no effect beyond its own ability. That ability is diminished in a mixed atmosphere ( we are currently seeing about half of what CO2 alone is capable of), and I believe this is PolarBears point.

AN increase in heat, which would then have to be retained by water vapor. This increases the speed of convection loss, causes cloud cover increase and results in a decreased incoming amount of solar radiation hitting the surface. This is why we see a spike in temp and then cooling. CO2's impact is fleeting...

 

[IanC]

Indoors contains convection. You know...the other greenhouse effect
Indoors you can actually measure how much warmer it's near the ceiling than near the floor even if your basement is heated, heating the floor from below. So where is your "back radiation" ?

I was testing your reaction to a purposely ambiguous statement to see which assumptions you would make. Would interpret my words to fit reality, or say they were nonsense.

Being indoors implies that there is ceiling. The ceiling is a barrier that stops warm air from continuing to rise. My house has radiant floor heating. The walls have a temperature gradient that decreases with height, further from the heat source being carried by conduction. The air has a temperature gradient that is in the opposite direction because convection causes warm air to rise, but the ceiling and walls stop the warm air from escaping.

This is the same principle that outdoor greenhouses use. Solar input warms the interior, the interior warms the air, the ceiling stops the warm rising air from escaping with the heat. The entire greenhouse continues to store heat until it reaches a temperature whereby the outside is hot enough to shed as much energy as the solar input. Removing convection loss from the inside forced the energy take alternate and less efficient pathways out, causing heat sink storage comprised of convection energy that was not released during the time it took to reach the new equilibrium at higher temperature. By opening the roof vents you will add back the extra pathway of direct convection and the greenhouse will cool because it is shedding more heat than the input, the storage will be drained, and a new equilibrium temperature will be achieved.

What did you think I meant by 'the other greenhouse effect'?

 

[IanC]

Polarbear's use of fog to prove the air is warmer at ten metres than one is ridiculous. Fog is not the usual condition. Inversions do happen but are hardly typical of the basic average weather pattern.