No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

[polarbear]

The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power.

the earth does have an atmosphere. sunlight hitting the surface not only warms the surface but passes some of that energy to the atmosphere by conduction. during daylight warming the air molecules not only warm (kinetic energy) but puff up (potential energy). during nighttime cooling energy stored as both kinetic and potential is released, but in all directions, so that some of the energy returns to the surface. this energy does not 'warm' the surface directly because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, therefore the net radiation energy transfer is always outward through the atmosphere and into space. to give a made up example if the earth surface was radiating 100w but getting 10w back from atmospheric radiation then the net loss would be 90w. the surface would still be cooling but at a slower rate.

next, add greenhouse gases. the surface radiation no longer directly escapes to space. while conduction is still taking place, part of surface radiation is absorbed into the atmosphere and is converted through molecular collisions into kinetic and potential energy. the atmosphere is now both warmer and higher. for example, if half of the surface radiation is captured by the atmosphere by GHGs, and half of that is returned to the surface, then the surface is getting back the 10w from conduction and radiation plus half of the 50w absorbed, 25w. the surface is losing 100w but getting back 10w and 25w for a net loss of only 65w.

obviously this lower rate of loss would affect the surface temperature. in the first case, atmosphere only, the solar input would collect at the surface until the temperature rose enough that the total surface radiation made up for the 10w imbalance of energy being released into space. in the GHG example the surface would warm even more to make up for the 35w deficit of outgoing radiation.

this is an absurdly simplified explanation. in real life we know that the energy received from the Sun must exactly match the outgoing energy leaving into space or there will be cooling or warming. we know how much Solar input the surface receives (less than 200w on average) and we know how warm the surface is (~15C, 400w). the only way we can close that energy budget is by back radiation returning to the surface from the atmosphere.

we also know, by measurement, that the type and amount of radiation released from the surface does not come out from the other side of the atmosphere. where did the energy go, if not into the total energy of the atmosphere?

I am supporting the Greenhouse Effect here. I do not support the warmer's version of feedbacks etc. But that is another story with its own complications. For now I just want people to think thing through and come to the inescapable conclusion that there is a Greenhouse Effect. And while I dont agree with IPCC consensus projections for increased CO2, there must be a warming influence of undetermined quantity for increased GHGs.

So IanC if that is supposed to be an explanation for the greenhouse gas effect then do tell me why the the moon`s surface temperature is so much hotter than the earth`s (which is surrounded by back radiating greenhouse gas)
To be consistent with your logic the earth`s surface should be hotter than that of the moon.
The example you picked ignores the fact that a lunar day is 14 earth days when you point out how cold the moon gets attributing that solely to the greenhouse gas effect.
Unless you can come back here and tell us how much the moon`s surface temperature is increasing by on an hourly basis and show us that this is less than it would be on earth you have no argument.
Don`t get me wrong I am not denying that there is a so called greenhouse gas effect I am saying that the magnitude is far less than what the proponents of such an effect keep insisting on as to what the temperature increase is they attribute to it really is.
You all like to skip over the fact that CO2 also prevents IR from ever reaching the surface and dwell only on how much it prevents from leaving the surface.
(prevent meaning back radiate)
Since that moon example is your`s not mine the onus is on you to find lunar data that clearly shows that the moon heats at the corresponding lunar day when it is at 14 C slower from 14 C to 15 C than the earth does because it has no greenhouse gas surrounding it

 

[Crick]

1) The temperature of the moon varies from a high of 100K (-200C, -300F) to 390K (120C, 240F). It does so over the 28 day cycle of its rotation around the Earth. The Moon is roughly the shade of worn asphalt and, like a road surface on a hot summer day, heats up. 14 days of continuous sunlight will make things hot. And then when the sun goes down, the dark surface becomes an effective radiator. With no atmosphere to insulate it and nothing but the distant stars to warm it, it loses that heat rapidly and is quickly, extremely cold.

2) You are correct that the absorption of IR by GHGs prevents some incoming IR from ever reaching the surface but the net effect of increasing GHGs is warming. If this were not the case, the Earth would be even colder than had it no atmosphere. The Greenhouse effect acts by slowing the escape of IR from the atmosphere and thus raising the planet's equilibrium temperature. Increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere slows IR escape and further raises the equilibrium temperature.

 

[IanC]

The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power.

the earth does have an atmosphere. sunlight hitting the surface not only warms the surface but passes some of that energy to the atmosphere by conduction. during daylight warming the air molecules not only warm (kinetic energy) but puff up (potential energy). during nighttime cooling energy stored as both kinetic and potential is released, but in all directions, so that some of the energy returns to the surface. this energy does not 'warm' the surface directly because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, therefore the net radiation energy transfer is always outward through the atmosphere and into space. to give a made up example if the earth surface was radiating 100w but getting 10w back from atmospheric radiation then the net loss would be 90w. the surface would still be cooling but at a slower rate.

next, add greenhouse gases. the surface radiation no longer directly escapes to space. while conduction is still taking place, part of surface radiation is absorbed into the atmosphere and is converted through molecular collisions into kinetic and potential energy. the atmosphere is now both warmer and higher. for example, if half of the surface radiation is captured by the atmosphere by GHGs, and half of that is returned to the surface, then the surface is getting back the 10w from conduction and radiation plus half of the 50w absorbed, 25w. the surface is losing 100w but getting back 10w and 25w for a net loss of only 65w.

obviously this lower rate of loss would affect the surface temperature. in the first case, atmosphere only, the solar input would collect at the surface until the temperature rose enough that the total surface radiation made up for the 10w imbalance of energy being released into space. in the GHG example the surface would warm even more to make up for the 35w deficit of outgoing radiation.

this is an absurdly simplified explanation. in real life we know that the energy received from the Sun must exactly match the outgoing energy leaving into space or there will be cooling or warming. we know how much Solar input the surface receives (less than 200w on average) and we know how warm the surface is (~15C, 400w). the only way we can close that energy budget is by back radiation returning to the surface from the atmosphere.

we also know, by measurement, that the type and amount of radiation released from the surface does not come out from the other side of the atmosphere. where did the energy go, if not into the total energy of the atmosphere?

I am supporting the Greenhouse Effect here. I do not support the warmer's version of feedbacks etc. But that is another story with its own complications. For now I just want people to think thing through and come to the inescapable conclusion that there is a Greenhouse Effect. And while I dont agree with IPCC consensus projections for increased CO2, there must be a warming influence of undetermined quantity for increased GHGs.

So IanC if that is supposed to be an explanation for the greenhouse gas effect then do tell me why the the moon`s surface temperature is so much hotter than the earth`s (which is surrounded by back radiating greenhouse gas)
To be consistent with your logic the earth`s surface should be hotter than that of the moon.
The example you picked ignores the fact that a lunar day is 14 earth days when you point out how cold the moon gets attributing that solely to the greenhouse gas effect.
Unless you can come back here and tell us how much the moon`s surface temperature is increasing by on an hourly basis and show us that this is less than it would be on earth you have no argument.
Don`t get me wrong I am not denying that there is a so called greenhouse gas effect I am saying that the magnitude is far less than what the proponents of such an effect keep insisting on as to what the temperature increase is they attribute to it really is.
You all like to skip over the fact that CO2 also prevents IR from ever reaching the surface and dwell only on how much it prevents from leaving the surface.
(prevent meaning back radiate)
Since that moon example is your`s not mine the onus is on you to find lunar data that clearly shows that the moon heats at the corresponding lunar day when it is at 14 C slower from 14 C to 15 C than the earth does because it has no greenhouse gas surrounding it

how goes it PB? neither the cold nor the bears have got to you yet?

I dont quite get the point of your post. I said that the avg temp on the moon is lower than the avg temp on earth. are you saying that is incorrect? I am sorry that you dont think the moon is a good example for an object with the same solar input as the earth. do you have a better one? I put down one short paragraph on the moon as a proxy for no atmosphere.
"The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power."

If you want to delve into more of the details go ahead and write down your understandings and conclusions and then we can discuss it.

 

[jc456]

The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power.

the earth does have an atmosphere. sunlight hitting the surface not only warms the surface but passes some of that energy to the atmosphere by conduction. during daylight warming the air molecules not only warm (kinetic energy) but puff up (potential energy). during nighttime cooling energy stored as both kinetic and potential is released, but in all directions, so that some of the energy returns to the surface. this energy does not 'warm' the surface directly because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, therefore the net radiation energy transfer is always outward through the atmosphere and into space. to give a made up example if the earth surface was radiating 100w but getting 10w back from atmospheric radiation then the net loss would be 90w. the surface would still be cooling but at a slower rate.

next, add greenhouse gases. the surface radiation no longer directly escapes to space. while conduction is still taking place, part of surface radiation is absorbed into the atmosphere and is converted through molecular collisions into kinetic and potential energy. the atmosphere is now both warmer and higher. for example, if half of the surface radiation is captured by the atmosphere by GHGs, and half of that is returned to the surface, then the surface is getting back the 10w from conduction and radiation plus half of the 50w absorbed, 25w. the surface is losing 100w but getting back 10w and 25w for a net loss of only 65w.

obviously this lower rate of loss would affect the surface temperature. in the first case, atmosphere only, the solar input would collect at the surface until the temperature rose enough that the total surface radiation made up for the 10w imbalance of energy being released into space. in the GHG example the surface would warm even more to make up for the 35w deficit of outgoing radiation.

this is an absurdly simplified explanation. in real life we know that the energy received from the Sun must exactly match the outgoing energy leaving into space or there will be cooling or warming. we know how much Solar input the surface receives (less than 200w on average) and we know how warm the surface is (~15C, 400w). the only way we can close that energy budget is by back radiation returning to the surface from the atmosphere.

we also know, by measurement, that the type and amount of radiation released from the surface does not come out from the other side of the atmosphere. where did the energy go, if not into the total energy of the atmosphere?

I am supporting the Greenhouse Effect here. I do not support the warmer's version of feedbacks etc. But that is another story with its own complications. For now I just want people to think thing through and come to the inescapable conclusion that there is a Greenhouse Effect. And while I dont agree with IPCC consensus projections for increased CO2, there must be a warming influence of undetermined quantity for increased GHGs.

So IanC if that is supposed to be an explanation for the greenhouse gas effect then do tell me why the the moon`s surface temperature is so much hotter than the earth`s (which is surrounded by back radiating greenhouse gas)
To be consistent with your logic the earth`s surface should be hotter than that of the moon.
The example you picked ignores the fact that a lunar day is 14 earth days when you point out how cold the moon gets attributing that solely to the greenhouse gas effect.
Unless you can come back here and tell us how much the moon`s surface temperature is increasing by on an hourly basis and show us that this is less than it would be on earth you have no argument.
Don`t get me wrong I am not denying that there is a so called greenhouse gas effect I am saying that the magnitude is far less than what the proponents of such an effect keep insisting on as to what the temperature increase is they attribute to it really is.
You all like to skip over the fact that CO2 also prevents IR from ever reaching the surface and dwell only on how much it prevents from leaving the surface.
(prevent meaning back radiate)
Since that moon example is your`s not mine the onus is on you to find lunar data that clearly shows that the moon heats at the corresponding lunar day when it is at 14 C slower from 14 C to 15 C than the earth does because it has no greenhouse gas surrounding it

how goes it PB? neither the cold nor the bears have got to you yet?

I dont quite get the point of your post. I said that the avg temp on the moon is lower than the avg temp on earth. are you saying that is incorrect? I am sorry that you dont think the moon is a good example for an object with the same solar input as the earth. do you have a better one? I put down one short paragraph on the moon as a proxy for no atmosphere.
"The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power."

If you want to delve into more of the details go ahead and write down your understandings and conclusions and then we can discuss it.

No the moon does not have the same solar input of the earth. Our atmosphere keeps us cool

 

[IanC]

The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power.

the earth does have an atmosphere. sunlight hitting the surface not only warms the surface but passes some of that energy to the atmosphere by conduction. during daylight warming the air molecules not only warm (kinetic energy) but puff up (potential energy). during nighttime cooling energy stored as both kinetic and potential is released, but in all directions, so that some of the energy returns to the surface. this energy does not 'warm' the surface directly because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, therefore the net radiation energy transfer is always outward through the atmosphere and into space. to give a made up example if the earth surface was radiating 100w but getting 10w back from atmospheric radiation then the net loss would be 90w. the surface would still be cooling but at a slower rate.

next, add greenhouse gases. the surface radiation no longer directly escapes to space. while conduction is still taking place, part of surface radiation is absorbed into the atmosphere and is converted through molecular collisions into kinetic and potential energy. the atmosphere is now both warmer and higher. for example, if half of the surface radiation is captured by the atmosphere by GHGs, and half of that is returned to the surface, then the surface is getting back the 10w from conduction and radiation plus half of the 50w absorbed, 25w. the surface is losing 100w but getting back 10w and 25w for a net loss of only 65w.

obviously this lower rate of loss would affect the surface temperature. in the first case, atmosphere only, the solar input would collect at the surface until the temperature rose enough that the total surface radiation made up for the 10w imbalance of energy being released into space. in the GHG example the surface would warm even more to make up for the 35w deficit of outgoing radiation.

this is an absurdly simplified explanation. in real life we know that the energy received from the Sun must exactly match the outgoing energy leaving into space or there will be cooling or warming. we know how much Solar input the surface receives (less than 200w on average) and we know how warm the surface is (~15C, 400w). the only way we can close that energy budget is by back radiation returning to the surface from the atmosphere.

we also know, by measurement, that the type and amount of radiation released from the surface does not come out from the other side of the atmosphere. where did the energy go, if not into the total energy of the atmosphere?

I am supporting the Greenhouse Effect here. I do not support the warmer's version of feedbacks etc. But that is another story with its own complications. For now I just want people to think thing through and come to the inescapable conclusion that there is a Greenhouse Effect. And while I dont agree with IPCC consensus projections for increased CO2, there must be a warming influence of undetermined quantity for increased GHGs.

So IanC if that is supposed to be an explanation for the greenhouse gas effect then do tell me why the the moon`s surface temperature is so much hotter than the earth`s (which is surrounded by back radiating greenhouse gas)
To be consistent with your logic the earth`s surface should be hotter than that of the moon.
The example you picked ignores the fact that a lunar day is 14 earth days when you point out how cold the moon gets attributing that solely to the greenhouse gas effect.
Unless you can come back here and tell us how much the moon`s surface temperature is increasing by on an hourly basis and show us that this is less than it would be on earth you have no argument.
Don`t get me wrong I am not denying that there is a so called greenhouse gas effect I am saying that the magnitude is far less than what the proponents of such an effect keep insisting on as to what the temperature increase is they attribute to it really is.
You all like to skip over the fact that CO2 also prevents IR from ever reaching the surface and dwell only on how much it prevents from leaving the surface.
(prevent meaning back radiate)
Since that moon example is your`s not mine the onus is on you to find lunar data that clearly shows that the moon heats at the corresponding lunar day when it is at 14 C slower from 14 C to 15 C than the earth does because it has no greenhouse gas surrounding it

how goes it PB? neither the cold nor the bears have got to you yet?

I dont quite get the point of your post. I said that the avg temp on the moon is lower than the avg temp on earth. are you saying that is incorrect? I am sorry that you dont think the moon is a good example for an object with the same solar input as the earth. do you have a better one? I put down one short paragraph on the moon as a proxy for no atmosphere.
"The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power."

If you want to delve into more of the details go ahead and write down your understandings and conclusions and then we can discuss it.

No the moon does not have the same solar input of the earth. Our atmosphere keeps us cool

you are correct. because of the size difference between the moon and the earth, the moon loses more solar input when in the shadow of the earth than the earth loses when in the shadow of the moon. actually this is just a first guess approximation, if anyone wants to prove me wrong go for it.

the atmosphere moderated the temperature swings. while the earth doesnt get as warm as it could, or as cold as it could, the average temperature is warmer with an atmosphere, and warmer still with a GHG atmosphere.

 

[westwall]

The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power.

the earth does have an atmosphere. sunlight hitting the surface not only warms the surface but passes some of that energy to the atmosphere by conduction. during daylight warming the air molecules not only warm (kinetic energy) but puff up (potential energy). during nighttime cooling energy stored as both kinetic and potential is released, but in all directions, so that some of the energy returns to the surface. this energy does not 'warm' the surface directly because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, therefore the net radiation energy transfer is always outward through the atmosphere and into space. to give a made up example if the earth surface was radiating 100w but getting 10w back from atmospheric radiation then the net loss would be 90w. the surface would still be cooling but at a slower rate.

next, add greenhouse gases. the surface radiation no longer directly escapes to space. while conduction is still taking place, part of surface radiation is absorbed into the atmosphere and is converted through molecular collisions into kinetic and potential energy. the atmosphere is now both warmer and higher. for example, if half of the surface radiation is captured by the atmosphere by GHGs, and half of that is returned to the surface, then the surface is getting back the 10w from conduction and radiation plus half of the 50w absorbed, 25w. the surface is losing 100w but getting back 10w and 25w for a net loss of only 65w.

obviously this lower rate of loss would affect the surface temperature. in the first case, atmosphere only, the solar input would collect at the surface until the temperature rose enough that the total surface radiation made up for the 10w imbalance of energy being released into space. in the GHG example the surface would warm even more to make up for the 35w deficit of outgoing radiation.

this is an absurdly simplified explanation. in real life we know that the energy received from the Sun must exactly match the outgoing energy leaving into space or there will be cooling or warming. we know how much Solar input the surface receives (less than 200w on average) and we know how warm the surface is (~15C, 400w). the only way we can close that energy budget is by back radiation returning to the surface from the atmosphere.

we also know, by measurement, that the type and amount of radiation released from the surface does not come out from the other side of the atmosphere. where did the energy go, if not into the total energy of the atmosphere?

I am supporting the Greenhouse Effect here. I do not support the warmer's version of feedbacks etc. But that is another story with its own complications. For now I just want people to think thing through and come to the inescapable conclusion that there is a Greenhouse Effect. And while I dont agree with IPCC consensus projections for increased CO2, there must be a warming influence of undetermined quantity for increased GHGs.

So IanC if that is supposed to be an explanation for the greenhouse gas effect then do tell me why the the moon`s surface temperature is so much hotter than the earth`s (which is surrounded by back radiating greenhouse gas)
To be consistent with your logic the earth`s surface should be hotter than that of the moon.
The example you picked ignores the fact that a lunar day is 14 earth days when you point out how cold the moon gets attributing that solely to the greenhouse gas effect.
Unless you can come back here and tell us how much the moon`s surface temperature is increasing by on an hourly basis and show us that this is less than it would be on earth you have no argument.
Don`t get me wrong I am not denying that there is a so called greenhouse gas effect I am saying that the magnitude is far less than what the proponents of such an effect keep insisting on as to what the temperature increase is they attribute to it really is.
You all like to skip over the fact that CO2 also prevents IR from ever reaching the surface and dwell only on how much it prevents from leaving the surface.
(prevent meaning back radiate)
Since that moon example is your`s not mine the onus is on you to find lunar data that clearly shows that the moon heats at the corresponding lunar day when it is at 14 C slower from 14 C to 15 C than the earth does because it has no greenhouse gas surrounding it

how goes it PB? neither the cold nor the bears have got to you yet?

I dont quite get the point of your post. I said that the avg temp on the moon is lower than the avg temp on earth. are you saying that is incorrect? I am sorry that you dont think the moon is a good example for an object with the same solar input as the earth. do you have a better one? I put down one short paragraph on the moon as a proxy for no atmosphere.
"The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power."

If you want to delve into more of the details go ahead and write down your understandings and conclusions and then we can discuss it.

No the moon does not have the same solar input of the earth. Our atmosphere keeps us cool

you are correct. because of the size difference between the moon and the earth, the moon loses more solar input when in the shadow of the earth than the earth loses when in the shadow of the moon. actually this is just a first guess approximation, if anyone wants to prove me wrong go for it.

the atmosphere moderated the temperature swings. while the earth doesnt get as warm as it could, or as cold as it could, the average temperature is warmer with an atmosphere, and warmer still with a GHG atmosphere.

No, it's not because of the size difference per se, it's because we have an atmosphere. The moon is too small (the only size factor) to retain anything other than the faintest of surface boundary/exoatmospheres.

 

[IanC]

The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power.

the earth does have an atmosphere. sunlight hitting the surface not only warms the surface but passes some of that energy to the atmosphere by conduction. during daylight warming the air molecules not only warm (kinetic energy) but puff up (potential energy). during nighttime cooling energy stored as both kinetic and potential is released, but in all directions, so that some of the energy returns to the surface. this energy does not 'warm' the surface directly because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, therefore the net radiation energy transfer is always outward through the atmosphere and into space. to give a made up example if the earth surface was radiating 100w but getting 10w back from atmospheric radiation then the net loss would be 90w. the surface would still be cooling but at a slower rate.

next, add greenhouse gases. the surface radiation no longer directly escapes to space. while conduction is still taking place, part of surface radiation is absorbed into the atmosphere and is converted through molecular collisions into kinetic and potential energy. the atmosphere is now both warmer and higher. for example, if half of the surface radiation is captured by the atmosphere by GHGs, and half of that is returned to the surface, then the surface is getting back the 10w from conduction and radiation plus half of the 50w absorbed, 25w. the surface is losing 100w but getting back 10w and 25w for a net loss of only 65w.

obviously this lower rate of loss would affect the surface temperature. in the first case, atmosphere only, the solar input would collect at the surface until the temperature rose enough that the total surface radiation made up for the 10w imbalance of energy being released into space. in the GHG example the surface would warm even more to make up for the 35w deficit of outgoing radiation.

this is an absurdly simplified explanation. in real life we know that the energy received from the Sun must exactly match the outgoing energy leaving into space or there will be cooling or warming. we know how much Solar input the surface receives (less than 200w on average) and we know how warm the surface is (~15C, 400w). the only way we can close that energy budget is by back radiation returning to the surface from the atmosphere.

we also know, by measurement, that the type and amount of radiation released from the surface does not come out from the other side of the atmosphere. where did the energy go, if not into the total energy of the atmosphere?

I am supporting the Greenhouse Effect here. I do not support the warmer's version of feedbacks etc. But that is another story with its own complications. For now I just want people to think thing through and come to the inescapable conclusion that there is a Greenhouse Effect. And while I dont agree with IPCC consensus projections for increased CO2, there must be a warming influence of undetermined quantity for increased GHGs.

So IanC if that is supposed to be an explanation for the greenhouse gas effect then do tell me why the the moon`s surface temperature is so much hotter than the earth`s (which is surrounded by back radiating greenhouse gas)
To be consistent with your logic the earth`s surface should be hotter than that of the moon.
The example you picked ignores the fact that a lunar day is 14 earth days when you point out how cold the moon gets attributing that solely to the greenhouse gas effect.
Unless you can come back here and tell us how much the moon`s surface temperature is increasing by on an hourly basis and show us that this is less than it would be on earth you have no argument.
Don`t get me wrong I am not denying that there is a so called greenhouse gas effect I am saying that the magnitude is far less than what the proponents of such an effect keep insisting on as to what the temperature increase is they attribute to it really is.
You all like to skip over the fact that CO2 also prevents IR from ever reaching the surface and dwell only on how much it prevents from leaving the surface.
(prevent meaning back radiate)
Since that moon example is your`s not mine the onus is on you to find lunar data that clearly shows that the moon heats at the corresponding lunar day when it is at 14 C slower from 14 C to 15 C than the earth does because it has no greenhouse gas surrounding it

how goes it PB? neither the cold nor the bears have got to you yet?

I dont quite get the point of your post. I said that the avg temp on the moon is lower than the avg temp on earth. are you saying that is incorrect? I am sorry that you dont think the moon is a good example for an object with the same solar input as the earth. do you have a better one? I put down one short paragraph on the moon as a proxy for no atmosphere.
"The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power."

If you want to delve into more of the details go ahead and write down your understandings and conclusions and then we can discuss it.

No the moon does not have the same solar input of the earth. Our atmosphere keeps us cool

you are correct. because of the size difference between the moon and the earth, the moon loses more solar input when in the shadow of the earth than the earth loses when in the shadow of the moon. actually this is just a first guess approximation, if anyone wants to prove me wrong go for it.

the atmosphere moderated the temperature swings. while the earth doesnt get as warm as it could, or as cold as it could, the average temperature is warmer with an atmosphere, and warmer still with a GHG atmosphere.

No, it's not because of the size difference per se, it's because we have an atmosphere. The moon is too small (the only size factor) to retain anything other than the faintest of surface boundary/exoatmospheres.

I welcome your input on this topic. are you arguing that the solar input to the moon is not the same as the solar input to the earth? are you arguing that the earth is not warmer than the moon, on average? are you arguing that an atmosphere is the reason for moderated temps?

I dont understand why you started your post with "No". where are we disagreeing?

 

[westwall]

So IanC if that is supposed to be an explanation for the greenhouse gas effect then do tell me why the the moon`s surface temperature is so much hotter than the earth`s (which is surrounded by back radiating greenhouse gas)
To be consistent with your logic the earth`s surface should be hotter than that of the moon.
The example you picked ignores the fact that a lunar day is 14 earth days when you point out how cold the moon gets attributing that solely to the greenhouse gas effect.
Unless you can come back here and tell us how much the moon`s surface temperature is increasing by on an hourly basis and show us that this is less than it would be on earth you have no argument.
Don`t get me wrong I am not denying that there is a so called greenhouse gas effect I am saying that the magnitude is far less than what the proponents of such an effect keep insisting on as to what the temperature increase is they attribute to it really is.
You all like to skip over the fact that CO2 also prevents IR from ever reaching the surface and dwell only on how much it prevents from leaving the surface.
(prevent meaning back radiate)
Since that moon example is your`s not mine the onus is on you to find lunar data that clearly shows that the moon heats at the corresponding lunar day when it is at 14 C slower from 14 C to 15 C than the earth does because it has no greenhouse gas surrounding it

how goes it PB? neither the cold nor the bears have got to you yet?

I dont quite get the point of your post. I said that the avg temp on the moon is lower than the avg temp on earth. are you saying that is incorrect? I am sorry that you dont think the moon is a good example for an object with the same solar input as the earth. do you have a better one? I put down one short paragraph on the moon as a proxy for no atmosphere.
"The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power."

If you want to delve into more of the details go ahead and write down your understandings and conclusions and then we can discuss it.

No the moon does not have the same solar input of the earth. Our atmosphere keeps us cool

you are correct. because of the size difference between the moon and the earth, the moon loses more solar input when in the shadow of the earth than the earth loses when in the shadow of the moon. actually this is just a first guess approximation, if anyone wants to prove me wrong go for it.

the atmosphere moderated the temperature swings. while the earth doesnt get as warm as it could, or as cold as it could, the average temperature is warmer with an atmosphere, and warmer still with a GHG atmosphere.

No, it's not because of the size difference per se, it's because we have an atmosphere. The moon is too small (the only size factor) to retain anything other than the faintest of surface boundary/exoatmospheres.

I welcome your input on this topic. are you arguing that the solar input to the moon is not the same as the solar input to the earth? are you arguing that the earth is not warmer than the moon, on average? are you arguing that an atmosphere is the reason for moderated temps?

I dont understand why you started your post with "No". where are we disagreeing?

No, it's the same. The Earths atmosphere is a blanket. It prevents energy from reaching the surface, and slows the energy that escapes back to space. I said the size of the moon as regards its radiation of energy is immaterial. It lacks an atmosphere. That is why the surface experiences wide temperature swings. It happens on all the moons and planets that lack a dense atmosphere.

 

[polarbear]

The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power.

the earth does have an atmosphere. sunlight hitting the surface not only warms the surface but passes some of that energy to the atmosphere by conduction. during daylight warming the air molecules not only warm (kinetic energy) but puff up (potential energy). during nighttime cooling energy stored as both kinetic and potential is released, but in all directions, so that some of the energy returns to the surface. this energy does not 'warm' the surface directly because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, therefore the net radiation energy transfer is always outward through the atmosphere and into space. to give a made up example if the earth surface was radiating 100w but getting 10w back from atmospheric radiation then the net loss would be 90w. the surface would still be cooling but at a slower rate.

next, add greenhouse gases. the surface radiation no longer directly escapes to space. while conduction is still taking place, part of surface radiation is absorbed into the atmosphere and is converted through molecular collisions into kinetic and potential energy. the atmosphere is now both warmer and higher. for example, if half of the surface radiation is captured by the atmosphere by GHGs, and half of that is returned to the surface, then the surface is getting back the 10w from conduction and radiation plus half of the 50w absorbed, 25w. the surface is losing 100w but getting back 10w and 25w for a net loss of only 65w.

obviously this lower rate of loss would affect the surface temperature. in the first case, atmosphere only, the solar input would collect at the surface until the temperature rose enough that the total surface radiation made up for the 10w imbalance of energy being released into space. in the GHG example the surface would warm even more to make up for the 35w deficit of outgoing radiation.

this is an absurdly simplified explanation. in real life we know that the energy received from the Sun must exactly match the outgoing energy leaving into space or there will be cooling or warming. we know how much Solar input the surface receives (less than 200w on average) and we know how warm the surface is (~15C, 400w). the only way we can close that energy budget is by back radiation returning to the surface from the atmosphere.

we also know, by measurement, that the type and amount of radiation released from the surface does not come out from the other side of the atmosphere. where did the energy go, if not into the total energy of the atmosphere?

I am supporting the Greenhouse Effect here. I do not support the warmer's version of feedbacks etc. But that is another story with its own complications. For now I just want people to think thing through and come to the inescapable conclusion that there is a Greenhouse Effect. And while I dont agree with IPCC consensus projections for increased CO2, there must be a warming influence of undetermined quantity for increased GHGs.

So IanC if that is supposed to be an explanation for the greenhouse gas effect then do tell me why the the moon`s surface temperature is so much hotter than the earth`s (which is surrounded by back radiating greenhouse gas)
To be consistent with your logic the earth`s surface should be hotter than that of the moon.
The example you picked ignores the fact that a lunar day is 14 earth days when you point out how cold the moon gets attributing that solely to the greenhouse gas effect.
Unless you can come back here and tell us how much the moon`s surface temperature is increasing by on an hourly basis and show us that this is less than it would be on earth you have no argument.
Don`t get me wrong I am not denying that there is a so called greenhouse gas effect I am saying that the magnitude is far less than what the proponents of such an effect keep insisting on as to what the temperature increase is they attribute to it really is.
You all like to skip over the fact that CO2 also prevents IR from ever reaching the surface and dwell only on how much it prevents from leaving the surface.
(prevent meaning back radiate)
Since that moon example is your`s not mine the onus is on you to find lunar data that clearly shows that the moon heats at the corresponding lunar day when it is at 14 C slower from 14 C to 15 C than the earth does because it has no greenhouse gas surrounding it

how goes it PB? neither the cold nor the bears have got to you yet?

I dont quite get the point of your post. I said that the avg temp on the moon is lower than the avg temp on earth. are you saying that is incorrect? I am sorry that you dont think the moon is a good example for an object with the same solar input as the earth. do you have a better one? I put down one short paragraph on the moon as a proxy for no atmosphere.
"The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power."

If you want to delve into more of the details go ahead and write down your understandings and conclusions and then we can discuss it.

First thank you for asking how I am doing. In my opinion you are a sincere person so I`ll give you a sincere answer to your sincere question. I am not doing so good since cancer ripped my wife from me recently. We were married for almost 43 years and it is hard to deal with this reality, but thanks again for your concern.
Reading stuff like the stuff you post here is one of the things I prefer to use to deal with the loss of my wife. First off it was a bit inappropriate of me demanding the kind of detailed lunar data from you which probably does not even exist...and that is a pity.
It would be interesting to see T increments per time through the first half of a lunar day and not just an overall average temperature for the entire cycle and surface.
It would also be better if these measurements would be done so that all quantities are known, by using a specific mass with well defined specific properties.
The average lunar temperature does not lend itself to come to precise conclusions considering that the surface is peppered with craters that remain dark.
NASA says just 2 meters below the lunar surface it`s a constant -30 to -40 C so in your radiation balance example we are looking at something which does not just radiate freely but is also refrigerated from below.
To answer your question as to what another example that could be used might be I would say that if you could find temperature versus time of day data collected on the kind of mountain tops where celestial telescopes are. I would be surprised if none of these sites collected detailed temperature, solar radiation and barometric pressure data.
Sure the molar GHG ppm are the same as the ones at lower altitude but the actual ppm GHG (mass/volume) is lower at a lower barometric pressure.
That would be interesting to see how hot a near black body say a 1m^2 steel plate covered with a thin layer of black soot gets compared to another identical one which is located at a lower altitude and consequently higher GHG partial pressure and higher mass/volume ppm GHG. In my opinion that would yield more useful results than trying to make a case for man made global warming with a coke bottle filled with CO2.
You should think that after all this time and money spent on climate change that there would have been at least some lab tests which are a bit more realistic than CO2 in a glass jar, or how it all started out in a glass greenhouse with elevated CO2 concentrations.l
So if you or anybody else reading your thread could find a data set similar to the one I think would be more realistic that would be really interesting

 

[westwall]

The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power.

the earth does have an atmosphere. sunlight hitting the surface not only warms the surface but passes some of that energy to the atmosphere by conduction. during daylight warming the air molecules not only warm (kinetic energy) but puff up (potential energy). during nighttime cooling energy stored as both kinetic and potential is released, but in all directions, so that some of the energy returns to the surface. this energy does not 'warm' the surface directly because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, therefore the net radiation energy transfer is always outward through the atmosphere and into space. to give a made up example if the earth surface was radiating 100w but getting 10w back from atmospheric radiation then the net loss would be 90w. the surface would still be cooling but at a slower rate.

next, add greenhouse gases. the surface radiation no longer directly escapes to space. while conduction is still taking place, part of surface radiation is absorbed into the atmosphere and is converted through molecular collisions into kinetic and potential energy. the atmosphere is now both warmer and higher. for example, if half of the surface radiation is captured by the atmosphere by GHGs, and half of that is returned to the surface, then the surface is getting back the 10w from conduction and radiation plus half of the 50w absorbed, 25w. the surface is losing 100w but getting back 10w and 25w for a net loss of only 65w.

obviously this lower rate of loss would affect the surface temperature. in the first case, atmosphere only, the solar input would collect at the surface until the temperature rose enough that the total surface radiation made up for the 10w imbalance of energy being released into space. in the GHG example the surface would warm even more to make up for the 35w deficit of outgoing radiation.

this is an absurdly simplified explanation. in real life we know that the energy received from the Sun must exactly match the outgoing energy leaving into space or there will be cooling or warming. we know how much Solar input the surface receives (less than 200w on average) and we know how warm the surface is (~15C, 400w). the only way we can close that energy budget is by back radiation returning to the surface from the atmosphere.

we also know, by measurement, that the type and amount of radiation released from the surface does not come out from the other side of the atmosphere. where did the energy go, if not into the total energy of the atmosphere?

I am supporting the Greenhouse Effect here. I do not support the warmer's version of feedbacks etc. But that is another story with its own complications. For now I just want people to think thing through and come to the inescapable conclusion that there is a Greenhouse Effect. And while I dont agree with IPCC consensus projections for increased CO2, there must be a warming influence of undetermined quantity for increased GHGs.

So IanC if that is supposed to be an explanation for the greenhouse gas effect then do tell me why the the moon`s surface temperature is so much hotter than the earth`s (which is surrounded by back radiating greenhouse gas)
To be consistent with your logic the earth`s surface should be hotter than that of the moon.
The example you picked ignores the fact that a lunar day is 14 earth days when you point out how cold the moon gets attributing that solely to the greenhouse gas effect.
Unless you can come back here and tell us how much the moon`s surface temperature is increasing by on an hourly basis and show us that this is less than it would be on earth you have no argument.
Don`t get me wrong I am not denying that there is a so called greenhouse gas effect I am saying that the magnitude is far less than what the proponents of such an effect keep insisting on as to what the temperature increase is they attribute to it really is.
You all like to skip over the fact that CO2 also prevents IR from ever reaching the surface and dwell only on how much it prevents from leaving the surface.
(prevent meaning back radiate)
Since that moon example is your`s not mine the onus is on you to find lunar data that clearly shows that the moon heats at the corresponding lunar day when it is at 14 C slower from 14 C to 15 C than the earth does because it has no greenhouse gas surrounding it

how goes it PB? neither the cold nor the bears have got to you yet?

I dont quite get the point of your post. I said that the avg temp on the moon is lower than the avg temp on earth. are you saying that is incorrect? I am sorry that you dont think the moon is a good example for an object with the same solar input as the earth. do you have a better one? I put down one short paragraph on the moon as a proxy for no atmosphere.
"The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power."

If you want to delve into more of the details go ahead and write down your understandings and conclusions and then we can discuss it.

First thank you for asking how I am doing. In my opinion you are a sincere person so I`ll give you a sincere answer to your sincere question. I am not doing so good since cancer ripped my wife from me recently. We were married for almost 43 years and it is hard to deal with this reality, but thanks again for your concern.
Reading stuff like the stuff you post here is one of the things I prefer to use to deal with the loss of my wife. First off it was a bit inappropriate of me demanding the kind of detailed lunar data from you which probably does not even exist...and that is a pity.
It would be interesting to see T increments per time through the first half of a lunar day and not just an overall average temperature for the entire cycle and surface.
It would also be better if these measurements would be done so that all quantities are known, by using a specific mass with well defined specific properties.
The average lunar temperature does not lend itself to come to precise conclusions considering that the surface is peppered with craters that remain dark.
NASA says just 2 meters below the lunar surface it`s a constant -30 to -40 C so in your radiation balance example we are looking at something which does not just radiate freely but is also refrigerated from below.
To answer your question as to what another example that could be used might be I would say that if you could find temperature versus time of day data collected on the kind of mountain tops where celestial telescopes are. I would be surprised if none of these sites collected detailed temperature, solar radiation and barometric pressure data.
Sure the molar GHG ppm are the same as the ones at lower altitude but the actual ppm GHG (mass/volume) is lower at a lower barometric pressure.
That would be interesting to see how hot a near black body say a 1m^2 steel plate covered with a thin layer of black soot gets compared to another identical one which is located at a lower altitude and consequently higher GHG partial pressure and higher mass/volume ppm GHG. In my opinion that would yield more useful results than trying to make a case for man made global warming with a coke bottle filled with CO2.
You should think that after all this time and money spent on climate change that there would have been at least some lab tests which are a bit more realistic than CO2 in a glass jar, or how it all started out in a glass greenhouse with elevated CO2 concentrations.l
So if you or anybody else reading your thread could find a data set similar to the one I think would be more realistic that would be really interesting

I am sorry to hear of your loss polarbear.

 

[IanC]

The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power.

the earth does have an atmosphere. sunlight hitting the surface not only warms the surface but passes some of that energy to the atmosphere by conduction. during daylight warming the air molecules not only warm (kinetic energy) but puff up (potential energy). during nighttime cooling energy stored as both kinetic and potential is released, but in all directions, so that some of the energy returns to the surface. this energy does not 'warm' the surface directly because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, therefore the net radiation energy transfer is always outward through the atmosphere and into space. to give a made up example if the earth surface was radiating 100w but getting 10w back from atmospheric radiation then the net loss would be 90w. the surface would still be cooling but at a slower rate.

next, add greenhouse gases. the surface radiation no longer directly escapes to space. while conduction is still taking place, part of surface radiation is absorbed into the atmosphere and is converted through molecular collisions into kinetic and potential energy. the atmosphere is now both warmer and higher. for example, if half of the surface radiation is captured by the atmosphere by GHGs, and half of that is returned to the surface, then the surface is getting back the 10w from conduction and radiation plus half of the 50w absorbed, 25w. the surface is losing 100w but getting back 10w and 25w for a net loss of only 65w.

obviously this lower rate of loss would affect the surface temperature. in the first case, atmosphere only, the solar input would collect at the surface until the temperature rose enough that the total surface radiation made up for the 10w imbalance of energy being released into space. in the GHG example the surface would warm even more to make up for the 35w deficit of outgoing radiation.

this is an absurdly simplified explanation. in real life we know that the energy received from the Sun must exactly match the outgoing energy leaving into space or there will be cooling or warming. we know how much Solar input the surface receives (less than 200w on average) and we know how warm the surface is (~15C, 400w). the only way we can close that energy budget is by back radiation returning to the surface from the atmosphere.

we also know, by measurement, that the type and amount of radiation released from the surface does not come out from the other side of the atmosphere. where did the energy go, if not into the total energy of the atmosphere?

I am supporting the Greenhouse Effect here. I do not support the warmer's version of feedbacks etc. But that is another story with its own complications. For now I just want people to think thing through and come to the inescapable conclusion that there is a Greenhouse Effect. And while I dont agree with IPCC consensus projections for increased CO2, there must be a warming influence of undetermined quantity for increased GHGs.

So IanC if that is supposed to be an explanation for the greenhouse gas effect then do tell me why the the moon`s surface temperature is so much hotter than the earth`s (which is surrounded by back radiating greenhouse gas)
To be consistent with your logic the earth`s surface should be hotter than that of the moon.
The example you picked ignores the fact that a lunar day is 14 earth days when you point out how cold the moon gets attributing that solely to the greenhouse gas effect.
Unless you can come back here and tell us how much the moon`s surface temperature is increasing by on an hourly basis and show us that this is less than it would be on earth you have no argument.
Don`t get me wrong I am not denying that there is a so called greenhouse gas effect I am saying that the magnitude is far less than what the proponents of such an effect keep insisting on as to what the temperature increase is they attribute to it really is.
You all like to skip over the fact that CO2 also prevents IR from ever reaching the surface and dwell only on how much it prevents from leaving the surface.
(prevent meaning back radiate)
Since that moon example is your`s not mine the onus is on you to find lunar data that clearly shows that the moon heats at the corresponding lunar day when it is at 14 C slower from 14 C to 15 C than the earth does because it has no greenhouse gas surrounding it

how goes it PB? neither the cold nor the bears have got to you yet?

I dont quite get the point of your post. I said that the avg temp on the moon is lower than the avg temp on earth. are you saying that is incorrect? I am sorry that you dont think the moon is a good example for an object with the same solar input as the earth. do you have a better one? I put down one short paragraph on the moon as a proxy for no atmosphere.
"The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power."

If you want to delve into more of the details go ahead and write down your understandings and conclusions and then we can discuss it.

First thank you for asking how I am doing. In my opinion you are a sincere person so I`ll give you a sincere answer to your sincere question. I am not doing so good since cancer ripped my wife from me recently. We were married for almost 43 years and it is hard to deal with this reality, but thanks again for your concern.
Reading stuff like the stuff you post here is one of the things I prefer to use to deal with the loss of my wife. First off it was a bit inappropriate of me demanding the kind of detailed lunar data from you which probably does not even exist...and that is a pity.
It would be interesting to see T increments per time through the first half of a lunar day and not just an overall average temperature for the entire cycle and surface.
It would also be better if these measurements would be done so that all quantities are known, by using a specific mass with well defined specific properties.
The average lunar temperature does not lend itself to come to precise conclusions considering that the surface is peppered with craters that remain dark.
NASA says just 2 meters below the lunar surface it`s a constant -30 to -40 C so in your radiation balance example we are looking at something which does not just radiate freely but is also refrigerated from below.
To answer your question as to what another example that could be used might be I would say that if you could find temperature versus time of day data collected on the kind of mountain tops where celestial telescopes are. I would be surprised if none of these sites collected detailed temperature, solar radiation and barometric pressure data.
Sure the molar GHG ppm are the same as the ones at lower altitude but the actual ppm GHG (mass/volume) is lower at a lower barometric pressure.
That would be interesting to see how hot a near black body say a 1m^2 steel plate covered with a thin layer of black soot gets compared to another identical one which is located at a lower altitude and consequently higher GHG partial pressure and higher mass/volume ppm GHG. In my opinion that would yield more useful results than trying to make a case for man made global warming with a coke bottle filled with CO2.
You should think that after all this time and money spent on climate change that there would have been at least some lab tests which are a bit more realistic than CO2 in a glass jar, or how it all started out in a glass greenhouse with elevated CO2 concentrations.l
So if you or anybody else reading your thread could find a data set similar to the one I think would be more realistic that would be really interesting

That is truly horrible news. My deepest sympathy and condolences go out to you and your family. I selfishly pray that I pass before my wife because I don't know if I would have the strength or desire to carry on without her. I know that you have children and grandchildren. Come back strong for them.

 

[jc456]

The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power.

the earth does have an atmosphere. sunlight hitting the surface not only warms the surface but passes some of that energy to the atmosphere by conduction. during daylight warming the air molecules not only warm (kinetic energy) but puff up (potential energy). during nighttime cooling energy stored as both kinetic and potential is released, but in all directions, so that some of the energy returns to the surface. this energy does not 'warm' the surface directly because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, therefore the net radiation energy transfer is always outward through the atmosphere and into space. to give a made up example if the earth surface was radiating 100w but getting 10w back from atmospheric radiation then the net loss would be 90w. the surface would still be cooling but at a slower rate.

next, add greenhouse gases. the surface radiation no longer directly escapes to space. while conduction is still taking place, part of surface radiation is absorbed into the atmosphere and is converted through molecular collisions into kinetic and potential energy. the atmosphere is now both warmer and higher. for example, if half of the surface radiation is captured by the atmosphere by GHGs, and half of that is returned to the surface, then the surface is getting back the 10w from conduction and radiation plus half of the 50w absorbed, 25w. the surface is losing 100w but getting back 10w and 25w for a net loss of only 65w.

obviously this lower rate of loss would affect the surface temperature. in the first case, atmosphere only, the solar input would collect at the surface until the temperature rose enough that the total surface radiation made up for the 10w imbalance of energy being released into space. in the GHG example the surface would warm even more to make up for the 35w deficit of outgoing radiation.

this is an absurdly simplified explanation. in real life we know that the energy received from the Sun must exactly match the outgoing energy leaving into space or there will be cooling or warming. we know how much Solar input the surface receives (less than 200w on average) and we know how warm the surface is (~15C, 400w). the only way we can close that energy budget is by back radiation returning to the surface from the atmosphere.

we also know, by measurement, that the type and amount of radiation released from the surface does not come out from the other side of the atmosphere. where did the energy go, if not into the total energy of the atmosphere?

I am supporting the Greenhouse Effect here. I do not support the warmer's version of feedbacks etc. But that is another story with its own complications. For now I just want people to think thing through and come to the inescapable conclusion that there is a Greenhouse Effect. And while I dont agree with IPCC consensus projections for increased CO2, there must be a warming influence of undetermined quantity for increased GHGs.

So IanC if that is supposed to be an explanation for the greenhouse gas effect then do tell me why the the moon`s surface temperature is so much hotter than the earth`s (which is surrounded by back radiating greenhouse gas)
To be consistent with your logic the earth`s surface should be hotter than that of the moon.
The example you picked ignores the fact that a lunar day is 14 earth days when you point out how cold the moon gets attributing that solely to the greenhouse gas effect.
Unless you can come back here and tell us how much the moon`s surface temperature is increasing by on an hourly basis and show us that this is less than it would be on earth you have no argument.
Don`t get me wrong I am not denying that there is a so called greenhouse gas effect I am saying that the magnitude is far less than what the proponents of such an effect keep insisting on as to what the temperature increase is they attribute to it really is.
You all like to skip over the fact that CO2 also prevents IR from ever reaching the surface and dwell only on how much it prevents from leaving the surface.
(prevent meaning back radiate)
Since that moon example is your`s not mine the onus is on you to find lunar data that clearly shows that the moon heats at the corresponding lunar day when it is at 14 C slower from 14 C to 15 C than the earth does because it has no greenhouse gas surrounding it

how goes it PB? neither the cold nor the bears have got to you yet?

I dont quite get the point of your post. I said that the avg temp on the moon is lower than the avg temp on earth. are you saying that is incorrect? I am sorry that you dont think the moon is a good example for an object with the same solar input as the earth. do you have a better one? I put down one short paragraph on the moon as a proxy for no atmosphere.
"The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power."

If you want to delve into more of the details go ahead and write down your understandings and conclusions and then we can discuss it.

First thank you for asking how I am doing. In my opinion you are a sincere person so I`ll give you a sincere answer to your sincere question. I am not doing so good since cancer ripped my wife from me recently. We were married for almost 43 years and it is hard to deal with this reality, but thanks again for your concern.
Reading stuff like the stuff you post here is one of the things I prefer to use to deal with the loss of my wife. First off it was a bit inappropriate of me demanding the kind of detailed lunar data from you which probably does not even exist...and that is a pity.
It would be interesting to see T increments per time through the first half of a lunar day and not just an overall average temperature for the entire cycle and surface.
It would also be better if these measurements would be done so that all quantities are known, by using a specific mass with well defined specific properties.
The average lunar temperature does not lend itself to come to precise conclusions considering that the surface is peppered with craters that remain dark.
NASA says just 2 meters below the lunar surface it`s a constant -30 to -40 C so in your radiation balance example we are looking at something which does not just radiate freely but is also refrigerated from below.
To answer your question as to what another example that could be used might be I would say that if you could find temperature versus time of day data collected on the kind of mountain tops where celestial telescopes are. I would be surprised if none of these sites collected detailed temperature, solar radiation and barometric pressure data.
Sure the molar GHG ppm are the same as the ones at lower altitude but the actual ppm GHG (mass/volume) is lower at a lower barometric pressure.
That would be interesting to see how hot a near black body say a 1m^2 steel plate covered with a thin layer of black soot gets compared to another identical one which is located at a lower altitude and consequently higher GHG partial pressure and higher mass/volume ppm GHG. In my opinion that would yield more useful results than trying to make a case for man made global warming with a coke bottle filled with CO2.
You should think that after all this time and money spent on climate change that there would have been at least some lab tests which are a bit more realistic than CO2 in a glass jar, or how it all started out in a glass greenhouse with elevated CO2 concentrations.l
So if you or anybody else reading your thread could find a data set similar to the one I think would be more realistic that would be really interesting

Sorry to hear that about your wife.

 

[polarbear]

The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power.

the earth does have an atmosphere. sunlight hitting the surface not only warms the surface but passes some of that energy to the atmosphere by conduction. during daylight warming the air molecules not only warm (kinetic energy) but puff up (potential energy). during nighttime cooling energy stored as both kinetic and potential is released, but in all directions, so that some of the energy returns to the surface. this energy does not 'warm' the surface directly because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, therefore the net radiation energy transfer is always outward through the atmosphere and into space. to give a made up example if the earth surface was radiating 100w but getting 10w back from atmospheric radiation then the net loss would be 90w. the surface would still be cooling but at a slower rate.

next, add greenhouse gases. the surface radiation no longer directly escapes to space. while conduction is still taking place, part of surface radiation is absorbed into the atmosphere and is converted through molecular collisions into kinetic and potential energy. the atmosphere is now both warmer and higher. for example, if half of the surface radiation is captured by the atmosphere by GHGs, and half of that is returned to the surface, then the surface is getting back the 10w from conduction and radiation plus half of the 50w absorbed, 25w. the surface is losing 100w but getting back 10w and 25w for a net loss of only 65w.

obviously this lower rate of loss would affect the surface temperature. in the first case, atmosphere only, the solar input would collect at the surface until the temperature rose enough that the total surface radiation made up for the 10w imbalance of energy being released into space. in the GHG example the surface would warm even more to make up for the 35w deficit of outgoing radiation.

this is an absurdly simplified explanation. in real life we know that the energy received from the Sun must exactly match the outgoing energy leaving into space or there will be cooling or warming. we know how much Solar input the surface receives (less than 200w on average) and we know how warm the surface is (~15C, 400w). the only way we can close that energy budget is by back radiation returning to the surface from the atmosphere.

we also know, by measurement, that the type and amount of radiation released from the surface does not come out from the other side of the atmosphere. where did the energy go, if not into the total energy of the atmosphere?

I am supporting the Greenhouse Effect here. I do not support the warmer's version of feedbacks etc. But that is another story with its own complications. For now I just want people to think thing through and come to the inescapable conclusion that there is a Greenhouse Effect. And while I dont agree with IPCC consensus projections for increased CO2, there must be a warming influence of undetermined quantity for increased GHGs.

So IanC if that is supposed to be an explanation for the greenhouse gas effect then do tell me why the the moon`s surface temperature is so much hotter than the earth`s (which is surrounded by back radiating greenhouse gas)
To be consistent with your logic the earth`s surface should be hotter than that of the moon.
The example you picked ignores the fact that a lunar day is 14 earth days when you point out how cold the moon gets attributing that solely to the greenhouse gas effect.
Unless you can come back here and tell us how much the moon`s surface temperature is increasing by on an hourly basis and show us that this is less than it would be on earth you have no argument.
Don`t get me wrong I am not denying that there is a so called greenhouse gas effect I am saying that the magnitude is far less than what the proponents of such an effect keep insisting on as to what the temperature increase is they attribute to it really is.
You all like to skip over the fact that CO2 also prevents IR from ever reaching the surface and dwell only on how much it prevents from leaving the surface.
(prevent meaning back radiate)
Since that moon example is your`s not mine the onus is on you to find lunar data that clearly shows that the moon heats at the corresponding lunar day when it is at 14 C slower from 14 C to 15 C than the earth does because it has no greenhouse gas surrounding it

how goes it PB? neither the cold nor the bears have got to you yet?

I dont quite get the point of your post. I said that the avg temp on the moon is lower than the avg temp on earth. are you saying that is incorrect? I am sorry that you dont think the moon is a good example for an object with the same solar input as the earth. do you have a better one? I put down one short paragraph on the moon as a proxy for no atmosphere.
"The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power."

If you want to delve into more of the details go ahead and write down your understandings and conclusions and then we can discuss it.

First thank you for asking how I am doing. In my opinion you are a sincere person so I`ll give you a sincere answer to your sincere question. I am not doing so good since cancer ripped my wife from me recently. We were married for almost 43 years and it is hard to deal with this reality, but thanks again for your concern.
Reading stuff like the stuff you post here is one of the things I prefer to use to deal with the loss of my wife. First off it was a bit inappropriate of me demanding the kind of detailed lunar data from you which probably does not even exist...and that is a pity.
It would be interesting to see T increments per time through the first half of a lunar day and not just an overall average temperature for the entire cycle and surface.
It would also be better if these measurements would be done so that all quantities are known, by using a specific mass with well defined specific properties.
The average lunar temperature does not lend itself to come to precise conclusions considering that the surface is peppered with craters that remain dark.
NASA says just 2 meters below the lunar surface it`s a constant -30 to -40 C so in your radiation balance example we are looking at something which does not just radiate freely but is also refrigerated from below.
To answer your question as to what another example that could be used might be I would say that if you could find temperature versus time of day data collected on the kind of mountain tops where celestial telescopes are. I would be surprised if none of these sites collected detailed temperature, solar radiation and barometric pressure data.
Sure the molar GHG ppm are the same as the ones at lower altitude but the actual ppm GHG (mass/volume) is lower at a lower barometric pressure.
That would be interesting to see how hot a near black body say a 1m^2 steel plate covered with a thin layer of black soot gets compared to another identical one which is located at a lower altitude and consequently higher GHG partial pressure and higher mass/volume ppm GHG. In my opinion that would yield more useful results than trying to make a case for man made global warming with a coke bottle filled with CO2.
You should think that after all this time and money spent on climate change that there would have been at least some lab tests which are a bit more realistic than CO2 in a glass jar, or how it all started out in a glass greenhouse with elevated CO2 concentrations.l
So if you or anybody else reading your thread could find a data set similar to the one I think would be more realistic that would be really interesting

That is truly horrible news. My deepest sympathy and condolences go out to you and your family. I selfishly pray that I pass before my wife because I don't know if I would have the strength or desire to carry on without her. I know that you have children and grandchildren. Come back strong for them.

I am addressing this to you and all the other ones who expressed their condolences here.
You said you pray that you pass before your wife does and that is exactly what I did. 2 years ago I was in the ICU and they called in the entire family and told them that I won`t make it. I remember seeing my wife sitting there with the 3 great grand children which were and still are in my care...and told myself that I can`t just leave them like that. For some strange reason that the medical community here still studies I recovered from a total kidney failure which is pretty well unheard of. Without dialysis or transplant etc. So now they ( MD`s from all over) still study my case and to this date draw blood samples twice a month in order to understand how this was possible. So maybe there was another reason why things did not go my way when I always prayed that I go before my wife goes before all this happened. I am getting fed up with all these tests but volunteered to keep cooperating with the study they are doing on me. I am 71 years old and now they tell me I have the vital signs of a teenager and I don`t know what to believe any more with that I don`t just mean the science but also spiritually. I am not exactly pastor material and only subscribe to religion on a moral basis to guide my actions.
Well when my time is up I guess I`ll find out if the clergy was right or the science, or maybe both.
But before that happens I sure would like to know if and how much we are responsible for climate change.
At this point I still side with Herr Doktor Heinz Hug: The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact
and wish I still had access to the kind of instrumentation and facilities when I was much younger, but then none of this was an issue. But it`s pretty amazing what you can see just by pointing a simple IR gun into a blue hole of the sky, at a cloud and then compute the T reading to watts/m^2.
I don`t have all these readings I took in front of me but a typical one during a hot summer day in Manitoba was around -30C for blue sky and -10 when aiming at a cloud estimated at ~ 2000 ft AGL.
Which computes to 198 and 271 watts/m^ respectively. I`m not sure which is the official one but here:
ATM S 211 - Notes
They say it`s 240 watts per m^2
The only time I saw anything near that was if I aimed my IR gun at low altitude clouds which contain a heck of a lot of moisture which in turn dwarfs what CO2 absorbs and re-radiates.
That leaves me with not quite 200 w/m^2 when clouds are not part of the equation and just the relative humidity which in Manitoba (at Lat 48.5 deg) for the most part is in the 80% region on a sunny day and the current ppm CO2.
So my argument is that without the water vapor and /or cloud I can`t get anywhere near 240 watts/m^2 back radiation just north of the US/Canada border.
I wish one of you guys reading this and is living in the southern US states would buy an IR gun. A good does not cost more than 50$...and point it at the sky to see what kind of readings you get.
I suspect it will be almost the same as what I can see here.

 

[IanC]

handheld IR guns intentionally restrict the range of IR measured to the same bands of IR that let surface radiation freely escape to space. the radiation they measure is produced BY the atmosphere. if the IR gun was using bands that captured CO2 and H2O specific emissions then they would be blinded nearby radiation, unable to 'see' the radiation beyond a few dozen meters.

if the restricted range of 8-13 microns is already showing ~ 200w, why do you doubt that the whole range is not 300w or more?

 

[IanC]

I have done a piss poor job of explaining my point. let's try again.

IR guns measure the total radiation in any direction that they are pointed in. they use the IR band that freely moves through the atmosphere, it does not get absorbed but it does get created by the atmosphere via molecular collisions proportional to temperature. pointed upwards it measures the radiation created at all levels. these levels have a temperature gradient caused by lapse rate.
total radiation = radiation(T) + radiation(T-1) +radiation(T-2) +...... = average temperature of the whole vertical column

if you want to measure the ambient temperature at the surface you point the gun sideways, through the warmer atmosphere close to the ground.
total radiation = radiation (T) + radiation(T) +radiation(T).... = average temperature of the whole horizontal column

both the surface and the atmosphere produce IR that is capable of escaping through the 'atmospheric window' but because the direction of radiation is random, some of this IR produced by the atmosphere returns to the surface. THIS IS NOT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. but it is one of the ways that the stored solar input energy contained in the atmosphere is partially returned to the surface, raising temps. all atmospheres do this, whether they contain GHGs or not.

 

[IanC]

GHGs make the atmosphere opaque to certain bands of IR. let's concentrate on CO2, and ignore convection which is primarily an effect of water vapour.

roughly 8% of the surface's power is emitted in the 15 micron band dominated by CO2, and it is absorbed to extinction by 10 meters of atmosphere. the exact numbers dont matter, just the general mechanism. so, all that energy is added to the first 10 meters of atmosphere but what happens to it?

when a molecule absorbs a photon it increases its potential energy, but we know that potential and kinetic energy of the atmosphere is freely transferable by collisions. therefore adding potential energy will result in increased kinetic energy (temperature) as well.

the equipartition theorum states that for a substance at a consistent temperature the emission will equal the absorption, basically a restatement of emissivity. this is where the warmers make their claim that CO2 absorbs, then emits in a random direction, which means roughly half returns to the surface. this is incorrect because the atmosphere cools with height because of gravity and the distribution of potential and kinetic energies. (I am ignoring water vapour contribution to lapse rate per above)

every slab of the atmosphere contains some excited CO2 (potential energy), from radiation coming both from above and below. it continues to hold onto this energy until the concentration of CO2 is so thin that emitted photons are more likely to escape to space rather than encounter another CO2 molecule and be absorbed. the amount of CO2 specific radiation lost to space is a small fraction of the amount of CO2 specific radiation put into the atmosphere by the surface. the difference is used to add to the total energy of the atmosphere which both warms the air (kinetic) and increases the height of the atmosphere (potential).

in the comment above we saw the atmospheric window radiation was produced by both the surface and the atmosphere but only warmed the surface. now we have a different type of radiation that warms both the surface and the atmosphere (not directly because the net flow is outward, yada yada yada). if CO2 was not present then the 15 micron IR would be part of the atmospheric window and lost directly to space rather than be captured by the atmosphere. more direct energy loss would result in lower temps for both the atmosphere and the surface. THIS is the greenhouse effect.

 

[jc456]

GHGs make the atmosphere opaque to certain bands of IR. let's concentrate on CO2, and ignore convection which is primarily an effect of water vapour.

roughly 8% of the surface's power is emitted in the 15 micron band dominated by CO2, and it is absorbed to extinction by 10 meters of atmosphere. the exact numbers dont matter, just the general mechanism. so, all that energy is added to the first 10 meters of atmosphere but what happens to it?

when a molecule absorbs a photon it increases its potential energy, but we know that potential and kinetic energy of the atmosphere is freely transferable by collisions. therefore adding potential energy will result in increased kinetic energy (temperature) as well.

the equipartition theorum states that for a substance at a consistent temperature the emission will equal the absorption, basically a restatement of emissivity. this is where the warmers make their claim that CO2 absorbs, then emits in a random direction, which means roughly half returns to the surface. this is incorrect because the atmosphere cools with height because of gravity and the distribution of potential and kinetic energies. (I am ignoring water vapour contribution to lapse rate per above)

every slab of the atmosphere contains some excited CO2 (potential energy), from radiation coming both from above and below. it continues to hold onto this energy until the concentration of CO2 is so thin that emitted photons are more likely to escape to space rather than encounter another CO2 molecule and be absorbed. the amount of CO2 specific radiation lost to space is a small fraction of the amount of CO2 specific radiation put into the atmosphere by the surface. the difference is used to add to the total energy of the atmosphere which both warms the air (kinetic) and increases the height of the atmosphere (potential).

in the comment above we saw the atmospheric window radiation was produced by both the surface and the atmosphere but only warmed the surface. now we have a different type of radiation that warms both the surface and the atmosphere (not directly because the net flow is outward, yada yada yada). if CO2 was not present then the 15 micron IR would be part of the atmospheric window and lost directly to space rather than be captured by the atmosphere. more direct energy loss would result in lower temps for both the atmosphere and the surface. THIS is the greenhouse effect.

Why doesn't CO2 absorb incoming IR?

 

[polarbear]

GHGs make the atmosphere opaque to certain bands of IR. let's concentrate on CO2, and ignore convection which is primarily an effect of water vapour.

roughly 8% of the surface's power is emitted in the 15 micron band dominated by CO2, and it is absorbed to extinction by 10 meters of atmosphere. the exact numbers dont matter, just the general mechanism. so, all that energy is added to the first 10 meters of atmosphere but what happens to it?

when a molecule absorbs a photon it increases its potential energy, but we know that potential and kinetic energy of the atmosphere is freely transferable by collisions. therefore adding potential energy will result in increased kinetic energy (temperature) as well.

the equipartition theorum states that for a substance at a consistent temperature the emission will equal the absorption, basically a restatement of emissivity. this is where the warmers make their claim that CO2 absorbs, then emits in a random direction, which means roughly half returns to the surface. this is incorrect because the atmosphere cools with height because of gravity and the distribution of potential and kinetic energies. (I am ignoring water vapour contribution to lapse rate per above)

every slab of the atmosphere contains some excited CO2 (potential energy), from radiation coming both from above and below. it continues to hold onto this energy until the concentration of CO2 is so thin that emitted photons are more likely to escape to space rather than encounter another CO2 molecule and be absorbed. the amount of CO2 specific radiation lost to space is a small fraction of the amount of CO2 specific radiation put into the atmosphere by the surface. the difference is used to add to the total energy of the atmosphere which both warms the air (kinetic) and increases the height of the atmosphere (potential).

in the comment above we saw the atmospheric window radiation was produced by both the surface and the atmosphere but only warmed the surface. now we have a different type of radiation that warms both the surface and the atmosphere (not directly because the net flow is outward, yada yada yada). if CO2 was not present then the 15 micron IR would be part of the atmospheric window and lost directly to space rather than be captured by the atmosphere. more direct energy loss would result in lower temps for both the atmosphere and the surface. THIS is the greenhouse effect.

IanC I don`t think that whoever is reading your thread disputes Beer`s law. The problems start when AGW proponents assign values which aren`t actually measured but calculated or closer to the truth are estimated. You can`t just plug in Beer`s or Schroedinger`s laws into the 15 μm wavelength region and plot an absorption curve with it then go on and "calculate" an energy budget for the entire planet. Look again at the difference between the numbers when you actually measure what happens in the 15 μm absorption band with CO2 and if you just make all the assumptions that any material like CO2 strictly conforms with these assumptions:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Fig. 1 shows the unprocessed spectrum of the 15 µm band for 357 ppm CO2 and 2.6% H2O


If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2. This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

 

[polarbear]

GHGs make the atmosphere opaque to certain bands of IR. let's concentrate on CO2, and ignore convection which is primarily an effect of water vapour.

roughly 8% of the surface's power is emitted in the 15 micron band dominated by CO2, and it is absorbed to extinction by 10 meters of atmosphere. the exact numbers dont matter, just the general mechanism. so, all that energy is added to the first 10 meters of atmosphere but what happens to it?

when a molecule absorbs a photon it increases its potential energy, but we know that potential and kinetic energy of the atmosphere is freely transferable by collisions. therefore adding potential energy will result in increased kinetic energy (temperature) as well.

the equipartition theorum states that for a substance at a consistent temperature the emission will equal the absorption, basically a restatement of emissivity. this is where the warmers make their claim that CO2 absorbs, then emits in a random direction, which means roughly half returns to the surface. this is incorrect because the atmosphere cools with height because of gravity and the distribution of potential and kinetic energies. (I am ignoring water vapour contribution to lapse rate per above)
It does !

every slab of the atmosphere contains some excited CO2 (potential energy), from radiation coming both from above and below. it continues to hold onto this energy until the concentration of CO2 is so thin that emitted photons are more likely to escape to space rather than encounter another CO2 molecule and be absorbed. the amount of CO2 specific radiation lost to space is a small fraction of the amount of CO2 specific radiation put into the atmosphere by the surface. the difference is used to add to the total energy of the atmosphere which both warms the air (kinetic) and increases the height of the atmosphere (potential).

in the comment above we saw the atmospheric window radiation was produced by both the surface and the atmosphere but only warmed the surface. now we have a different type of radiation that warms both the surface and the atmosphere (not directly because the net flow is outward, yada yada yada). if CO2 was not present then the 15 micron IR would be part of the atmospheric window and lost directly to space rather than be captured by the atmosphere. more direct energy loss would result in lower temps for both the atmosphere and the surface. THIS is the greenhouse effect.

Why doesn't CO2 absorb incoming IR?

It does !

 

[SSDD]

Excellent!! I can tell by the classical case of transference (in the psychological sense) in his sneering insult, that he is coming around at least somewhat.

Says the guy who has adopted the phrase smart photons from rocks.