Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[Crick]

Billy Bob's Fantasies: Making assertions which indicate ignorance of basic physics and a poor general education without ever presenting reference material to back his claims.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy Bob's Fantasies: Making assertions which indicate ignorance of basic physics and a poor general education without ever presenting reference material to back his claims.

And you have yet to produce even one paper that proves mans influence above natural variations by empirical evidence... Were even...

 

[IanC]

CO2 doesn't create energy, it reduces energy loss to space

Total Bull Shit of the highest order..

Tell me Ian, how does the earths 400ppm of CO2 stop all up-welling radiation? It can not because it is energy saturated and incapable of stopping it and the other routes of escape.

Funnier still, explain why CO2 has a LOG decrease in its ability to slow energy release if it can not be saturated..

CO2 does not stop all upwelling radiation from the surface. But it does absorb to extinction the 8% of surface radiation that is emitted in the band centred on 15 microns.

No surfaced produced 15 micron radiation escapes through the atmosphere. Some 15 micron escapes to space but it is produced by CO2 molecules high up in a cold region of the atmosphere .

The higher the concentration of CO2, the quicker surface 15 micron radiation is captured and the higher up (and colder) is the atmospheric 15 micron being produced (edit- that escapes).

You mentioned a logarithmic relationship for CO2 and temperature. Are you arguing against the actual effect of CO2 reducing the loss of 15 micron radiation to space? Or just the magnitude of change as CO2 concentration increased?

The addition of so called greenhouse gasses increases the emissivity of the atmosphere..that is fact...what happens to a things ability to cool itself if you increase its emissivity?

Why does that simple, and undeniable fact escape you ian? You really believe by increasing the emissivity of a thing you can induce warming? Really?

Could you please explain the mechanism by which adding more CO2 increases the emissivity? Where in the atmosphere does this extra have an effect?

I have tried to discuss this with you in the past but you just make your assertion and then run away.

 

[IanC]

CO2 does not stop all upwelling radiation from the surface. But it does absorb to extinction the 8% of surface radiation that is emitted in the band centred on 15 microns.

Prove this assertion...

Its pure bull shit Ian.. Empirical experiments show that this bandwidth increases output as the gas is increased, near surface (>1 meter) proving that there is more energy than the gas is capable of stopping. IF it were stopping all of it, the amount of energy, at that wavelength, would not increase with increased gas levels. Use some commonsense.

The mean free path path for 15 micron radiation at STP can be both calculated and measured. It is roughly 2 metres for recent CO2 concentrations.

The 15 micron energy from the surface is totally absorbed within a few handfuls of metres, and that energy is quickly transformed into stored atmospheric energy by molecular collision.

Once you are away from the surface, the amount of 15 micron radiation is commensurate with the temperature of the atmosphere because the absorption is equal to emission. Less CO2 would emit less radiation but it would also absorb less radiation.

 

[SSDD]

The addition of greenhouse gases increases the amount of time it takes for LWIR to transmit. Why does that simple and undeniable fact escape you Shit?

So your claim is that increasing the emissivity causes warming? And TOA measurements of outgoing LW dispute your claim...outgoing LW is increasing slightly..not decreasing...that increase is the missing hot spot that falsifies your AGW hypothesis...

 

[SSDD]

Why don't you try to make that statement again in intelligible sentences

You should learn to read...

 

[SSDD]

Some results from real scientists

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1982)039<2923:RHDTIC>2.0.CO;2

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032<0003:TEODTC>2.0.CO;2

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1980)037<0099:OTDOCC>2.0.CO;2

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC084iC08p04949

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0450(1979)018<0822:QCTPIO>2.0.CO;2

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC086iC07p06385

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065250408601567

West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster

All models all the time...and they don't jibe with reality.

 

[SSDD]

Could you please explain the mechanism by which adding more CO2 increases the emissivity? Where in the atmosphere does this extra have an effect?

Sure..conduction is the main means of moving energy thought the troposphere..conduction is a cumbersome means of moving energy compared to radiation...add radiative gasses, and you have a more rapid and more efficient means of moving energy than conduction...radiative gasses are open windows in a troposphere dominated by conduction.

I have tried to discuss this with you in the past but you just make your assertion and then run away.

We have been through it all before...and you simply reject anything that doesn't jibe with your beliefs...are you going to now claim that increasing so called greenhouse gasses does not increase the emissivity of the atmosphere?

 

[IanC]

Could you please explain the mechanism by which adding more CO2 increases the emissivity? Where in the atmosphere does this extra have an effect?

Sure..conduction is the main means of moving energy thought the troposphere..conduction is a cumbersome means of moving energy compared to radiation...add radiative gasses, and you have a more rapid and more efficient means of moving energy than conduction...radiative gasses are open windows in a troposphere dominated by conduction.

I have tried to discuss this with you in the past but you just make your assertion and then run away.

We have been through it all before...and you simply reject anything that doesn't jibe with your beliefs...are you going to now claim that increasing so called greenhouse gasses does not increase the emissivity of the atmosphere?

I see you are running away again.

You have declined to state where the extra emissivity occurs when you add extra CO2.

But you did add another foolish and unsubstantiated claim, ie that "radiative gasses are open windows in a troposphere dominated by conduction". GHGs stop the transmittance of certain frequencies of radiation through the atmosphere . They are more like a door than a window.

 

[SSDD]

We have been through it all before...and you simply reject anything that doesn't jibe with your beliefs...are you going to now claim that increasing so called greenhouse gasses does not increase the emissivity of the atmosphere?

I see you are running away again.

You have declined to state where the extra emissivity occurs when you add extra CO2.[/wuotye]

Are you claiming that adding so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere does not increase their emissivity? A simple yes or no should suffice...I would suggest that you do a bit of reading before you answer though..

you did add another foolish and unsubstantiated claim, ie that "radiative gasses are open windows in a troposphere dominated by conduction". GHGs stop the transmittance of certain frequencies of radiation through the atmosphere . They are more like a door than a window.

Sorry...not true...They move energy through the troposphere at the speed of light...unlike conduction which is a cumbersome process...collision after collision after collision.. You are identifying a fundamental flaw in your thinking...

If so called greenhouse gasses prevented energy from moving more rapidly through the troposphere then they would reduced the emissivity....they don't...

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 doesn't create energy, it reduces energy loss to space

Total Bull Shit of the highest order..

Tell me Ian, how does the earths 400ppm of CO2 stop all up-welling radiation? It can not because it is energy saturated and incapable of stopping it and the other routes of escape.

Funnier still, explain why CO2 has a LOG decrease in its ability to slow energy release if it can not be saturated..

CO2 does not stop all upwelling radiation from the surface. But it does absorb to extinction the 8% of surface radiation that is emitted in the band centred on 15 microns.

No surfaced produced 15 micron radiation escapes through the atmosphere. Some 15 micron escapes to space but it is produced by CO2 molecules high up in a cold region of the atmosphere .

The higher the concentration of CO2, the quicker surface 15 micron radiation is captured and the higher up (and colder) is the atmospheric 15 micron being produced (edit- that escapes).

You mentioned a logarithmic relationship for CO2 and temperature. Are you arguing against the actual effect of CO2 reducing the loss of 15 micron radiation to space? Or just the magnitude of change as CO2 concentration increased?

The addition of so called greenhouse gasses increases the emissivity of the atmosphere..that is fact...what happens to a things ability to cool itself if you increase its emissivity?

Why does that simple, and undeniable fact escape you ian? You really believe by increasing the emissivity of a thing you can induce warming? Really?

They always for get about the flip side of that LOG curve. The trade off which allows the molecules to freely emit the energy and then cool.. Any energy curve will have this.

 

[IanC]

Sorry...not true...They move energy through the troposphere at the speed of light...unlike conduction which is a cumbersome process...collision after collision after collision.. You are identifying a fundamental flaw in your thinking...

There are two things you need to explain.

How does adding more CO2 to an atmosphere that already contains CO2 going to change the emissivity? Which wavelengths are you talking about, and in which region of the atmosphere?

Any local area of the atmosphere containing a GHG is both emitting and absorbing the same amount of radiation that is specific to the GHG. The actual amount of radiation is dependent on the temperature of that local area. This radiation that is equally emitted and absorbed does not affect the temperature. There are two areas where this generalized equilibrium does not hold. Near the surface excess GHG specific radiation is absorbed and stored as kinetic energy which of course means an increase in temperature. The other area is high up in the atmosphere where the air is so thin that radiation produced from kinetic energy can partially escape to space taking the energy with it. This results in cooling.

The extra energy put into the atmosphere near the surface is less than the energy lost near the top of the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

How does adding more CO2 to an atmosphere that already contains CO2 going to change the emissivity? Which wavelengths are you talking about, and in which region of the atmosphere?

Every CO2 molecule is an opportunity to move a packet of IR on to space at the speed of light...add more CO2 and you get more opportunity to move energy more rapidly on to space...

The rest doesn't warrant discussion...it is your personal model and it does not reflect reality...

 

[Crick]

Ian's reflects the understanding of every scientist you could find expert on the topic. Yours reflects that of none.

 

[SSDD]

Ian's reflects the understanding of every scientist you could find expert on the topic. Yours reflects that of none.

Ian assumes that radiation is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...Ian is quite wrong...as are you and anyone else who believes in a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere so overwhelmingly dominated by conduction and convection.

 

[IanC]

How does adding more CO2 to an atmosphere that already contains CO2 going to change the emissivity? Which wavelengths are you talking about, and in which region of the atmosphere?

Every CO2 molecule is an opportunity to move a packet of IR on to space at the speed of light...add more CO2 and you get more opportunity to move energy more rapidly on to space...

The rest doesn't warrant discussion...it is your personal model and it does not reflect reality...

Ahhhhh. So you have just changed the meaning of the word emissivity.

I cannot honestly say there is no increase in emissivity because at lower altitude in the atmosphere there is a widening of the wings as the concentration of CO2 goes up. A little bit more of the surface produced radiation gets absorbed.

But at high altitude CO2 specific radiation still only escapes when the actual CO2 molecules are far enough apart that emitted photons are not reabsorbed. More CO2 means that particular concentration is even higher up, in colder air, which produces less radiation.

To reiterate, increasing CO2 results in more surface radiation being absorbed into the stored energy of the atmosphere , at a lower altitude. And it results in less radiation escaping from the top of the atmosphere .

Yet you feel that the opposite happens but you have no logical explanation.

 

[SSDD]

Ahhhhh. So you have just changed the meaning of the word emissivity.

More likely, you never knew the definition of the word...you just assigned it a meaning to go along with your beliefs..

emissivity -

1. the ability of a surface to emit radiant energy compared to that of a black body at thesame temperature and with the same area.

But at high altitude CO2 specific radiation still only escapes when the actual CO2 molecules are far enough apart that emitted photons are not reabsorbed. More CO2 means that particular concentration is even higher up, in colder air, which produces less radiation.

You are still laboring under the flawed assumption that radiation travels through the troposphere being absorbed, emitted, and reabsorbed...few molecules of so called greenhouse gasses ever actually emit anything...they lose the energy they absorb to collisions and the energy moves up through the troposphere via conduction and convection...radiation is little more than a bit player till the top of the troposphere is reached...

To reiterate, increasing CO2 results in more surface radiation being absorbed into the stored energy of the atmosphere , at a lower altitude. And it results in less radiation escaping from the top of the atmosphere .

Sorry ian...not true...more CO2 is more opportunity to bypass the cumbersome means of energy transport via conduction and convection...open windows...every single CO2 molecule..

And observations of LWIR escaping at the TOA show increases...not decreases...yet another glaring predictive failure in your hypothesis....

Only the fact that IR can not warm the atmosphere...

 

[Wuwei]

You are still laboring under the flawed assumption that radiation travels through the troposphere being absorbed, emitted, and reabsorbed...few molecules of so called greenhouse gasses ever actually emit anything...they lose the energy they absorb to collisions and the energy moves up through the troposphere via conduction and convection...radiation is little more than a bit player till the top of the troposphere is reached..

CO2 absorbing energy and losing it to collisions means it warms the atmosphere via collisions.

 

[IanC]

emissivity -

1. the ability of a surface to emit radiant energy compared to that of a black body at thesame temperature and with the same area.

Your definition doesn't appear to be written for gases.

CO2 has 3 main frequencies for emission/absorbance. 2, 3, and 15 microns, if memory stands. It is very close to a blackbody at those frequencies but only at those three. The other terrestrial IR frequencies have little or no reactivity. Even the 2, and 3 micron frequencies are mostly useless because the CO2 rarely gets hot enough to produce them, although it will always absorb them if present.

So the list is
1 micron 0
2 " 1
3 " 1
4 " 0
0
0
Etc
14 microns 0.5
15 microns 1
16 microns 0.5
17 microns 0
0
0
Etc.

How do you reasonably define the emissivity? By restricting the range of frequencies and temperatures.

 

[SSDD]

You are still laboring under the flawed assumption that radiation travels through the troposphere being absorbed, emitted, and reabsorbed...few molecules of so called greenhouse gasses ever actually emit anything...they lose the energy they absorb to collisions and the energy moves up through the troposphere via conduction and convection...radiation is little more than a bit player till the top of the troposphere is reached..

CO2 absorbing energy and losing it to collisions means it warms the atmosphere via collisions.

And energy transferred by collision is not radiation...therefore, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is simply not possible in a troposphere so overwhelmingly dominated by conduction and convection...that is the primary reason the climate models fail at predicting reality so badly...they are operating under a mistaken idea of how energy moves through the troposphere...