Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[jc456]

I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool any more than I need to explain the underlying mechanism for gravity or any of the other natural laws for which we remain clueless as to the underlying mechanism...that every observation ever made supports my position and no observation ever made supports yours is enough.

I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool

That's good, because explaining your faulty belief would be difficult, even if you weren't such a moron.

and yet, nothing yet from you on cool moving to warm. Interesting.........

What is "cool"? Why do you think it moves?

where is cool to warm exercise?

???

and?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool

That's good, because explaining your faulty belief would be difficult, even if you weren't such a moron.

and yet, nothing yet from you on cool moving to warm. Interesting.........

What is "cool"? Why do you think it moves?

where is cool to warm exercise?

???

and?

And I can't translate your question into English.

 

[jc456]

and yet, nothing yet from you on cool moving to warm. Interesting.........

What is "cool"? Why do you think it moves?

where is cool to warm exercise?

???

and?

And I can't translate your question into English.

oh well. I guess you still can't prove cold moves to warm then.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is "cool"? Why do you think it moves?

where is cool to warm exercise?

???

and?

And I can't translate your question into English.

oh well. I guess you still can't prove cold moves to warm then.

Cold isn't a thing.

 

[jc456]

where is cool to warm exercise?

???

and?

And I can't translate your question into English.

oh well. I guess you still can't prove cold moves to warm then.

Cold isn't a thing.

sure it is. it wouldn't be temperature if it didn't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

???

and?

And I can't translate your question into English.

oh well. I guess you still can't prove cold moves to warm then.

Cold isn't a thing.

sure it is. it wouldn't be temperature if it didn't.

Cold is a temperature?

 

[Billy_Bob]

it still matters.

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came. And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?

jc - you are not thinking this through to a coherent understanding.

Let's use a common handheld IR temperature detector for the example. If you point it at something warmer than the instrument it gives a reading. How? It receives more radiation than it is giving out, and warms. Point it at something at the same temperature and it receives the same amount of radiation that it gives out so it neither warms nor cools. Point it at something cooler than the instrument and it receives less radiation than it gives out, so it cools. It is the net amount of radiation that allows it to estimate the temperature of what it is pointed at. If there was no radiation coming from a cooler object then it could only read 'cooler', and it would not be able to say 'this much cooler'.

If you can explain your way out of this logical dilemma please pass it along to the rest of us.

sorry, but first off, I thought you told me that IR didn't have a temperature?

Two Planck curves, one twenty degrees cooler than the other. The range is practically identical. Only the amounts at any wavelength is different. A 20 micron photon produced by either object is identical and cannot be tied to a specific temperature.

The area under the pink curve is the backradiation, and balances out for no net change. The area between the blue and pink curves is the energy not balanced out, and is therefore available to warm the cooler object.

Does that make it any clearer for you?

In order to prove "back Radiation" you would first need to with the spectral bounds of the gas or solid emitting. Then you would have to identify what molecule is actually emitting as many gases overlap bands of the spectrum. Then you would have to show that it was not reflected and rule out other sources... Then once you have identified each source you would have to prove the direction of travel...

It hasn't been done... unless you believe in smart photons and devices that are capable of identifying where they came from..

What's the difference between radiation and back radiation?

One is of solar origin.. One is of black body.. The wavelength tells the tale for the most part, but the gases in question, in our atmosphere, overlap output wave lengths of BBR (Black Body Radiation).

I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"

Please point me to the paper which shows your magical 'back radiation'. BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body. So you know what is being radiated from the earth, absorbed by the gases, and re-emitted back towards the earths surface... And how it affects the earths energy balance... Riggggggggthhhhhhhhhh

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wrong: Evans 2006
Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract. There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.
*******************************************************************************
The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.

You forgot water vapor... you know the thing that renders your graph above nothing but minuscule crap...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

jc - you are not thinking this through to a coherent understanding.

Let's use a common handheld IR temperature detector for the example. If you point it at something warmer than the instrument it gives a reading. How? It receives more radiation than it is giving out, and warms. Point it at something at the same temperature and it receives the same amount of radiation that it gives out so it neither warms nor cools. Point it at something cooler than the instrument and it receives less radiation than it gives out, so it cools. It is the net amount of radiation that allows it to estimate the temperature of what it is pointed at. If there was no radiation coming from a cooler object then it could only read 'cooler', and it would not be able to say 'this much cooler'.

If you can explain your way out of this logical dilemma please pass it along to the rest of us.

sorry, but first off, I thought you told me that IR didn't have a temperature?

Two Planck curves, one twenty degrees cooler than the other. The range is practically identical. Only the amounts at any wavelength is different. A 20 micron photon produced by either object is identical and cannot be tied to a specific temperature.

The area under the pink curve is the backradiation, and balances out for no net change. The area between the blue and pink curves is the energy not balanced out, and is therefore available to warm the cooler object.

Does that make it any clearer for you?

In order to prove "back Radiation" you would first need to with the spectral bounds of the gas or solid emitting. Then you would have to identify what molecule is actually emitting as many gases overlap bands of the spectrum. Then you would have to show that it was not reflected and rule out other sources... Then once you have identified each source you would have to prove the direction of travel...

It hasn't been done... unless you believe in smart photons and devices that are capable of identifying where they came from..

What's the difference between radiation and back radiation?

One is of solar origin.. One is of black body.. The wavelength tells the tale for the most part, but the gases in question, in our atmosphere, overlap output wave lengths of BBR (Black Body Radiation).

I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"

Please point me to the paper which shows your magical 'back radiation'. BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body. So you know what is being radiated from the earth, absorbed by the gases, and re-emitted back towards the earths surface... And how it affects the earths energy balance... Riggggggggthhhhhhhhhh

One is of solar origin.. One is of black body..

Back radiation is any that doesn't come from the sun?

I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"

I'm interested in your definition.

BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body.

The Earth emits, right?

absorbed by the gases

Gases can absorb energy, right?
They aren't limited to energy from the sun, right?

and re-emitted back towards the earths surface

When gases emit, they aren't limited to any particular direction, right?

 

[Billy_Bob]

sorry, but first off, I thought you told me that IR didn't have a temperature?

Two Planck curves, one twenty degrees cooler than the other. The range is practically identical. Only the amounts at any wavelength is different. A 20 micron photon produced by either object is identical and cannot be tied to a specific temperature.

The area under the pink curve is the backradiation, and balances out for no net change. The area between the blue and pink curves is the energy not balanced out, and is therefore available to warm the cooler object.

Does that make it any clearer for you?

In order to prove "back Radiation" you would first need to with the spectral bounds of the gas or solid emitting. Then you would have to identify what molecule is actually emitting as many gases overlap bands of the spectrum. Then you would have to show that it was not reflected and rule out other sources... Then once you have identified each source you would have to prove the direction of travel...

It hasn't been done... unless you believe in smart photons and devices that are capable of identifying where they came from..

What's the difference between radiation and back radiation?

One is of solar origin.. One is of black body.. The wavelength tells the tale for the most part, but the gases in question, in our atmosphere, overlap output wave lengths of BBR (Black Body Radiation).

I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"

Please point me to the paper which shows your magical 'back radiation'. BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body. So you know what is being radiated from the earth, absorbed by the gases, and re-emitted back towards the earths surface... And how it affects the earths energy balance... Riggggggggthhhhhhhhhh

One is of solar origin.. One is of black body..

Back radiation is any that doesn't come from the sun?

I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"

I'm interested in your definition.

BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body.

The Earth emits, right?

absorbed by the gases

Gases can absorb energy, right?
They aren't limited to energy from the sun, right?

and re-emitted back towards the earths surface

When gases emit, they aren't limited to any particular direction, right?

CAGW requires that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping. (hence the term "back radiation") While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters). BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing. The CO2 level is nearly the same as all other places on earth, why doesn't it magically retain the heat? Because it cant. Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .

The simple physics of our atmosphere lays the CAGW meme waste.. The math doesn't add up and this is why every model fails..

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Two Planck curves, one twenty degrees cooler than the other. The range is practically identical. Only the amounts at any wavelength is different. A 20 micron photon produced by either object is identical and cannot be tied to a specific temperature.

The area under the pink curve is the backradiation, and balances out for no net change. The area between the blue and pink curves is the energy not balanced out, and is therefore available to warm the cooler object.

Does that make it any clearer for you?

In order to prove "back Radiation" you would first need to with the spectral bounds of the gas or solid emitting. Then you would have to identify what molecule is actually emitting as many gases overlap bands of the spectrum. Then you would have to show that it was not reflected and rule out other sources... Then once you have identified each source you would have to prove the direction of travel...

It hasn't been done... unless you believe in smart photons and devices that are capable of identifying where they came from..

What's the difference between radiation and back radiation?

One is of solar origin.. One is of black body.. The wavelength tells the tale for the most part, but the gases in question, in our atmosphere, overlap output wave lengths of BBR (Black Body Radiation).

I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"

Please point me to the paper which shows your magical 'back radiation'. BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body. So you know what is being radiated from the earth, absorbed by the gases, and re-emitted back towards the earths surface... And how it affects the earths energy balance... Riggggggggthhhhhhhhhh

One is of solar origin.. One is of black body..

Back radiation is any that doesn't come from the sun?

I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"

I'm interested in your definition.

BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body.

The Earth emits, right?

absorbed by the gases

Gases can absorb energy, right?
They aren't limited to energy from the sun, right?

and re-emitted back towards the earths surface

When gases emit, they aren't limited to any particular direction, right?

CAGW requires that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping. (hence the term "back radiation") While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters). BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing. The CO2 level is nearly the same as all other places on earth, why doesn't it magically retain the heat? Because it cant. Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .

The simple physics of our atmosphere lays the CAGW meme waste.. The math doesn't add up and this is why every model fails..

CAGW requires

I'm not interested in the liberal push to waste trillions on "green energy" while punishing carbon.
I'm interested in the discussion of the physics.

that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping

Good, let's that about that.

While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth

We were talking about energy emitted from the Earth's surface.

they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters).

Do you feel an outgoing IR photon has a longer path than a surface bound IR photon?

BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing.

Do you think the wide temperature swing is proof that CO2 isn't a GHG?

Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .

Why does the mass slow the IR photons?

 

[Billy_Bob]

In order to prove "back Radiation" you would first need to with the spectral bounds of the gas or solid emitting. Then you would have to identify what molecule is actually emitting as many gases overlap bands of the spectrum. Then you would have to show that it was not reflected and rule out other sources... Then once you have identified each source you would have to prove the direction of travel...

It hasn't been done... unless you believe in smart photons and devices that are capable of identifying where they came from..

What's the difference between radiation and back radiation?

One is of solar origin.. One is of black body.. The wavelength tells the tale for the most part, but the gases in question, in our atmosphere, overlap output wave lengths of BBR (Black Body Radiation).

I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"

Please point me to the paper which shows your magical 'back radiation'. BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body. So you know what is being radiated from the earth, absorbed by the gases, and re-emitted back towards the earths surface... And how it affects the earths energy balance... Riggggggggthhhhhhhhhh

One is of solar origin.. One is of black body..

Back radiation is any that doesn't come from the sun?

I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"

I'm interested in your definition.

BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body.

The Earth emits, right?

absorbed by the gases

Gases can absorb energy, right?
They aren't limited to energy from the sun, right?

and re-emitted back towards the earths surface

When gases emit, they aren't limited to any particular direction, right?

CAGW requires that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping. (hence the term "back radiation") While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters). BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing. The CO2 level is nearly the same as all other places on earth, why doesn't it magically retain the heat? Because it cant. Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .

The simple physics of our atmosphere lays the CAGW meme waste.. The math doesn't add up and this is why every model fails..

CAGW requires

I'm not interested in the liberal push to waste trillions on "green energy" while punishing carbon.
I'm interested in the discussion of the physics.

that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping

Good, let's that about that.

While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth

We were talking about energy emitted from the Earth's surface.

they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters).

Do you feel an outgoing IR photon has a longer path than a surface bound IR photon?

BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing.

Do you think the wide temperature swing is proof that CO2 isn't a GHG?

Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .

Why does the mass slow the IR photons?

A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.

A dry atmosphere has little mass, while a wet atmosphere has much greater mass. IN a desert this low mass allows rapid escape of LWIR. IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water and the slower rate of convection rise (vs direct LWIR photo escape) slows the rate of heat loss in the atmosphere.

From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process. The lack of a mid tropospheric hot spot shows that CO2 is NOT making the process take longer, which would result in an area of increased heat and water vapor.

WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA and then emits at a much longer wave length which CO2 can not receive or re-emit.

'back radiation' is a poor term designed to deflect from and cloud basic provable, observable, measurable, science. Not only can you not prove its origin, you cant define it or model it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's the difference between radiation and back radiation?

One is of solar origin.. One is of black body.. The wavelength tells the tale for the most part, but the gases in question, in our atmosphere, overlap output wave lengths of BBR (Black Body Radiation).

I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"

Please point me to the paper which shows your magical 'back radiation'. BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body. So you know what is being radiated from the earth, absorbed by the gases, and re-emitted back towards the earths surface... And how it affects the earths energy balance... Riggggggggthhhhhhhhhh

One is of solar origin.. One is of black body..

Back radiation is any that doesn't come from the sun?

I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"

I'm interested in your definition.

BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body.

The Earth emits, right?

absorbed by the gases

Gases can absorb energy, right?
They aren't limited to energy from the sun, right?

and re-emitted back towards the earths surface

When gases emit, they aren't limited to any particular direction, right?

CAGW requires that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping. (hence the term "back radiation") While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters). BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing. The CO2 level is nearly the same as all other places on earth, why doesn't it magically retain the heat? Because it cant. Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .

The simple physics of our atmosphere lays the CAGW meme waste.. The math doesn't add up and this is why every model fails..

CAGW requires

I'm not interested in the liberal push to waste trillions on "green energy" while punishing carbon.
I'm interested in the discussion of the physics.

that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping

Good, let's that about that.

While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth

We were talking about energy emitted from the Earth's surface.

they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters).

Do you feel an outgoing IR photon has a longer path than a surface bound IR photon?

BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing.

Do you think the wide temperature swing is proof that CO2 isn't a GHG?

Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .

Why does the mass slow the IR photons?

A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.

A dry atmosphere has little mass, while a wet atmosphere has much greater mass. IN a desert this low mass allows rapid escape of LWIR. IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water and the slower rate of convection rise (vs direct LWIR photo escape) slows the rate of heat loss in the atmosphere.

From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process. The lack of a mid tropospheric hot spot shows that CO2 is NOT making the process take longer, which would result in an area of increased heat and water vapor.

WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA and then emits at a much longer wave length which CO2 can not receive or re-emit.

'back radiation' is a poor term designed to deflect from and cloud basic provable, observable, measurable, science. Not only can you not prove its origin, you cant define it or model it.

A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.

But you said......"retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation"

Is the water vapor somehow retaining heat without absorbing IR photons from the surface?

IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water

Great. Now when this water vapor emits a photon, in which direction will it travel?

From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process.

Why? Because it doesn't absorb photons, can't absorb photons, or it won't re-emit or won't re-emit toward the ground or it does emit toward the ground but somehow the photons never reach the ground?

WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA

Instead of a fraction of a second for an IR photon to exit the atmosphere, it heats water vapor and the water vapor has to travel to the TOA before it releases a photon? How long does that take? Days, weeks, months?

 

[Billy_Bob]

One is of solar origin.. One is of black body.. The wavelength tells the tale for the most part, but the gases in question, in our atmosphere, overlap output wave lengths of BBR (Black Body Radiation).

I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"

Please point me to the paper which shows your magical 'back radiation'. BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body. So you know what is being radiated from the earth, absorbed by the gases, and re-emitted back towards the earths surface... And how it affects the earths energy balance... Riggggggggthhhhhhhhhh

One is of solar origin.. One is of black body..

Back radiation is any that doesn't come from the sun?

I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"

I'm interested in your definition.

BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body.

The Earth emits, right?

absorbed by the gases

Gases can absorb energy, right?
They aren't limited to energy from the sun, right?

and re-emitted back towards the earths surface

When gases emit, they aren't limited to any particular direction, right?

CAGW requires that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping. (hence the term "back radiation") While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters). BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing. The CO2 level is nearly the same as all other places on earth, why doesn't it magically retain the heat? Because it cant. Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .

The simple physics of our atmosphere lays the CAGW meme waste.. The math doesn't add up and this is why every model fails..

CAGW requires

I'm not interested in the liberal push to waste trillions on "green energy" while punishing carbon.
I'm interested in the discussion of the physics.

that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping

Good, let's that about that.

While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth

We were talking about energy emitted from the Earth's surface.

they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters).

Do you feel an outgoing IR photon has a longer path than a surface bound IR photon?

BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing.

Do you think the wide temperature swing is proof that CO2 isn't a GHG?

Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .

Why does the mass slow the IR photons?

A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.

A dry atmosphere has little mass, while a wet atmosphere has much greater mass. IN a desert this low mass allows rapid escape of LWIR. IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water and the slower rate of convection rise (vs direct LWIR photo escape) slows the rate of heat loss in the atmosphere.

From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process. The lack of a mid tropospheric hot spot shows that CO2 is NOT making the process take longer, which would result in an area of increased heat and water vapor.

WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA and then emits at a much longer wave length which CO2 can not receive or re-emit.

'back radiation' is a poor term designed to deflect from and cloud basic provable, observable, measurable, science. Not only can you not prove its origin, you cant define it or model it.

A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.

But you said......"retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation"

Is the water vapor somehow retaining heat without absorbing IR photons from the surface?

IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water

Great. Now when this water vapor emits a photon, in which direction will it travel?

From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process.

Why? Because it doesn't absorb photons, can't absorb photons, or it won't re-emit or won't re-emit toward the ground or it does emit toward the ground but somehow the photons never reach the ground?

WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA

Instead of a fraction of a second for an IR photon to exit the atmosphere, it heats water vapor and the water vapor has to travel to the TOA before it releases a photon? How long does that take? Days, weeks, months?

Residency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height. Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One is of solar origin.. One is of black body..

Back radiation is any that doesn't come from the sun?

I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"

I'm interested in your definition.

BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body.

The Earth emits, right?

absorbed by the gases

Gases can absorb energy, right?
They aren't limited to energy from the sun, right?

and re-emitted back towards the earths surface

When gases emit, they aren't limited to any particular direction, right?

CAGW requires that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping. (hence the term "back radiation") While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters). BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing. The CO2 level is nearly the same as all other places on earth, why doesn't it magically retain the heat? Because it cant. Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .

The simple physics of our atmosphere lays the CAGW meme waste.. The math doesn't add up and this is why every model fails..

CAGW requires

I'm not interested in the liberal push to waste trillions on "green energy" while punishing carbon.
I'm interested in the discussion of the physics.

that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping

Good, let's that about that.

While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth

We were talking about energy emitted from the Earth's surface.

they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters).

Do you feel an outgoing IR photon has a longer path than a surface bound IR photon?

BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing.

Do you think the wide temperature swing is proof that CO2 isn't a GHG?

Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .

Why does the mass slow the IR photons?

A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.

A dry atmosphere has little mass, while a wet atmosphere has much greater mass. IN a desert this low mass allows rapid escape of LWIR. IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water and the slower rate of convection rise (vs direct LWIR photo escape) slows the rate of heat loss in the atmosphere.

From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process. The lack of a mid tropospheric hot spot shows that CO2 is NOT making the process take longer, which would result in an area of increased heat and water vapor.

WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA and then emits at a much longer wave length which CO2 can not receive or re-emit.

'back radiation' is a poor term designed to deflect from and cloud basic provable, observable, measurable, science. Not only can you not prove its origin, you cant define it or model it.

A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.

But you said......"retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation"

Is the water vapor somehow retaining heat without absorbing IR photons from the surface?

IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water

Great. Now when this water vapor emits a photon, in which direction will it travel?

From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process.

Why? Because it doesn't absorb photons, can't absorb photons, or it won't re-emit or won't re-emit toward the ground or it does emit toward the ground but somehow the photons never reach the ground?

WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA

Instead of a fraction of a second for an IR photon to exit the atmosphere, it heats water vapor and the water vapor has to travel to the TOA before it releases a photon? How long does that take? Days, weeks, months?

Residency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height. Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.

Residency time is in minuets to hours.

Water near the ground absorbs a photon and travels to the TOA in minutes?
I don't believe that.

Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets

In which direction can the photon travel?

 

[IanC]

Gotta love the idiocy.

Billybob says a dry atmosphere has little mass, while a wet one has more.

Hahahahahaha. Another blowhard with zero understanding of the most basic tenets of physics.

Convection only works because wet air is lighter than dry air.

 

[IanC]

Residency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height. Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.

This bullshit is soooooooo funny!

Evaporation to cloud formation only takes minutes to hours? Water vapour collects and holds photons until it condenses? Hahahaha.

Notice how he likes to put in terms like 'residency time' to act as if he knew what he was talking about? Sheer Cliff Clavin bafflegab. Hilarious!

 

[jc456]

Residency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height. Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.

This bullshit is soooooooo funny!

Evaporation to cloud formation only takes minutes to hours? Water vapour collects and holds photons until it condenses? Hahahaha.

Notice how he likes to put in terms like 'residency time' to act as if he knew what he was talking about? Sheer Cliff Clavin bafflegab. Hilarious!

I've watched thunderheads explode upward and they do it rather quickly. hmmmmmmm

 

[Wuwei]

Here comes JC to rescue Billy Bob. Two of a kind.