Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

Yes, they are dropping. But they are converging to a limit value. Probably 1.1 or 1.2 for transient, and slightly higher for equilibrium. Don't let the linear lines fool you into thinking that the values will continue to drop indefinitely over time, and cross the x axis into negative territory.

They are trending towards zero or less is the actual climate sensitivity to CO2.

It is interesting that although the climate sensitivities have dropped over the last decade, the amount of warming predicted for 2100 has not. At least in the media. When was the last time you heard a story saying thing are better than we thought?

that would be due to politics co-opting science...the climate debate is no longer about science but political power...observation and all the empirical evidence says that there is no man made cliamte change and CO2 does not have any effect whatsoever on the cliamte...and now that the money trough is drying up, perhaps we can get on to zero or less at a more reasonable pace and move on to some actual science...

 

[IanC]

They are trending towards zero or less is the actual climate sensitivity to CO2.

Show some of these estimates that are negative. The only person I have heard that says increased CO2 causes cooling is you. And you wouldn't explain your reasoning.

 

[SSDD]

They are trending towards zero or less is the actual climate sensitivity to CO2.

Show some of these estimates that are negative. The only person I have heard that says increased CO2 causes cooling is you. And you wouldn't explain your reasoning.

Which part of the addition of radiative gasses to the atmosphere increases its emissivity do you find so hard to understand? There is your explanation..

Now ever scientific text I have ever read says that when you increase the emissivity of a thing, that thing cools more efficiently...never once have I read that increasing the emissivity of a thing helps it warm, or causes any sort of warming...and when I asked you what other circumstance might cause a thing to warm when its emissivity is increased you had no answer...apparently only the magical properties of CO2 can result in both increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere and warming the atmosphere..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They are trending towards zero or less is the actual climate sensitivity to CO2.

Show some of these estimates that are negative. The only person I have heard that says increased CO2 causes cooling is you. And you wouldn't explain your reasoning.

Which part of the addition of radiative gasses to the atmosphere increases its emissivity do you find so hard to understand? There is your explanation..

Now ever scientific text I have ever read says that when you increase the emissivity of a thing, that thing cools more efficiently...never once have I read that increasing the emissivity of a thing helps it warm, or causes any sort of warming...and when I asked you what other circumstance might cause a thing to warm when its emissivity is increased you had no answer...apparently only the magical properties of CO2 can result in both increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere and warming the atmosphere..

Well, since good emitters are also good absorbers, derp........

A Good Absorber is a Good Emitter

 

[IanC]

Now ever scientific text I have ever read says that when you increase the emissivity of a thing, that thing cools more efficiently...never once have I read that increasing the emissivity of a thing helps it warm, or causes any sort of warming...

I accused you of selective vision. If a coin flip comes up heads, you point and cheer 'I win!'. If it comes up tails you say 'What coin? I don't see any coin'.

This is a perfect example. You have no problem accepting the fact that CO2 radiates energy to space at high altitude but you refuse to acknowledge that CO2 absorbs energy near the surface.


The surface is a near blackbody. It absorbs most wavelengths of radiation. But it can only emit wavelengths that can be produced according to its temperature, a wide range of IR.

The atmosphere is not even close to being a blackbody. Its emmisivity is limited to certain bands of radiation. Some wavelengths are strongly absorbed, some wavelengths do not interact. The emmisivity must be calculated on a wavelength by wavelength basis.

We can choose three representative wavelengths. 15 microns for CO2, 10 microns for direct escape to space, and 7 microns for water vapour.

At 15 microns all surface radiation is absorbed and only a fraction is lost to space and the rest returns to the surface. At 10 microns all surface radiation escapes directly to space. At 7 microns only a fraction escapes and the rest returns to the surface.

The energy returning to the surface does not 'keep' its wavelength, it is divided up into the same proportions of 15, 10, and 7 microns. Every loop through the system loses all the 10 micron radiation and only a fraction of the 15 and 7 micron radiation. Most of the energy loss is in the 10 micron band.

Do I really need to show the satellite data which show that 10 micron radiation leaves the Earth system at the surface temperature, and that 15 and 7 micron radiation leaves at a higher and cooler temperature?

Only radiation that actually leaves the Earth system can cause cooling. Simply moving energy from one location to another, from one form to another, does not cause cooling.

SSDD, you say absorption and emission do not cause warming. Okay, whatever. But the important point is that it doesn't cause cooling if the emission doesn't escape to space. You are just hiding the energy in a spot that you don't see or acknowledge.

 

[SSDD]

This is a perfect example. You have no problem accepting the fact that CO2 radiates energy to space at high altitude but you refuse to acknowledge that CO2 absorbs energy near the surface.

And here you go making up arguments for me again... When did I ever refuse to acknowledge that CO2 absorbs energy near the surface? Answer...never. But once again, absorption and emission do not equal warming. If you believe they do, then lets see some actual observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

The fact is ian, that IR does not warm the air, so the fact that is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses means nothing with regard to the temperature.

Your hypothesis is a failure on its face...sad that you can't accept reality over models.

 

[Wuwei]

The fact is ian, that IR does not warm the air, so the fact that is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses means nothing with regard to the temperature.

You think IR does not warm the air? Then which of these do you think are false?

1. IR strikes and excites CO2.
2. CO2 transfers excitation energy to an air molecule via conduction.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The fact is ian, that IR does not warm the air, so the fact that is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses means nothing with regard to the temperature.

You think IR does not warm the air? Then which of these do you think are false?

1. IR strikes and excites CO2.
2. CO2 transfers excitation energy to an air molecule via conduction.

So you should easily be able to test for changes in temperature given 10ppm changes in CO2, no?

Where's that elusive lab work??

 

[SSDD]

The fact is ian, that IR does not warm the air, so the fact that is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses means nothing with regard to the temperature.

You think IR does not warm the air? Then which of these do you think are false?

1. IR strikes and excites CO2.
2. CO2 transfers excitation energy to an air molecule via conduction.

Both are true..neither equates to infrared radiation warming the air...but if you believe it does, then lab results demonstrating the fact should exist in great quantity...lets see them.

 

[SSDD]

The fact is ian, that IR does not warm the air, so the fact that is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses means nothing with regard to the temperature.

You think IR does not warm the air? Then which of these do you think are false?

1. IR strikes and excites CO2.
2. CO2 transfers excitation energy to an air molecule via conduction.

So you should easily be able to test for changes in temperature given 10ppm changes in CO2, no?

Where's that elusive lab work??

They don't need no steenkin lab work..their faith is strong and apparently that is enough for them.

 

[Wuwei]

The fact is ian, that IR does not warm the air, so the fact that is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses means nothing with regard to the temperature.

You think IR does not warm the air? Then which of these do you think are false?

1. IR strikes and excites CO2.
2. CO2 transfers excitation energy to an air molecule via conduction.

Both are true..neither equates to infrared radiation warming the air...but if you believe it does, then lab results demonstrating the fact should exist in great quantity...lets see them.

So you think energy transfered to an air molecule via conduction is not adding energy to the atmosphere as heat? That means you don't understand what heat is.

 

[IanC]

And here you go making up arguments for me again... When did I ever refuse to acknowledge that CO2 absorbs energy near the surface? Answer...never. But once again, absorption and emission do not equal warming

Do you acknowledge that the only radiation that causes cooling is radiation that escapes to space?

Moving energy around between the atmosphere and surface, between having it stored as radiation or kinetic/potential does not cause cooling.

Tell me where the surplus radiates from. Tell me what substance, what height and what temperature the radiation comes from that closes the energy budget. I don't need exact numbers, just the basic mechanism.

So far I think I have established that radiative gases absorb more energy than they give off to space. If you disagree then tell me how a cooler substance can give off more radiation than a warmer one.

The energy moved by latent heat and convection from the surface to higher in the atmosphere has the same limitations. Less energy is lost because it is cooler where the condensation takes place, PLUS only part of the radiation is released in the direction of space.

Where and what is this new source of cooling that everyone else besides you has overlooked?

 

[SSDD]

So you think energy transfered to an air molecule via conduction is not adding energy to the atmosphere as heat? That means you don't understand what heat is.

Energy being transferred among molecules via conduction has absolutely nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is the whole f'ing point you moron...there is no radiative greenhouse effect....

Once again, you demonstrate conclusively that you don't even know what this conversation is about...you finally grasp that it isn't infrared radiation that is heating the atmosphere, but conduction and convection..and still you cling to the idea that somehow infrared emitting from CO2 molecules is causing warming...how much more wrong can you be?..than to actually describe the reality of what warms the atmosphere but hold to the failed hypothesis?

 

[SSDD]

Do you acknowledge that the only radiation that causes cooling is radiation that escapes to space?

No.,.what sort of idiot would think that. Radiation leaving the surface certainly results in a cooler surface temperature...but that radiation leaving the surface, does not warm the atmosphere...the energy warms the atmosphere via conduction when it is lost via collision to other molecules.

Your hypothesis has failed on its face..it has failed via observation...it has failed via measurement...it has failed via prediction...how long are you going to drag your intellectual tthrough the sewer trying to defend it?

 

[Wuwei]

Energy being transferred among molecules via conduction has absolutely nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is the whole f'ing point you moron...there is no radiative greenhouse effect....

Once again, you demonstrate conclusively that you don't even know what this conversation is about...you finally grasp that it isn't infrared radiation that is heating the atmosphere, but conduction and convection..and still you cling to the idea that somehow infrared emitting from CO2 molecules is causing warming...how much more wrong can you be?..than to actually describe the reality of what warms the atmosphere but hold to the failed hypothesis?

If a CO2 molecule excited by IR strikes an air molecule. That is the energy path of conduction of IR energy to air. If you don't understand that you don't understand what heat is.

I see you are frustrated because you lost an argument, and return to ranting. Ranting by you generally means you have run out of valid ideas.

 

[SSDD]

Energy being transferred among molecules via conduction has absolutely nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is the whole f'ing point you moron...there is no radiative greenhouse effect....

Once again, you demonstrate conclusively that you don't even know what this conversation is about...you finally grasp that it isn't infrared radiation that is heating the atmosphere, but conduction and convection..and still you cling to the idea that somehow infrared emitting from CO2 molecules is causing warming...how much more wrong can you be?..than to actually describe the reality of what warms the atmosphere but hold to the failed hypothesis?

If a CO2 molecule excited by IR strikes an air molecule. That is the energy path of conduction of IR energy to air. If you don't understand that you don't understand what heat is.

I see you are frustrated because you lost an argument, and return to ranting. Ranting by you generally means you have run out of valid ideas.

Poor idiot...the more you talk the more apparent it becomes that you don't know what you are talking about.

Conduction, by definition is not radiation. Conduction is energy moving through a medium...in this case the medium is air...

IR does not warm the air...there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Conduction is what warms the air.

 

[IanC]

Do you acknowledge that the only radiation that causes cooling is radiation that escapes to space?

No.,.what sort of idiot would think that. Radiation leaving the surface certainly results in a cooler surface temperature...but that radiation leaving the surface, does not warm the atmosphere...the energy warms the atmosphere via conduction when it is lost via collision to other molecules.

Your hypothesis has failed on its face..it has failed via observation...it has failed via measurement...it has failed via prediction...how long are you going to drag your intellectual tthrough the sewer trying to defend it?

Every day the Sun adds a certain amount of energy to the Earth and its associated Atmosphere. Every day the Earth and atmosphere lose a certain amount of energy to space via radiation. If those amounts are not balanced then heating or cooling ensues.

You appear to be assuming that any energy transferred to the atmosphere simply finds a way to escape via radiation. It does not.

Any radiation produced by the atmosphere is only a fraction of the energy inputted by radiation from the surface. The surface is warmer than the atmosphere that radiates to space. The surplus is stored in the atmosphere which warms as a result.

Obviously the atmosphere cannot continue to warm indefinitely, so where does this energy go? It goes back to the surface by conduction.

When solar insolation warms the surface during daylight hours there are three main pathways for this new energy to leave the surface. Radiation, conduction and convection via the water cycle.

Radiation causes cooling but some of the energy warms the atmosphere. Conduction causes no cooling and only warms the atmosphere. Convection warms the atmosphere but some of the energy escapes as radiation and causes cooling.

At night, the surface cools much faster than the atmosphere because it is a Blackbody and the atmosphere is not. The atmosphere gives up some of its stored energy to the surface by conduction because its temperature is dropping more slowly than the surface temperature.

Every day the cycle repeats for a location. The Sun actively heats the surface, which in turn heats the atmosphere. Followed by surface cooling and a return of stored energy from the atmosphere.

If there were no GHGs present, especially water vapour, the atmosphere would only receive energy by conduction and would store a much smaller amount of energy. The non-GHG atmosphere would not radiate any IR, not cause any cooling.

But the atmosphere does have GHGs, it has stored energy and become warmer. It is a source of energy to the surface over and above just the solar input. It allows the surface to maintain a temperature above what only solar insolation could support.

 

[IanC]

Energy being transferred among molecules via conduction has absolutely nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is the whole f'ing point you moron...there is no radiative greenhouse effect....

Once again, you demonstrate conclusively that you don't even know what this conversation is about...you finally grasp that it isn't infrared radiation that is heating the atmosphere, but conduction and convection..and still you cling to the idea that somehow infrared emitting from CO2 molecules is causing warming...how much more wrong can you be?..than to actually describe the reality of what warms the atmosphere but hold to the failed hypothesis?

If a CO2 molecule excited by IR strikes an air molecule. That is the energy path of conduction of IR energy to air. If you don't understand that you don't understand what heat is.

I see you are frustrated because you lost an argument, and return to ranting. Ranting by you generally means you have run out of valid ideas.

Poor idiot...the more you talk the more apparent it becomes that you don't know what you are talking about.

Conduction, by definition is not radiation. Conduction is energy moving through a medium...in this case the medium is air...

IR does not warm the air...there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Conduction is what warms the air.

Conduction is one of three pathways that warm the air. It is also the main pathway for stored energy to return to the surface.

 

[Wuwei]

Poor idiot...the more you talk the more apparent it becomes that you don't know what you are talking about.

Conduction, by definition is not radiation. Conduction is energy moving through a medium...in this case the medium is air...

IR does not warm the air...there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Conduction is what warms the air.

More ranting from you I see. Are you trying to hide the fact that you don't understand, or that you are trolling, or both.

What you don't understand is that transfer of energy from IR to CO2 and from CO2 to air via collision is a two step process - an indirect process. You are ignoring one of the steps.

Your reply ignores the fact that CO2 in an excited state can transfer energy to the air by conduction.

Do you believe that CO2 in an internal excited state cannot transfer energy to an air molecule?

 

[IanC]

Poor idiot...the more you talk the more apparent it becomes that you don't know what you are talking about.

Conduction, by definition is not radiation. Conduction is energy moving through a medium...in this case the medium is air...

IR does not warm the air...there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Conduction is what warms the air.

More ranting from you I see. Are you trying to hide the fact that you don't understand, or that you are trolling, or both.

What you don't understand is that transfer of energy from IR to CO2 and from CO2 to air via collision is a two step process - an indirect process. You are ignoring one of the steps.

Your reply ignores the fact that CO2 in an excited state can transfer energy to the air by conduction.

Do you believe that CO2 in an internal excited state cannot transfer energy to an air molecule?

He only ignores it going from excited CO2 to the air in the lower atmospere.

He is quite happy to acknowledge that the air can excite a CO2 molecule in the higher atmosphere to produce radiation that escapes to space and causes cooling.