Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is a vast amount of lab work done on atmospheric radiative physics. Much of it done before the current fad of doomsday CAGW.
Yes, I can agree with that.
You have agreed with these facts:
1. IR can strike and excite CO2.
2. CO2 transfers excitation energy to an air molecule via conduction.
Whether you realize it or not, you are describing a two stage process that occurs in the atmosphere, where the end result is that IR striking a CO2 molecule eventually turns into heat via conduction.]/quote]
I know that is what you wish..and in your knowledge deprived brain, I believe that you actually believe it...unfortunately, the fact is that conduction and convection rule energy movement through the troposphere...therefore, there is no radiative greenhouse effect.
In short whether you realize it or not you are agreeing that IR from the earth can result in a warmer atmosphere.
Sorry guy...wrong again. The only portion of the air that is warmed by IR is water vapor...and even then only a very small portion of that energy is moved on radiatively.
The whole average input from the sun is bullshit...you are modeling a flat earth that does not rotate and exists in perpetual twilight 4 times further away from the sun than we are and pretending that it is analogous to where we actually live. It is that bullshit model that is the basis of the whole scam...
The average 162 W/m^2 is a number that comes from easily measurable data.
What do you think the average input from the sun is if not 162?
I was using the number from Trenberth's diagram. I won't argue the point. The number depends on cloud cover etc, as you say. I'm sure there are a lot of estimates that differ from Trenberth's.The whole average input from the sun is bullshit...you are modeling a flat earth that does not rotate and exists in perpetual twilight 4 times further away from the sun than we are and pretending that it is analogous to where we actually live. It is that bullshit model that is the basis of the whole scam...
The average 162 W/m^2 is a number that comes from easily measurable data.
What do you think the average input from the sun is if not 162?
I think the average should only include total solar minus albedo. 340-100=240.
The energy absorbed by the atmosphere is still connected to the surface via conduction.
That still leaves a considerable deficit at the surface to be explained. Even more if you include the 100 being moved into the atmosphere by thermals and the water cycle.
Both of you (Ian-Wuw) are obviously confused.
....... of the 1360 Watts/m^2 only 1050 Watts/m^2 make it to the surface.
The 1360 value for m^2 is the steradian and they converted that to a flat surface m^2 equivalent and averaged it for a horizontal surface as it would be at zenith.
I don't think we are obviously confused.
The value you give of 1050 W/m^2 is for the zenith, as you say, or at noon at the equator. The whole earth is not seeing noon. The average W/m^2 is given by the total sun's watts hitting the earth divided by the area of the entire earth.
The dark side is not receiving any radiation, so that is equivalent to dividing the radiation by 2. Secondly, because of Lambert's cosine law, the parts of the earth near the poles or east and west of the zenith receive less radiation than the zenith. If you integrate over the exposed surface to the sun using the cosine law, you drop the average by another factor of 2.
So a total drop of a factor of 4 from your 1050 is 262 W/m^2. That is more in line with IanC's value.
[/QUOTE]Yes, I can agree with that.
So then you agree that there is no radiative greenhouse effect since IR radiation can not warm the air...and the radiative greenhouse effect is based upon the claim that IR can, in fact warm the air.
You have agreed with these facts:
1. IR can strike and excite CO2.
In rare instances the CO2 molecule has time to become excited and radiate that energy...in the vast majority of times, the CO2 loses the energy via collision with some other molecule.
2. CO2 transfers excitation energy to an air molecule via conduction.
I have never said otherwise.
The whole average input from the sun is bullshit...you are modeling a flat earth that does not rotate and exists in perpetual twilight 4 times further away from the sun than we are and pretending that it is analogous to where we actually live. It is that bullshit model that is the basis of the whole scam...
The average 162 W/m^2 is a number that comes from easily measurable data.
What do you think the average input from the sun is if not 162?
At the top of the atmosphere, the solar input is about 1300 wm2. You realize that there is a reason that they stick to the average number when numbers closer to the actual energy striking the earth could just as easily be used don't you? Any guesses as to why?
No.And you really believe that energy moves within the system and the dynamics that effect that movement would be the same on a planet that received 161 wm2 across its entire face all the time as the planet that we actually live upon? You believe the only difference would be the actual amount of energy striking the surface? You believe that 161 wm2 is enough energy to power the dynamic and chaotic system in which we actually live? Is that what you actually believe?
There are two 'modes' of energy transfer. I think of them as ''passive' or 'active'.
Doesn't matter...energy can not spontaneously move from cool to warm.
Both of you (Ian-Wuw) are obviously confused.
Solar irradiance - Wikipedia
Average annual solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth's atmosphere is roughly 1361 W/m2.[24] The Sun's rays are attenuated as they pass through the atmosphere, leaving maximum normal surface irradiance at approximately 1000 W /m2 at sea level on a clear day. When 1361 W/m2 is arriving above the atmosphere (when the sun is at the zenith in a cloudless sky), direct sun is about 1050 W/m2, and global radiation on a horizontal surface at ground level is about 1120 W/m2.[25] The latter figure includes radiation scattered or reemitted by atmosphere and surroundings.
The 1360 Watts/m^2 is the integral of the Watts\m^2\nanometer of the yellow portion (top of atmosphere)
and of the 1360 Watts/m^2 only 1050 Watts/m^2 make it to the surface.
The 1360 value for m^2 is the steradian and they converted that to a flat surface m^2 equivalent and averaged it for a horizontal surface as it would be at zenith.
What matters is that only 77 % makes it through the atmosphere going from the top down to the surface.
All the arguments are what happens at 15 micrometers which would be 15 000 nanometers,
Instead of 23 % absorption the absorption at that wavelength is 100% were it not for the CO2.
The CO2 cuts both ways ! The warmers choose to look only at the amount of energy it blocks from radiating up and out and for good reason have no interest how much energy coming from the sun between 14 and 16 micrometers is blocked from heating the surface due to CO2.
The spectral radiance for 6000 deg K is 0.902 Watts/(sr nm m^2) ..down dwelling and blocked.
And for 300 K 0.0066 Watts/(sr nm m^2) blocked from radiating up.
The amount which is blocked going down dwarfs the portion which is blocked from going up at the spectral band from 14 to 16 micrometers and that`s why the only temperature that increases with CO2 is that in the computer models and not the real world.
Have a nice day!
There is a vast amount of lab work done on atmospheric radiative physics. Much of it done before the current fad of doomsday CAGW.
Really? So lets see the lab work that demonstrates how much warming or cooling happens in a body of water by changing the concentration of so called greenhouse gasses in the air above it. Increments of 0.0001 should be fine.
So how much warming or cooling when the concentrations are changed?
The whole average input from the sun is bullshit...you are modeling a flat earth that does not rotate and exists in perpetual twilight 4 times further away from the sun than we are and pretending that it is analogous to where we actually live. It is that bullshit model that is the basis of the whole scam...
The average 162 W/m^2 is a number that comes from easily measurable data.
What do you think the average input from the sun is if not 162?
At the top of the atmosphere, the solar input is about 1300 wm2. You realize that there is a reason that they stick to the average number when numbers closer to the actual energy striking the earth could just as easily be used don't you? Any guesses as to why?
Both of you (Ian-Wuw) are obviously confused.
....... of the 1360 Watts/m^2 only 1050 Watts/m^2 make it to the surface.
The 1360 value for m^2 is the steradian and they converted that to a flat surface m^2 equivalent and averaged it for a horizontal surface as it would be at zenith.
I don't think we are obviously confused.
The value you give of 1050 W/m^2 is for the zenith, as you say, or at noon at the equator. The whole earth is not seeing noon. The average W/m^2 is given by the total sun's watts hitting the earth divided by the area of the entire earth.
The dark side is not receiving any radiation, so that is equivalent to dividing the radiation by 2. Secondly, because of Lambert's cosine law, the parts of the earth near the poles or east and west of the zenith receive less radiation than the zenith. If you integrate over the exposed surface to the sun using the cosine law, you drop the average by another factor of 2.
So a total drop of a factor of 4 from your 1050 is 262 W/m^2. That is more in line with IanC's value.
And you really believe that energy moves within the system and the dynamics that effect that movement would be the same on a planet that received 161 wm2 across its entire face all the time as the planet that we actually live upon? You believe the only difference would be the actual amount of energy striking the surface? You believe that 161 wm2 is enough energy to power the dynamic and chaotic system in which we actually live? Is that what you actually believe?
Well, it still looks like you agree that IR can warm the air via CO2 absorbing and transferring energy to the air.
You yourself pointed out the lab work when you referenced that American Thinker article.
You are the one that said that IR can excite CO2 by absorbing IR and transferring the excited state energy to the air via conduction. I'm simply agreeing with you.Well, it still looks like you agree that IR can warm the air via CO2 absorbing and transferring energy to the air.
You truly are an idiot...energy can warm the air via conduction...IR can not warm the air at all...there is no radiative greenhouse effect. It is truly unfortunate that you can't grasp the difference between IR and conduction....
You yourself pointed out the lab work when you referenced that American Thinker article.
The american thinker article pointed out that outgoing LW had not changed since the 1970's even though atmospheric CO2 had increased quite a bit.
tell me ian...are you with wuwei in the belief that IR can warm the air via conduction? Interesting that you wouldn't correct your sycophant when he makes such an idiotic claim. Imagine..infrared warming anything via conduction...you buy that?
You are the one that said that IR can excite CO2 by absorbing IR and transferring the excited state energy to the air via conduction. I'm simply agreeing with you.Well, it still looks like you agree that IR can warm the air via CO2 absorbing and transferring energy to the air.
You truly are an idiot...energy can warm the air via conduction...IR can not warm the air at all...there is no radiative greenhouse effect. It is truly unfortunate that you can't grasp the difference between IR and conduction....
I was simply saying that I agree with you about how heat is transfered - from IR to CO2 to air.You are the one that said that IR can excite CO2 by absorbing IR and transferring the excited state energy to the air via conduction. I'm simply agreeing with you.Well, it still looks like you agree that IR can warm the air via CO2 absorbing and transferring energy to the air.
You truly are an idiot...energy can warm the air via conduction...IR can not warm the air at all...there is no radiative greenhouse effect. It is truly unfortunate that you can't grasp the difference between IR and conduction....
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the difference between energy transfer via radiation and energy transfer via conduction...if the energy is transferring, and moving through the troposphere via conduction, then there is no radiative greenhouse effect.
It is interesting to watch how desperately you guys hang on to your failed beliefs though,
Another molecule and it has only a 4/10,000,000 of being absorbed by another CO2 molecule. Which means it has to hit a molecule that has a longer residency time, like water vapor, which actually warms it slightly and rises as it now cools before it is released to space at a much longer wave length that CO2 is helpless to prevent escape.CO2 does not warm so your conduction theory is wrong. The energy residency time of CO2 is less than 0.002ns Thus the energy does not reside in the molecule to warm it. It is expelled almost immediately. This is why they were counting on water vapor to warm faster and hold the energy that it can not trap.You think IR does not warm the air? Then which of these do you think are false?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.
1. IR strikes and excites CO2.
2. CO2 transfers excitation energy to an air molecule via conduction.
The energy residency time of CO2 is less than 0.002ns Thus the energy does not reside in the molecule to warm it. It is expelled almost immediately.
Where does it go next?
