Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[ding]

No. I'm just trying to understand what the disagreement is all about. It seems to me that we should all be able to find the common ground then step out and identify where the real differences lie. I could not imagine that we could not all get on the same page if we went back and worked through the simple stuff first. Which it seems like we did and are all in agreement. Now the fun starts, but at least we are now working from a common starting point.

Since you understand that CO2 back-radiates to the surface and causes the earth to lose less heat because of that blanketing effect, you should now understand that SSDD, and a number of his minions do not believe that back-radiation exists. They got that conclusion from a faulty understanding of thermodynamics. It should also be understood that water vapor is the major GHG and has the major blanket effect.

That is where the real differences lie, and makes it impossible to get to step 1 with SSDD et al, let alone step 2, where the "fun begins".

As far as step 2, I generally don't get into arguments with others. I think the CO2 rise is definitely not trivial, but I have no idea of what it's warming effect will be in the future. I have not read the IPCC documents.

Let's not forget O2 and N2, right? How well understood is the GHG effect from those gases? As for water vapor, the effect of water vapor as a feedback (positive or negative) seems to be greatly misunderstood at the moment. At least to me it does.

 

[Wuwei]

I said heat is energy !!! I never said that all energy is heat.

I know you didn't. All I was saying is that when you read SSDD's and my posts, I distinguish between the two, but SSDD does not when he cites the 2nd law. Here is the distinction you should look for in my dialog with SSDD.

SSDD: Energy cannot spontaneously move from colder to hotter objects.
Wuwei: Heat cannot spontaneously move from colder to hotter objects.

SSDD goes on to say that since photons are energy, a photon from a cold object cannot hit a warmer object. I presumed you thought SSDD is wrong, but since you really flew off the handle and brought unrelated politics into it, I'm now thinking that maybe you agree with SSDD. Do you agree with SSDD that photon radiation from a colder object is constrained from striking warmer objects?

Here, let me reword it laboriously in terms of energy in a way that you might understand.

Wuwei: The spontaneous energy of blackbody radiation is always exchanged between objects whereas energy from the hotter body always exceeds energy from the colder body with the result that energy spontaneously flows from the hotter to the colder body.

SSDD: The spontaneous energy of blackbody radiation is never exchanged between objects. Radiation from the hotter body can hit the colder body. The colder body cannot not emit radiation at all to the hotter body.

I hope this is clear to you. If not, emotional outbursts of misunderstanding does not become you.

 

[Wuwei]

Let's not forget O2 and N2, right? How well understood is the GHG effect from those gases? As for water vapor, the effect of water vapor as a feedback (positive or negative) seems to be greatly misunderstood at the moment. At least to me it does.

Only gasses with at least three molecules can vibrate at thermal wavelengths. O2 and N2 are invisible to those wavelengths.

Yes. Water vapor is more complex as a GHG than CO2 because it can exist in 3 phases, water, ice, vapor. The vapor concentration is highly dependent on local temperature. There is an virtual infinite supply. It can quickly change it's concentration by evaporation or precipitation. Global climate models such as Trenberth's have to somehow average through this, but the error bars have to be large.

 

[polarbear]

Well finally you got something right even if it`s only partially right.
But I can`t let you get away with this:
In your post # 201 you wrote:
It clarifies it by referring to "spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area" is forbidden. Not energy, it's heat.
and later you denied it in your post #291 in an exchange with SSDD:
That is absolutely false. Why are you lying. I know you know better. You are just being a troll.
Only people who have no idea what "heat" is would make non sensible statements like that.
"heat" is energy and can only "flow" from a warmer object to a colder one, because in that circumstance the only thing under consideration is heat conduction.
Heat conduction needs a conduit so that heat can flow and then can only do so from a warm to cold. In contrast heat radiation does not need a conduit to transfer heat from one body to another.
But both use the same units to define the energy that is being transfered
It took many years and much effort to establish the "SI", the international system of units we use to express energy in joules as a base unit.
The only people that have a problem with it are those who have no idea of the entire concept.
Like saying it`s not energy it`s heat....only to deny later that they said it.

This is what you don't understand in the discussion:
All heat is energy. Not all energy is heat.
Read it again with that distinction in mind.

WhatTF !
I said heat is energy !!! I never said that all energy is heat.
I also said that energy is expressed in SI units [joules] as the base unit, including heat radiation. Because you and your cronies here kept insisting that "it`s heat, not energy"
Talk about lying and denying. You should have done like H.Clinton and use bleachbit to wipe your posts. So now after you got cornered with your weird definition what heat is you resort to other forms of energy because you don`t have the foggiest notion what they might be....and think you found a fog bank to hide from exposure.
Coming here to read the stuff you,crick etc write here is just as amusing as watching the likes of Madonna freaking out after the election.
IanC wondered once why I don`t go after SSDD. I never answered him but now might be the right time I do. It`s because he is a weed up your asses better than you and the rest of the AGW freaks aspire to, can ever hope to be to the rest of us..and I hope he never quits !!

That's why I have never even considered putting him on ignore. He may be wrong but he causes me to think and defend my ideas. That is rare around here.

Your ideas are on solid ground but it`s always advantageous to view them from another vantage point. That`s why I also like reading what he has to say.
Like just now when you discussed the effect of an atmosphere
Remember your thread about the moon?
Suppose it were under a very thin 100% volume/volume CO2 gas layer.
That would of course absorb some IR going out, but would also conduct heat. That layer would increase the surface area of the overall radiating sphere and thus increase the amount of energy that this sphere radiates. Agree ?
The question is now what is the net effect of this CO2 layer in terms of exact numbers, after taking the amount it absorbed into account.
Leave aside all the rest of it which complicates that question, like water vapor and clouds etc. and how they affect the overall outcome, because all of that, especially their negative magnitude is just as verboten in AGW as doubting the accuracy of the data they feed into their models.
Too bad the guys at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab stopped short at doing that when they experimented with using CO2 in the double pane window gap:

The U value per deg K inside/outside temperature includes heat loss by conduction and radiation.
But it does show that it is a logarithmically decreasing function as the gap (the CO2 layer) is increased. There is not much of a drop by doubling the thickness of the CO2 layer.

(In spectroscopic analysis we use variable path length cuvettes for low concentrations because doubling the path length L is like doubling the Concentration C since A=ε*L *C (Beer Lambert).)

And that is with 100% unadulterated CO2 not just 0.04 % as we have been discussing.
Also the 2 glass panes help quite a bit dropping the U value down to what it is even without the CO2. A double pane window with a 1/2 inch gap filled with air has a typical U value of 0.37.
The U value for CO2 even at a 100% concentration is only 0.07 watts per m^2 per deg K better than just air.
Heinz Hug found a similar ratio which is 1/80th of what the IPCC uses.

 

[IanC]

Well finally you got something right even if it`s only partially right.
But I can`t let you get away with this:
In your post # 201 you wrote:
It clarifies it by referring to "spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area" is forbidden. Not energy, it's heat.
and later you denied it in your post #291 in an exchange with SSDD:
That is absolutely false. Why are you lying. I know you know better. You are just being a troll.
Only people who have no idea what "heat" is would make non sensible statements like that.
"heat" is energy and can only "flow" from a warmer object to a colder one, because in that circumstance the only thing under consideration is heat conduction.
Heat conduction needs a conduit so that heat can flow and then can only do so from a warm to cold. In contrast heat radiation does not need a conduit to transfer heat from one body to another.
But both use the same units to define the energy that is being transfered
It took many years and much effort to establish the "SI", the international system of units we use to express energy in joules as a base unit.
The only people that have a problem with it are those who have no idea of the entire concept.
Like saying it`s not energy it`s heat....only to deny later that they said it.

This is what you don't understand in the discussion:
All heat is energy. Not all energy is heat.
Read it again with that distinction in mind.

WhatTF !
I said heat is energy !!! I never said that all energy is heat.
I also said that energy is expressed in SI units [joules] as the base unit, including heat radiation. Because you and your cronies here kept insisting that "it`s heat, not energy"
Talk about lying and denying. You should have done like H.Clinton and use bleachbit to wipe your posts. So now after you got cornered with your weird definition what heat is you resort to other forms of energy because you don`t have the foggiest notion what they might be....and think you found a fog bank to hide from exposure.
Coming here to read the stuff you,crick etc write here is just as amusing as watching the likes of Madonna freaking out after the election.
IanC wondered once why I don`t go after SSDD. I never answered him but now might be the right time I do. It`s because he is a weed up your asses better than you and the rest of the AGW freaks aspire to, can ever hope to be to the rest of us..and I hope he never quits !!

That's why I have never even considered putting him on ignore. He may be wrong but he causes me to think and defend my ideas. That is rare around here.

Your ideas are on solid ground but it`s always advantageous to view them from another vantage point. That`s why I also like reading what he has to say.
Like just now when you discussed the effect of an atmosphere
Remember your thread about the moon?
Suppose it were under a very thin 100% volume/volume CO2 gas layer.
That would of course absorb some IR going out, but would also conduct heat. That layer would increase the surface area of the overall radiating sphere and thus increase the amount of energy that this sphere radiates. Agree ?
The question is now what is the net effect of this CO2 layer in terms of exact numbers, after taking the amount it absorbed into account.
Leave aside all the rest of it which complicates that question, like water vapor and clouds etc. and how they affect the overall outcome, because all of that, especially their negative magnitude is just as verboten in AGW as doubting the accuracy of the data they feed into their models.
Too bad the guys at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab stopped short at doing that when they experimented with using CO2 in the double pane window gap:

The U value per deg K inside/outside temperature includes heat loss by conduction and radiation.
But it does show that it is a logarithmically decreasing function as the gap (the CO2 layer) is increased. There is not much of a drop by doubling the thickness of the CO2 layer.

(In spectroscopic analysis we use variable path length cuvettes for low concentrations because doubling the path length L is like doubling the Concentration C since A=ε*L *C (Beer Lambert).)

And that is with 100% unadulterated CO2 not just 0.04 % as we have been discussing.
Also the 2 glass panes help quite a bit dropping the U value down to what it is even without the CO2. A double pane window with a 1/2 inch gap filled with air has a typical U value of 0.37.
The U value for CO2 even at a 100% concentration is only 0.07 watts per m^2 per deg K better than just air.
Heinz Hug found a similar ratio which is 1/80th of what the IPCC uses.

Inert or single bond gases are a better choice for Windows because they don't interact with IR.

A CO2 atmosphere on the moon would illustrate my point about stored potential energy. The fourteen day long night would leave the CO2 a frozen crust on the surface. The 14 day long day would quickly heat the CO2 and puff it up until it reached escape velocity.

 

[polarbear]

Well finally you got something right even if it`s only partially right.
But I can`t let you get away with this:
In your post # 201 you wrote:
It clarifies it by referring to "spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area" is forbidden. Not energy, it's heat.
and later you denied it in your post #291 in an exchange with SSDD:
That is absolutely false. Why are you lying. I know you know better. You are just being a troll.
Only people who have no idea what "heat" is would make non sensible statements like that.
"heat" is energy and can only "flow" from a warmer object to a colder one, because in that circumstance the only thing under consideration is heat conduction.
Heat conduction needs a conduit so that heat can flow and then can only do so from a warm to cold. In contrast heat radiation does not need a conduit to transfer heat from one body to another.
But both use the same units to define the energy that is being transfered
It took many years and much effort to establish the "SI", the international system of units we use to express energy in joules as a base unit.
The only people that have a problem with it are those who have no idea of the entire concept.
Like saying it`s not energy it`s heat....only to deny later that they said it.

This is what you don't understand in the discussion:
All heat is energy. Not all energy is heat.
Read it again with that distinction in mind.

WhatTF !
I said heat is energy !!! I never said that all energy is heat.
I also said that energy is expressed in SI units [joules] as the base unit, including heat radiation. Because you and your cronies here kept insisting that "it`s heat, not energy"
Talk about lying and denying. You should have done like H.Clinton and use bleachbit to wipe your posts. So now after you got cornered with your weird definition what heat is you resort to other forms of energy because you don`t have the foggiest notion what they might be....and think you found a fog bank to hide from exposure.
Coming here to read the stuff you,crick etc write here is just as amusing as watching the likes of Madonna freaking out after the election.
IanC wondered once why I don`t go after SSDD. I never answered him but now might be the right time I do. It`s because he is a weed up your asses better than you and the rest of the AGW freaks aspire to, can ever hope to be to the rest of us..and I hope he never quits !!

That's why I have never even considered putting him on ignore. He may be wrong but he causes me to think and defend my ideas. That is rare around here.

Your ideas are on solid ground but it`s always advantageous to view them from another vantage point. That`s why I also like reading what he has to say.
Like just now when you discussed the effect of an atmosphere
Remember your thread about the moon?
Suppose it were under a very thin 100% volume/volume CO2 gas layer.
That would of course absorb some IR going out, but would also conduct heat. That layer would increase the surface area of the overall radiating sphere and thus increase the amount of energy that this sphere radiates. Agree ?
The question is now what is the net effect of this CO2 layer in terms of exact numbers, after taking the amount it absorbed into account.
Leave aside all the rest of it which complicates that question, like water vapor and clouds etc. and how they affect the overall outcome, because all of that, especially their negative magnitude is just as verboten in AGW as doubting the accuracy of the data they feed into their models.
Too bad the guys at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab stopped short at doing that when they experimented with using CO2 in the double pane window gap:

The U value per deg K inside/outside temperature includes heat loss by conduction and radiation.
But it does show that it is a logarithmically decreasing function as the gap (the CO2 layer) is increased. There is not much of a drop by doubling the thickness of the CO2 layer.

(In spectroscopic analysis we use variable path length cuvettes for low concentrations because doubling the path length L is like doubling the Concentration C since A=ε*L *C (Beer Lambert).)

And that is with 100% unadulterated CO2 not just 0.04 % as we have been discussing.
Also the 2 glass panes help quite a bit dropping the U value down to what it is even without the CO2. A double pane window with a 1/2 inch gap filled with air has a typical U value of 0.37.
The U value for CO2 even at a 100% concentration is only 0.07 watts per m^2 per deg K better than just air.
Heinz Hug found a similar ratio which is 1/80th of what the IPCC uses.

Inert or single bond gases are a better choice for Windows because they don't interact with IR.

A CO2 atmosphere on the moon would illustrate my point about stored potential energy. The fourteen day long night would leave the CO2 a frozen crust on the surface. The 14 day long day would quickly heat the CO2 and puff it up until it reached escape velocity.

About the "CO2 moon", which was meant to serve as a mathematical model only to single out the effect the CO2 has, without any unnecessary interference like water etc. and I did say that thinking you would understand it as such. Obviously not.
It also was not my intention to discuss what makes a better window. The point was that the numbers for 100% CO2 instead of air in the gap are very close, within 0.07 w/(K*m^2).
Too bad that you decided to sidestep that as well. That`s okay and I am not really surprised you did. Most of the people here don`t want to crunch numbers and equations. It`s easier for them to huff and puff buzz words picked&pasted from wikipedia web pages without really understanding the associated concepts and equations. Discussing physics here is as amusing as being challenged by somebody who isn`t sure at which end the bullets come out of a gun.

 

[ding]

Let's not forget O2 and N2, right? How well understood is the GHG effect from those gases? As for water vapor, the effect of water vapor as a feedback (positive or negative) seems to be greatly misunderstood at the moment. At least to me it does.

Only gasses with at least three molecules can vibrate at thermal wavelengths. O2 and N2 are invisible to those wavelengths.

Yes. Water vapor is more complex as a GHG than CO2 because it can exist in 3 phases, water, ice, vapor. The vapor concentration is highly dependent on local temperature. There is an virtual infinite supply. It can quickly change it's concentration by evaporation or precipitation. Global climate models such as Trenberth's have to somehow average through this, but the error bars have to be large.

Ok, can O2 and N2 be heated by direct contact with the earth's surface and convection?

 

[Wuwei]

Ok, can O2 and N2 be heated by direct contact with the earth's surface and convection?

Yes.

 

[ding]

Ok, can O2 and N2 be heated by direct contact with the earth's surface and convection?

Yes.

Ok, does that cause heat to be trapped in the atmosphere? Let me ask that a different way... does that affect our temperature?

 

[Wuwei]

Ok, does that cause heat to be trapped in the atmosphere?

I wouldn't use the word "trapped." There is a forever changing turbulence that keeps the temperature from straying too far from norm. There, of course is a temperature gradient from the warm earth to the colder higher altitudes (lapse rate). The IR emissions between higher and thinner layers play a strong part in the lapse rate and the amount of heat sent to outer space.

 

[ding]

Ok, does that cause heat to be trapped in the atmosphere?

I wouldn't use the word "trapped." There is a forever changing turbulence that keeps the temperature from straying too far from norm. There, of course is a temperature gradient from the warm earth to the colder higher altitudes (lapse rate). The IR emissions between higher and thinner layers play a strong part in the lapse rate and the amount of heat sent to outer space.

Yes, but does the heating of O2 and N2 have an effect on temperature? How does O2 and N2 dissipate that heat?

 

[Wuwei]

Yes, but does the heating of O2 and N2 have an effect on temperature? How does O2 and N2 dissipate that heat?

Yes, the warm earth heats the atmosphere, including O2 and N2. The earth and atmosphere are continually radiating the heat everywhere. Eventually 160 W/m^2 leaves the earth to outer space to balance the short wave incoming radiation from the sun at the same 160 W/m^2.

 

[ding]

Yes, but does the heating of O2 and N2 have an effect on temperature? How does O2 and N2 dissipate that heat?

Yes, the warm earth heats the atmosphere, including O2 and N2. The earth and atmosphere are continually radiating the heat everywhere. Eventually 160 W/m^2 leaves the earth to outer space to balance the short wave incoming radiation from the sun at the same 160 W/m^2.

And water vapor? What effect does that have?

 

[ding]

Yes, but does the heating of O2 and N2 have an effect on temperature? How does O2 and N2 dissipate that heat?

Yes, the warm earth heats the atmosphere, including O2 and N2. The earth and atmosphere are continually radiating the heat everywhere. Eventually 160 W/m^2 leaves the earth to outer space to balance the short wave incoming radiation from the sun at the same 160 W/m^2.

Do O2 and N2 have the same conversion (W/m^2 to C) to associated temperature that radiative forcing has? If so or not, what are those conversions?

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is what you don't understand in the discussion:
All heat is energy. Not all energy is heat.
Read it again with that distinction in mind.

WhatTF !
I said heat is energy !!! I never said that all energy is heat.
I also said that energy is expressed in SI units [joules] as the base unit, including heat radiation. Because you and your cronies here kept insisting that "it`s heat, not energy"
Talk about lying and denying. You should have done like H.Clinton and use bleachbit to wipe your posts. So now after you got cornered with your weird definition what heat is you resort to other forms of energy because you don`t have the foggiest notion what they might be....and think you found a fog bank to hide from exposure.
Coming here to read the stuff you,crick etc write here is just as amusing as watching the likes of Madonna freaking out after the election.
IanC wondered once why I don`t go after SSDD. I never answered him but now might be the right time I do. It`s because he is a weed up your asses better than you and the rest of the AGW freaks aspire to, can ever hope to be to the rest of us..and I hope he never quits !!

That's why I have never even considered putting him on ignore. He may be wrong but he causes me to think and defend my ideas. That is rare around here.

Your ideas are on solid ground but it`s always advantageous to view them from another vantage point. That`s why I also like reading what he has to say.
Like just now when you discussed the effect of an atmosphere
Remember your thread about the moon?
Suppose it were under a very thin 100% volume/volume CO2 gas layer.
That would of course absorb some IR going out, but would also conduct heat. That layer would increase the surface area of the overall radiating sphere and thus increase the amount of energy that this sphere radiates. Agree ?
The question is now what is the net effect of this CO2 layer in terms of exact numbers, after taking the amount it absorbed into account.
Leave aside all the rest of it which complicates that question, like water vapor and clouds etc. and how they affect the overall outcome, because all of that, especially their negative magnitude is just as verboten in AGW as doubting the accuracy of the data they feed into their models.
Too bad the guys at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab stopped short at doing that when they experimented with using CO2 in the double pane window gap:

The U value per deg K inside/outside temperature includes heat loss by conduction and radiation.
But it does show that it is a logarithmically decreasing function as the gap (the CO2 layer) is increased. There is not much of a drop by doubling the thickness of the CO2 layer.

(In spectroscopic analysis we use variable path length cuvettes for low concentrations because doubling the path length L is like doubling the Concentration C since A=ε*L *C (Beer Lambert).)

And that is with 100% unadulterated CO2 not just 0.04 % as we have been discussing.
Also the 2 glass panes help quite a bit dropping the U value down to what it is even without the CO2. A double pane window with a 1/2 inch gap filled with air has a typical U value of 0.37.
The U value for CO2 even at a 100% concentration is only 0.07 watts per m^2 per deg K better than just air.
Heinz Hug found a similar ratio which is 1/80th of what the IPCC uses.

Inert or single bond gases are a better choice for Windows because they don't interact with IR.

A CO2 atmosphere on the moon would illustrate my point about stored potential energy. The fourteen day long night would leave the CO2 a frozen crust on the surface. The 14 day long day would quickly heat the CO2 and puff it up until it reached escape velocity.

About the "CO2 moon", which was meant to serve as a mathematical model only to single out the effect the CO2 has, without any unnecessary interference like water etc. and I did say that thinking you would understand it as such. Obviously not.
It also was not my intention to discuss what makes a better window. The point was that the numbers for 100% CO2 instead of air in the gap are very close, within 0.07 w/(K*m^2).
Too bad that you decided to sidestep that as well. That`s okay and I am not really surprised you did. Most of the people here don`t want to crunch numbers and equations. It`s easier for them to huff and puff buzz words picked&pasted from wikipedia web pages without really understanding the associated concepts and equations. Discussing physics here is as amusing as being challenged by somebody who isn`t sure at which end the bullets come out of a gun.

Using the basic equations found in the glass/fill evaluation one can show the IPCC's position and assumptions to be very wrong.. If their computations are inflated by a factor of 80/1, then the empirical effect of CO2 on our atmosphere at 0.04ppm is so small that it could not be distinguished from noise in our climatic system.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes, but does the heating of O2 and N2 have an effect on temperature? How does O2 and N2 dissipate that heat?

Yes, the warm earth heats the atmosphere, including O2 and N2. The earth and atmosphere are continually radiating the heat everywhere. Eventually 160 W/m^2 leaves the earth to outer space to balance the short wave incoming radiation from the sun at the same 160 W/m^2.

Do O2 and N2 have the same conversion (W/m^2 to C) to associated temperature that radiative forcing has? If so or not, what are those conversions?

The wave lengths are different therefore their total power levels are very different.

 

[SSDD]

The point was that the numbers for 100% CO2 instead of air in the gap are very close, within 0.07 w/(K*m^2).

Might the difference be attributed to the difference in density between CO2 and air?

 

[SSDD]

He may be wrong but he causes me to think and defend my ideas. That is rare around here.

Observation suggests that it is more likely that you are wrong....

 

[IanC]

He may be wrong but he causes me to think and defend my ideas. That is rare around here.

Observation suggests that it is more likely that you are wrong....

Then start producing these observations that support your position.

Can I make a suggestion where to begin? You have claimed that IR detectors can only work if they are cooled. Show us the data where they read zero until the tipping point of equal temperature, and then continue to show increased readings as the instruments gets colder. That is your theory, right? Gross flow according to temperature differential?

Show us those results and we will have to take you seriously. It should be simple enough. Just turn on the instrument and record the data as it cools.

 

[IanC]

Yes, but does the heating of O2 and N2 have an effect on temperature? How does O2 and N2 dissipate that heat?

Yes, the warm earth heats the atmosphere, including O2 and N2. The earth and atmosphere are continually radiating the heat everywhere. Eventually 160 W/m^2 leaves the earth to outer space to balance the short wave incoming radiation from the sun at the same 160 W/m^2.

Do O2 and N2 have the same conversion (W/m^2 to C) to associated temperature that radiative forcing has? If so or not, what are those conversions?

The wave lengths are different therefore their total power levels are very different.

Good point but poorly presented.

A bucket of lukewarm water has more 'energy' than a AA battery. Which is more useful to do work?

CO2 theory considers a watt of disordered IR from the atmosphere to be the equivalent to a watt of highly ordered shortwave solar input. Their 'energy' may be equal but their ability to do work is not.