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

[IanC]

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.

WTF?!?

Your CO2 Moon example is untenable. CO2 snow on one side and escape velocity on the other. If you wanted me to pretend that the temperature wouldnt affect the atmosphere then you should have said so. You said a very thin layer. What does that mean? One kilometer, twenty five kilometers? One Km would have negligible effect on the surface area, 25Km would be what? About one percent? What would be the lapse rate, ignoring zero height in the dark and infinity (escape velocity) in the light? What is the percentage of CO2 specific surface IR produced on cold and hot sides?

If you consider that sidestepping you are being hypocritical. Your record of answering my pointed questions is sketchy at best.

 

[Wuwei]

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.

CO2 is not indistinguishable from noise.
Link ... The Molecular Greenhouse Gas Composition of the Atmosphere Taking into Account Vertical Variation

The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9×10^18 grams....
The amount of carbon dioxide is 3×10^18 grams.​

A way to calculate the importance of the effect of CO2 is to look at the ratio of H2O vapor to CO2.

12.9/3.0 = 4.3.​

The mass of CO2 is about a quarter of the mass of water vapor:

However when it comes to scattering IR, it's the relative number of molecules that is important, not the mass. The conversion to number is done by the relative molecular weights in moles:

moles CO2 = 44.1
moles H2O = 33.0​

Since CO2 is heavier, it's effect should be reduced by the ratio of moles:

Ratio 4.3 * 44/33 = 5.73​

What that means is that for every 5.7 molecules of water vapor, there is one molecule of CO2. In this light an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a much larger effect than any “gut feel” that the concentration of CO2 is so small. An increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is not trivial in comparison to H20 vapor.

Bottom line: CO2 is not indistinguishable from noise. If you want to argue against AGW you have to use arguments other than your feeling that CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere.

 

[mamooth]

I agree that it is wrong of course, but I did not realize that CAGW science thought there was an infinite series. Who thinks that on this board.

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ....

is an infinite series, but it converges to "2".

Water vapor feedback works the same way.

Oh, I suggest avoiding the use of "CAGW". Only WUWT devotees use that bizarre non-scientific term, and using it makes people think you're one of them.

 

[mamooth]

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 ?

Of course not.

Leaving out all the issues Ian raised about the practicality of your system, it still fails on a basic level. The expanded atmospheric sphere can't create or destroy energy. After it reaches equilibrium, it will be radiating the same amount of energy as before. Once in equilibrium, energy-in equals energy-out. Energy-in hasn't changed, so energy-out won't change.

 

[polarbear]

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?

Some of it yes. That is why Argon is also a better gas filling than air resulting in a better U value than just air because it has a higher density. But that could lead to draw the wrong conclusions when you consider what affects the rate of heat conduction. The lower the gas pressure, the lower the density and as a consequence the rate of heat conduction drops. Dewar flasks take advantage of that but with a window surface in the order of m^2 surface area a below ambient pressure it would be a problem to prevent it from imploding. The research-techies in the U value tweaking business say that the higher density gas is better because it is more viscous ergo less molecular motion.
They do have a point there because Argon filled windows are also good sound insulators.

Aside from all the above the U value is a composite of heat conduction and IR transmittance and if that composite for 100% CO2 is only 0.07 w/(K*m^2) lower than just air that does say something about the overall combined insulating ability of CO2.
Bear in mind that insulating ability is expressed as the "R-value" which is the exact opposite of the U value, but the U value is the standard for windows because it`s more convenient to calculate energy loss.
The standard temperature gradient used for U-value measurements is 24 C
So now you can see that the difference for 100% CO2 and air at 24 C is only 1.68 Watts per m^2.
At 14 C ( the IPCC "normal average") it`s half of that, only 0.98 watts per m^2 less than air at the same path length and using 100% CO2.
After you extrapolate that on a log scale down to 0.04% CO2 the difference between air with no CO2 and air with 0.04% CO2 is of no more significance.

 

[mamooth]

Aside from all the above the U value is a composite of heat conduction and IR transmittance and if that composite for 100% CO2 is only 0.07 w/(K*m^2) lower than just air that does say something about the overall combined insulating ability of CO2.

Your windowpane example is meaningless, as it fails to account for how the atmosphere works. You did a lot of calculations, but your setup was totally wrong, so your conclusions are nonsense. Nobody ever said "More CO2 means the air is more insulating". That's your bad strawman, so the fact that you disproved it means nothing.

At low altitudes, CO2 primarily loses heat by conduction.

At high altitudes, with few molecular collisions, CO2 will primarily lose heat to space by radiation.

It's the high altitudes that are changing with increased CO2. The highest radiating layer is getting higher, so there are more layers of atmosphere that heat has to be pushed through, so temperature at the bottom has to get warmer to do that. It's much like putting another blanket on the bed. More insulation means a higher temperature at the heat source.

 

[jc456]

I think I get that. What I don't understand is does he believe it requires heat to spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects to do so. Or if he is proposing something else. It seems like everyone is agreeing that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects. So what else am I missing?

"Heat" is a macro statistical quality. "Heat" must go from warm-to-cold.

However, "energy" is a quantum-level quality, and is not subject to that restriction. Cold-to-warm, warm-to-cold, both are possible.

"Heat flow" is sort of a sum of "energy flow". With gazillions of quantum-level energy exchange events happening, the cold-to-warm quantum-level energy flow events will always be outnumbered by warm-to-cold quantum-level energy flow events, so on the macro scale, the net heat flow will always be warm-to-cold.

Welcome to the physics discipline of Statistical Mechanics.

Agreed. So how does back radiation add energy to the system?

to be clear, the argument has been in here and remains that GHGs make the earth surface warmer. The AGW crowd, and others use the term back radiation in an effort to validate that claim. And I will remain constant that that is cow manure. There is no observed empirical data to show that happens.

 

[mamooth]

here is no observed empirical data to show that happens.

You mean other than the direct measurements of backradiation that anyone can now make with easily affordable consumer electronics?

The nonsense you babble is literally every bit as crazy as flat earther babble.

 

[jc456]

here is no observed empirical data to show that happens.

You mean other than the direct measurements of backradiation that anyone can now make with easily affordable consumer electronics?

The nonsense you babble is literally every bit as crazy as flat earther babble.

and yet still no empirical data right? none zip nadda.

 

[mamooth]

and yet still no empirical data right? none zip nadda.

jc, that lie was old the first hundred times you mewled it out.

We could post the data again, for the hundredth time, but you'd just piss yourself and run again, so what's the point?

 

[jc456]

and yet still no empirical data right? none zip nadda.

jc, that lie was old the first hundred times you mewled it out.

We could post the data again, for the hundredth time, but you'd just piss yourself and run again, so what's the point?

yeah i know you say that all the time, and yet you fail every time. It isn't just me asking for it right? So had it actually been provided all of us would have seen that. The fact is you have nothing to show backradiation or that it can make the surface warmer.

Again, if your position were indeed true, then the surface temps would be in a perpetual loop. I explained that many moons ago to you.

 

[polarbear]

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.

WTF?!?

Your CO2 Moon example is untenable. CO2 snow on one side and escape velocity on the other. If you wanted me to pretend that the temperature wouldnt affect the atmosphere then you should have said so. You said a very thin layer. What does that mean? One kilometer, twenty five kilometers? One Km would have negligible effect on the surface area, 25Km would be what? About one percent? What would be the lapse rate, ignoring zero height in the dark and infinity (escape velocity) in the light? What is the percentage of CO2 specific surface IR produced on cold and hot sides?

If you consider that sidestepping you are being hypocritical. Your record of answering my pointed questions is sketchy at best.

No it`s not. All the statements you made are absurd.
With a thin layer that has a barometric pressure of 10 mm Hg the only places where you would have dry ice are at the 2 poles and in craters that never get sunlight..
Everywhere else where the temperature is above - 120 C that won`t happen (vapor pressure of CO2 at > -120 = > 10 mm Hg). Anyhow why are you insisting to use the lunar cycle of our moon for a mathematical model ?...unless you wanted to avoid thinking what would happen...as you obviously did when you say that the CO2 would reach escape velocity on the sun-lit side.
I would like to see you making a 2.38 km per second hypersonic projectile out of dry ice by shining sunlight on it. If you can you could get a job at DARPA right now because that would solve all their problems in that area.

 

[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.

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.

What can a very narrow band of LWIR do to our atmosphere? Is the energy actually able to do work and create heat or is it thwarted by other atmospheric gases?

The ability of CO2 and its LWIR are not giving the 'work' that most CAGW believe it should. Empirical evidence show us that it is not.

 

[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.

How much does O2 and N2 warm the earth? 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? And water vapor? What effect does that have?

 

[Wuwei]

How much does O2 and N2 warm the earth? 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? And water vapor? What effect does that have?

N2 and O2 don't warm the earth. The only thing that warms the earth is the sun. Water vapor is a GHG and is the major factor that prevents the earth from cooling.

 

[ding]

How much does O2 and N2 warm the earth? 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? And water vapor? What effect does that have?

N2 and O2 don't warm the earth. The only thing that warms the earth is the sun. Water vapor is a GHG and is the major factor that prevents the earth from cooling.

In post #327 I asked, "Ok, can O2 and N2 be heated by direct contact with the earth's surface and convection?"

In post #328 you replied, "yes"

In post #329 I asked, "Ok, does that cause heat to be trapped in the atmosphere? Let me ask that a different way... does that affect our temperature?"

In post #330 you replied, "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."

So are you saying that O2 and N2 can be heated by convection and not cause any temperature effect in the atmosphere? What happened to the heat?

 

[SSDD]

here is no observed empirical data to show that happens.

You mean other than the direct measurements of backradiation that anyone can now make with easily affordable consumer electronics?

The nonsense you babble is literally every bit as crazy as flat earther babble.

Fooling yourself with electronics hardly amounts to direct measurement of non existent back radiation...it does, however, identify you as an idiot who probably shouldn't be allowed to touch anything more technical than a popsicle stick.

 

[ding]

I think I get that. What I don't understand is does he believe it requires heat to spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects to do so. Or if he is proposing something else. It seems like everyone is agreeing that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects. So what else am I missing?

"Heat" is a macro statistical quality. "Heat" must go from warm-to-cold.

However, "energy" is a quantum-level quality, and is not subject to that restriction. Cold-to-warm, warm-to-cold, both are possible.

"Heat flow" is sort of a sum of "energy flow". With gazillions of quantum-level energy exchange events happening, the cold-to-warm quantum-level energy flow events will always be outnumbered by warm-to-cold quantum-level energy flow events, so on the macro scale, the net heat flow will always be warm-to-cold.

Welcome to the physics discipline of Statistical Mechanics.

Agreed. So how does back radiation add energy to the system?

to be clear, the argument has been in here and remains that GHGs make the earth surface warmer. The AGW crowd, and others use the term back radiation in an effort to validate that claim. And I will remain constant that that is cow manure. There is no observed empirical data to show that happens.

I understand your position. I am trying to understand his.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The battle over CAGW is boiled down to what 'work' can be shown to be directly attributed to mans contribution of CO2 to our atmosphere. Or what 'work' does the LWIR actually do?

Irrespective of photon travel (hot to cold or cold to hot) and that argument... The NET loss or gain has not been seen in empirical observed evidence. there is no empirical link..

 

[jc456]

I think I get that. What I don't understand is does he believe it requires heat to spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects to do so. Or if he is proposing something else. It seems like everyone is agreeing that heat cannot spontaneously move from cold to warmer objects. So what else am I missing?

"Heat" is a macro statistical quality. "Heat" must go from warm-to-cold.

However, "energy" is a quantum-level quality, and is not subject to that restriction. Cold-to-warm, warm-to-cold, both are possible.

"Heat flow" is sort of a sum of "energy flow". With gazillions of quantum-level energy exchange events happening, the cold-to-warm quantum-level energy flow events will always be outnumbered by warm-to-cold quantum-level energy flow events, so on the macro scale, the net heat flow will always be warm-to-cold.

Welcome to the physics discipline of Statistical Mechanics.

Agreed. So how does back radiation add energy to the system?

to be clear, the argument has been in here and remains that GHGs make the earth surface warmer. The AGW crowd, and others use the term back radiation in an effort to validate that claim. And I will remain constant that that is cow manure. There is no observed empirical data to show that happens.

I understand your position. I am trying to understand his.

However, he doesn't understand it. He is just a parrot. Parrots only repeat.