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

[jc456]

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..

^^^^^EXACTLY^^^^^^^

 

[Wuwei]

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?

There seems to be a disconnect here and I'm not sure what it is. I think the most important thing I said is,

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.

The sun will warm plants and earth to a certain extent, but the most important thing is the warming of the oceans where the short wave radiation can penetrate much more deeply. The ocean dissipates it's heat at the surface through evaporation, convection and long wave radiation.

Convection and evaporation are not impeded by GHG's, but the long wave radiation is. The GHG's scatter the LWR in all directions. Some of it is scattered back to the ocean.

It's the last sentence that many people on this board, who don't understand or believe science, reject. The following very well established factors that have been measured without controversy must be answered by those people.

• The average temperature of the earth is 15C.
• According to well known physics, this would cause 400W/m^2 to be radiated toward space.
• The sun only brings 160 W/m^2 to the earth.

If the earth is radiating that much energy above it's input, it would freeze. What causes this discrepancy?
The answer from a physicist is that the GHG's back-scatter most of that radiation.
The answer from SSDD and his minions is that the GHG's stop or cancel most of that radiation.

A physicist would think they are wrong, but it doesn't really matter. Either way the short wave radiation is impeded by the same amount, by the same thing, GHG's.

So, the danger of excess GHG's is the same either way.

 

[ding]

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?

There seems to be a disconnect here and I'm not sure what it is. I think the most important thing I said is,

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.

The sun will warm plants and earth to a certain extent, but the most important thing is the warming of the oceans where the short wave radiation can penetrate much more deeply. The ocean dissipates it's heat at the surface through evaporation, convection and long wave radiation.

Convection and evaporation are not impeded by GHG's, but the long wave radiation is. The GHG's scatter the LWR in all directions. Some of it is scattered back to the ocean.

It's the last sentence that many people on this board, who don't understand or believe science, reject. The following very well established factors that have been measured without controversy must be answered by those people.

• The average temperature of the earth is 15C.
• According to well known physics, this would cause 400W/m^2 to be radiated toward space.
• The sun only brings 160 W/m^2 to the earth.

If the earth is radiating that much energy above it's input, it would freeze. What causes this discrepancy?
The answer from a physicist is that the GHG's back-scatter most of that radiation.
The answer from SSDD and his minions is that the GHG's stop or cancel that most of that radiation.

A physicist would think they are wrong, but it doesn't really matter. Either way the short wave radiation is impeded by the same amount, by the same thing, GHG's.

So, the danger of excess GHG's is the same either way.

I appreciate what you are saying here but I'd like to understand how much temperature in the atmosphere on any given day is due to the other gases. After all they are 99% of the atmosphere, right? We can talk about back radiation later. I'd like to get a feel for the magnitude of the components. I'm not saying that o2 and n2 are trapping gas. I'm trying to understand how they fit in the big picture and by that I mean their contribution to temperature on a day to day basis. Can you help with that?

 

[Wuwei]

I appreciate what you are saying here but I'd like to understand how much temperature in the atmosphere on any given day is due to the other gases. After all they are 99% of the atmosphere, right? We can talk about back radiation later. I'd like to get a feel for the magnitude of the components. I'm not saying that o2 and n2 are trapping gas. I'm trying to understand how they fit in the big picture and by that I mean their contribution to temperature on a day to day basis. Can you help with that?

I'm not sure I understand your question. I would say that 99% of the atmospheric temperature is in N2 and O2.
GHG's may pick up radiant heat from the earth, but that heat is immediately mixed with all other gasses.

 

[ding]

I appreciate what you are saying here but I'd like to understand how much temperature in the atmosphere on any given day is due to the other gases. After all they are 99% of the atmosphere, right? We can talk about back radiation later. I'd like to get a feel for the magnitude of the components. I'm not saying that o2 and n2 are trapping gas. I'm trying to understand how they fit in the big picture and by that I mean their contribution to temperature on a day to day basis. Can you help with that?

I'm not sure I understand your question. I would say that 99% of the atmospheric temperature is in N2 and O2.
GHG's may pick up radiant heat from the earth, but that heat is immediately mixed with all other gasses.

Ok. So on a day to day basis it is a fairly significant component of our atmospheric temperature. does it dissipate that temperature every day?

 

[polarbear]

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.

Okay let`s walk through that in your shoes.The words in italics are my specifications, so feel free to disagree with any of them :
So now you say that the CO2 in the 1st (10 meters) layer looses most of the energy it absorbed ( at 15 μm) by conduction...going up.
And then way up there at the higher altitudes CO2 looses (all) the heat it got from below by radiation.
Did you just say that all the heat from below has to be radiated by CO2 and the rest of the gas components are not allowed to radiate?
Did you just say that more CO2 is like adding more layers to the atmosphere way up there ?
You did say that this increased insulation way up there means a higher temperature at the heat source (the earth).
Would that be because the earth is being warmed by 1/2 of the energy CO2 absorbed at 15
μm in the lower (10 m) layer or from the heat which is way up there ?
Nobody disputes that heat radiation is absorbed by CO2 at 15μm and that makes nonsense out of your statement that CO2 at high altitude can warm the heat source (the earth)
The only way it could do that is by back-radiating 15μm IR from way up there down to the heat source, the earth through several thousand meters of air laced with 400 ppm CO2.
How TF. would 15μm IR make it through that?
You, Crick and the rest of the AGW advocates should get your story straight what causes man made global warming.
That other character WUWEI has photons hitting objects, (CO2 molecules) like they were glass beads.
You better have a talk with him, because that makes total nonsense out of your back radiation energy budget...which is not just 1/2 the absorbed energy but as you just pointed out:
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ....is an infinite series, it converges to "2".
E= 1/2 + 2 watts/ m^2 because the reflected energy had to "go somewhere" when I was talking about how much light the oceans reflect depending on the angle of incidence.
CO2 re-emits light in all directions, but the WUWEI photons that "hit CO2 molecule objects" cant`t even make it through transparent glass beads that scatter light in all directions.

 

[SSDD]

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.

That isn't true...the earth generates some heat of its own and it has been shown in repeatable laboratory experiments that there are temperature gradients in columns of air...so the atmospheric pressure itself provides some heating...as is seen in several planets that have no appreciable amount of so called greenhouse gasses and in some cases have temperatures equivalent to the troposphere here with nothing like the amount of incoming solar energy.

 

[Wuwei]

That isn't true...the earth generates some heat of its own and it has been shown in repeatable laboratory experiments that there are temperature gradients in columns of air...so the atmospheric pressure itself provides some heating.

I agree. But the internal heat is slow in escaping, except for volcanoes. What lab experiments show pressure causes heating? I know it happens in adiabatic compression, but the earth is far from adiabatic.

 

[Wuwei]

Ok. So on a day to day basis it is a fairly significant component of our atmospheric temperature. does it dissipate that temperature every day?

Yes the thermal energy wends it way to outer space. It dissipates about 160W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere.

 

[Wuwei]

That other character WUWEI has photons hitting objects, (CO2 molecules) like they were glass beads.....
CO2 re-emits light in all directions, but the WUWEI photons that "hit CO2 molecule objects" cant`t even make it through transparent glass beads that scatter light in all directions.

Glass beads? They are more like miniature tuning forks. Please clarify.

 

[ding]

Ok. So on a day to day basis it is a fairly significant component of our atmospheric temperature. does it dissipate that temperature every day?

Yes the thermal energy wends it way to outer space. It dissipates about 160W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere.

Every day. There is no residual temperature left over from the heating of O2 and N2 through convection?

 

[ding]

Electrical Power Generation from Geothermal Sources

 

[Wuwei]

Ok. So on a day to day basis it is a fairly significant component of our atmospheric temperature. does it dissipate that temperature every day?

Yes the thermal energy wends it way to outer space. It dissipates about 160W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere.

Every day. There is no residual temperature left over from the heating of O2 and N2 through convection?

Your terminology is confusing. What do you mean by residual temperature? The atmosphere heats because the sun warms the earth. The thermal energy of the atmosphere radiates up and down, but at the top of the atmosphere "up" is outer space, and it is lost.

 

[ding]

Ok. So on a day to day basis it is a fairly significant component of our atmospheric temperature. does it dissipate that temperature every day?

Yes the thermal energy wends it way to outer space. It dissipates about 160W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere.

Every day. There is no residual temperature left over from the heating of O2 and N2 through convection?

Your terminology is confusing. What do you mean by residual temperature? The atmosphere heats because the sun warms the earth. The thermal energy of the atmosphere radiates up and down, but at the top of the atmosphere "up" is outer space, and it is lost.

Ok, each day the O2 and N2 warms by convection during the day, right? Maybe even at night too, right? How much does it warm up and how much is lost during the day or night? Is all of the heating of the 99% of the atmosphere - by convection - lost each and every day? Or is there some heat or energy that was left over and was not lost?

Maybe latent is a better term than residual.

 

[mamooth]

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.

Hey pisschugger, are you still sticking with your hilariously stupid theory that detailed IR cameras work entirely by thermocouples heating up? At pixel level?

I think that had everyone busting a gut. You're just a profoundly stupid human being.

 

[mamooth]

So now you say that the CO2 in the 1st (10 meters) layer looses most of the energy it absorbed ( at 15 μm) by conduction...going up.
And then way up there at the higher altitudes CO2 looses (all) the heat it got from below by radiation.
Did you just say that all the heat from below has to be radiated by CO2 and the rest of the gas components are not allowed to radiate?

Obviously not. If I had wanted to say such a crazy thing, I would have said it. That's why I didn't say it.

Did you just say that more CO2 is like adding more layers to the atmosphere way up there ?
You did say that this increased insulation way up there means a higher temperature at the heat source (the earth).
Would that be because the earth is being warmed by 1/2 of the energy CO2 absorbed at 15
μm in the lower (10 m) layer or from the heat which is way up there ?
Nobody disputes that heat radiation is absorbed by CO2 at 15μm and that makes nonsense out of your statement that CO2 at high altitude can warm the heat source (the earth)
The only way it could do that is by back-radiating 15μm IR from way up there down to the heat source, the earth through several thousand meters of air laced with 400 ppm CO2.

Obviously wrong. More layers means more resistance to conduction. A wool blanket makes you warmer by increasing resistance to conduction, not by blocking more IR. Same with the atmosphere.

How TF. would 15μm IR make it through that?

It doesn't. Congratulations on figuring out what all the scientists already knew.

You, Crick and the rest of the AGW advocates should get your story straight what causes man made global warming.

Your inability to understand AGW theory, as demonstrated again here, is only your problem. It doesn't reflect badly on us at all.

E= 1/2 + 2 watts/ m^2 because the reflected energy had to "go somewhere" when I was talking about how much light the oceans reflect depending on the angle of incidence.

CO2 re-emits light in all directions, but the WUWEI photons that "hit CO2 molecule objects" cant`t even make it through transparent glass beads that scatter light in all directions.

I'm sure you consider that some sort of great victory, but we all see it as your usual way of deflecting by babbling about some issue that has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Wuwei]

Ok, each day the O2 and N2 warms by convection during the day, right? Maybe even at night too, right? How much does it warm up and how much is lost during the day or night? Is all of the heating of the 99% of the atmosphere - by convection - lost each and every day? Or is there some heat or energy that was left over and was not lost?

Maybe latent is a better term than residual.

Yes, day and night O2 and N2 are continually being warmed by earth convection and thermal radiation. The O2 and N2 are unable to absorb the earth's thermal radiation directly, but the GHG's can, and since the are thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere the GHG's heat all the atmosphere. The heat loss at the top of the atmosphere is largely constant day and night. Of course at night we loose the influx of solar energy so it gets colder and the blanketing effect of GHG's keeps most of the heat retained in the atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

Ding-

I don't know if this is the answer you were looking for. The amount of energy going into the atmosphere from the surface, and the similar amount leaving the TOA, is a tiny fraction of the total energy contained by the atmosphere.

It is the total energy that is the source of blackbody radiation that increases the average surface temp. The GHGs just enhance the effect.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Hey pisschugger, are you still sticking with your hilariously stupid theory that detailed IR cameras work entirely by thermocouples heating up? At pixel level?

I think that had everyone busting a gut. You're just a profoundly stupid human being.

All you have to do is go out and look at the specs hairball...what people are laughing at is you for not being bright enough to do so before you make claims.....but then you are in good company...Dr Spencer...Ian...and all the other people who told you that IR moves spontaneously from cool to warm...

 

[SSDD]

Ding-

I don't know if this is the answer you were looking for. The amount of energy going into the atmosphere from the surface, and the similar amount leaving the TOA, is a tiny fraction of the total energy contained by the atmosphere.

It is the total energy that is the source of blackbody radiation that increases the average surface temp. The GHGs just enhance the effect.

Only in so far as they add mass to the atmosphere.