What the science says

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.

You all crack me up, can't produce one observed CO2 affects temperature. Thanks

Maybe you can post that chart again, the one that has nothing to do with observed temperatures

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance.

I gave you a novel way of considering the radiation budget of the atmosphere. It is closely analogous to CO2's role. And yet you ignore the concepts and simply repeat a stupid statement for the nth time that adds little to nothing to the discussion.

Do you disagree that adding a substance that absorbs the 10 micron radiation which currently escapes directly to space would warm the atmosphere?

If you disagree, where would the energy go?

If you agree, why do you think the 15 micron band is any different, except that there actually is a substance in the atmosphere which is absorbing it?

Perhaps you mean to say that although CO2 originally had an effect, the recent increase doesn't cause a meaningful difference. While that may be close to being true, the denial of any effect by CO2 is obviously false.

I don't actually expect an adult response from you. I don't think you have the required intelligence necessary to be curious about how things work.

convection and conduction based on heat from the sun. Thermal. What part of that has you confused? See, you can't prove any of your radiative bull crap. You can't. The more I read, the more I find that line as bullshit. More and more. If it were so apparent, it could be captured in an experiment as I've always pointed out. It, is untested. CO2 absorbs good for it, put it in a tube and it doesn't get any hotter than the air around it. It also doesn't heat the air around it. It also hasn't been tested to hold the heat for any extended time. NO ONE has completed that experiment. It simply mumbo jumbo.

hey an experiment for you, put an ice cube out on a table top and time how long it will take to melt from the warmth of the room. Now put two ice cubes next to each other and see if it takes a longer melt time, or is a shorter melt time, or the same melt time. Then talk to me.

convection and conduction based on heat from the sun.

The Sun heats the Earth by convection and conduction? DERP!

Sun heats the planet, obviously you don't thanks

Sun heats the planet,

How does it do that? Explain your feelings.

 

[jc456]

Exactly.

Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.

You all crack me up, can't produce one observed CO2 affects temperature. Thanks

You don't understand the absorption spectrum I posted?
Well, that's certainly a shocker!

It's obvious you don't understand it isn't observed. Thanks

View attachment 88529

This wasn't observed? Did they just make it up?

Yep

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

dude, no such thing,

Absorption spectrum still over your head?
Is that because CO2 doesn't absorb IR?
Or it does, but magically only re-emits to space, because...smart photons?

Greenhouses create humidity

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".

and that warms the greenhouse with the plastic or glass enclosure.

Why would humidity "warm the greenhouse"?

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".

I'll go with this one:

Greenhouse Humidity Control | Relative Humidity Control | Cropking
"Plants not only contain a large proportion of water, they move large volumes of water through their tissues. Although water is used in photosynthesis, most of the water taken in by a plant is used in transpiration. That is, the water is taken in by the roots and evaporated through the leaves into the air. This process cools the plant. The relative humidity in the air can affect the flow of water through the plant: the higher the relative humidity, the more slowly transpiration occurs. If environmental changes that affect the transpiration rate are rapid enough, plant tissue damage can occur."

Congratulations! Now that you learned that greenhouses don't "create humidity", let's discuss your
ignorance of absorption spectrums and greenhouse gases.

sure they do, you just haven't figured out what a greenhouse is supposed to do. And that is to grow plants. The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity. But hey, you go on thinking it's CO2 and I'll keep laughing at you.

The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity

Excellent! The greenhouse doesn't "create humidity", it keeps water vapor from escaping!

You're at about the first grade level now. Big improvement!!!

Now, back to your ignorance of greenhouse gases and absorption spectrums.

It does it holds in moisture creating humidity which i stated, thanks

It does it holds in moisture

Yes it does. So why is it warmer in a greenhouse?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.

You all crack me up, can't produce one observed CO2 affects temperature. Thanks

You don't understand the absorption spectrum I posted?
Well, that's certainly a shocker!

It's obvious you don't understand it isn't observed. Thanks

View attachment 88529

This wasn't observed? Did they just make it up?

Yep

Why would they do that? How do you know it's not from observations?

 

[jc456]

You all crack me up, can't produce one observed CO2 affects temperature. Thanks

Maybe you can post that chart again, the one that has nothing to do with observed temperatures

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance.

I gave you a novel way of considering the radiation budget of the atmosphere. It is closely analogous to CO2's role. And yet you ignore the concepts and simply repeat a stupid statement for the nth time that adds little to nothing to the discussion.

Do you disagree that adding a substance that absorbs the 10 micron radiation which currently escapes directly to space would warm the atmosphere?

If you disagree, where would the energy go?

If you agree, why do you think the 15 micron band is any different, except that there actually is a substance in the atmosphere which is absorbing it?

Perhaps you mean to say that although CO2 originally had an effect, the recent increase doesn't cause a meaningful difference. While that may be close to being true, the denial of any effect by CO2 is obviously false.

I don't actually expect an adult response from you. I don't think you have the required intelligence necessary to be curious about how things work.

convection and conduction based on heat from the sun. Thermal. What part of that has you confused? See, you can't prove any of your radiative bull crap. You can't. The more I read, the more I find that line as bullshit. More and more. If it were so apparent, it could be captured in an experiment as I've always pointed out. It, is untested. CO2 absorbs good for it, put it in a tube and it doesn't get any hotter than the air around it. It also doesn't heat the air around it. It also hasn't been tested to hold the heat for any extended time. NO ONE has completed that experiment. It simply mumbo jumbo.

hey an experiment for you, put an ice cube out on a table top and time how long it will take to melt from the warmth of the room. Now put two ice cubes next to each other and see if it takes a longer melt time, or is a shorter melt time, or the same melt time. Then talk to me.

convection and conduction based on heat from the sun.

The Sun heats the Earth by convection and conduction? DERP!

Sun heats the planet, obviously you don't thanks

Sun heats the planet,

How does it do that? Explain your feelings.

Nope, not until you post something observed

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance.

I gave you a novel way of considering the radiation budget of the atmosphere. It is closely analogous to CO2's role. And yet you ignore the concepts and simply repeat a stupid statement for the nth time that adds little to nothing to the discussion.

Do you disagree that adding a substance that absorbs the 10 micron radiation which currently escapes directly to space would warm the atmosphere?

If you disagree, where would the energy go?

If you agree, why do you think the 15 micron band is any different, except that there actually is a substance in the atmosphere which is absorbing it?

Perhaps you mean to say that although CO2 originally had an effect, the recent increase doesn't cause a meaningful difference. While that may be close to being true, the denial of any effect by CO2 is obviously false.

I don't actually expect an adult response from you. I don't think you have the required intelligence necessary to be curious about how things work.

convection and conduction based on heat from the sun. Thermal. What part of that has you confused? See, you can't prove any of your radiative bull crap. You can't. The more I read, the more I find that line as bullshit. More and more. If it were so apparent, it could be captured in an experiment as I've always pointed out. It, is untested. CO2 absorbs good for it, put it in a tube and it doesn't get any hotter than the air around it. It also doesn't heat the air around it. It also hasn't been tested to hold the heat for any extended time. NO ONE has completed that experiment. It simply mumbo jumbo.

hey an experiment for you, put an ice cube out on a table top and time how long it will take to melt from the warmth of the room. Now put two ice cubes next to each other and see if it takes a longer melt time, or is a shorter melt time, or the same melt time. Then talk to me.

convection and conduction based on heat from the sun.

The Sun heats the Earth by convection and conduction? DERP!

Sun heats the planet, obviously you don't thanks

Sun heats the planet,

How does it do that? Explain your feelings.

Nope, not until you post something observed

Besides the absorption spectrum that you don't understand?

 

[jc456]

convection and conduction based on heat from the sun. Thermal. What part of that has you confused? See, you can't prove any of your radiative bull crap. You can't. The more I read, the more I find that line as bullshit. More and more. If it were so apparent, it could be captured in an experiment as I've always pointed out. It, is untested. CO2 absorbs good for it, put it in a tube and it doesn't get any hotter than the air around it. It also doesn't heat the air around it. It also hasn't been tested to hold the heat for any extended time. NO ONE has completed that experiment. It simply mumbo jumbo.

hey an experiment for you, put an ice cube out on a table top and time how long it will take to melt from the warmth of the room. Now put two ice cubes next to each other and see if it takes a longer melt time, or is a shorter melt time, or the same melt time. Then talk to me.

convection and conduction based on heat from the sun.

The Sun heats the Earth by convection and conduction? DERP!

Sun heats the planet, obviously you don't thanks

Sun heats the planet,

How does it do that? Explain your feelings.

Nope, not until you post something observed

Besides the absorption spectrum that you don't understand?

It's not observed with temperatures that I requested. I can't help your lack of knowledge

 

[SSDD]

Your position is challenged

Which position of mine is being challenged?

Observed

Observed what?

Exactly

Exactly.

Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.

That would depend entirely on whether or not you injected enough of the so called GHG into the atmosphere to substantially alter its weight...the greenhouse hypothesis is a failure...let me ask again...how many predictive failures do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped?

 

[SSDD]

jc, do you actually not understand that graphic? Your response is always that you want temperature data. You can get some from Arrhenius experiment over a century back. That graphic is a measure of the energy from solar radiation that CO2 absorbs versus the frequency of that radiation. It shows that CO2 absorbs a large chunk of infrared light (radiant heat) that is not absorbed by any other gases in the atmosphere (like water vapor, methane and others). Please tell us whether or not your understand that point.

Can you show any evidence that absorption and emission equals warming?...no..of course you can't because none exists...you just believe.

 

[SSDD]

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance..

And I have always been bewildered by the pride you take in your belief in the magical properties of so called greenhouse gasses.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance..

And I have always been bewildered by the pride you take in your belief in the magical properties of so called greenhouse gasses.

your belief in the magical properties

Is it the smart photons that throw you off?

 

[IanC]

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance..

And I have always been bewildered by the pride you take in your belief in the magical properties of so called greenhouse gasses.

Science predicts the quantity and quality of surface radiation. Measurements confirm it.

Science predicts the quantity and quality of surface radiation that will be absorbed by the atmosphere. Measurements confirm it.

If all the 400w/m2 radiated from the surface escaped directly to space it would quickly and dramatically cool.

You say gas laws estimate temperature gradients and I agree somewhat. What you don't seem to grasp is that atmosphere heights and temperatures are connected to energy inputs and outputs plus the amount of stored energy. More total energy equals higher and warmer. Less total energy equals lower and cooler. Measurements show that the atmosphere fluffs up during daylight and relaxes again during nighttime.

 

[polarbear]

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance..

And I have always been bewildered by the pride you take in your belief in the magical properties of so called greenhouse gasses.

Science predicts the quantity and quality of surface radiation. Measurements confirm it.

Science predicts the quantity and quality of surface radiation that will be absorbed by the atmosphere. Measurements confirm it.

If all the 400w/m2 radiated from the surface escaped directly to space it would quickly and dramatically cool.

You say gas laws estimate temperature gradients and I agree somewhat. What you don't seem to grasp is that atmosphere heights and temperatures are connected to energy inputs and outputs plus the amount of stored energy. More total energy equals higher and warmer. Less total energy equals lower and cooler. Measurements show that the atmosphere fluffs up during daylight and relaxes again during nighttime.

IanC, measurement especially those done by satellites which monitor OLR should have shown a decrease as CO2 went up if AGW were a fact.
Well according to the NOAA data it has not :

Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180oW and 179oE (0oE and 359.5oE) and 90oN and 90oS since June 1974 according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The thin blue line represents the monthly value, while the thick red line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to the running 3 yr average. The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010. Last diagram update: 13 February 2011.

• Click here to download the entire series of NOAA monthly OLR-values since June 1974. Choose first 'OLR' then 'Select field'.
  
  
  
  
  

 

[mamooth]

IanC, measurement especially those done by satellites which monitor OLR should have shown a decrease as CO2 went up if AGW were a fact.

No, that's wrong.

Total OLR should be rather stable, being energy in and energy out have to equalize. It's only in the GHG bands that OLR should be down. In the other bands, it will go up a bit to compensate.

Now, there will be a very small decrease as, bout 0.6 W/M^2, but that's too small to show up in the very noisy plot you showed, and most of it happened before the start of the plot.

 

[polarbear]

IanC, measurement especially those done by satellites which monitor OLR should have shown a decrease as CO2 went up if AGW were a fact.

No, that's wrong.

Total OLR should be rather stable, being energy in and energy out have to equalize. It's only in the GHG bands that OLR should be down. In the other bands, it will go up a bit to compensate.

Now, there will be a very small decrease as, bout 0.6 W/M^2, but that's too small to show up in the very noisy plot you showed, and most of it happened before the start of the plot.

Oh really according to your favorite site "skeptical science" the temperature increase did not happen before the start of the plot as you put it but smack during the time of the NOAA ORL graph:
Global Warming in a Nutshell
Global Warming in a Nutshell

Take a look what it shows for 1980 to 2000+

 

[IanC]

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance..

And I have always been bewildered by the pride you take in your belief in the magical properties of so called greenhouse gasses.

Science predicts the quantity and quality of surface radiation. Measurements confirm it.

Science predicts the quantity and quality of surface radiation that will be absorbed by the atmosphere. Measurements confirm it.

If all the 400w/m2 radiated from the surface escaped directly to space it would quickly and dramatically cool.

You say gas laws estimate temperature gradients and I agree somewhat. What you don't seem to grasp is that atmosphere heights and temperatures are connected to energy inputs and outputs plus the amount of stored energy. More total energy equals higher and warmer. Less total energy equals lower and cooler. Measurements show that the atmosphere fluffs up during daylight and relaxes again during nighttime.

IanC, measurement especially those done by satellites which monitor OLR should have shown a decrease as CO2 went up if AGW were a fact.
Well according to the NOAA data it has not :

Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180oW and 179oE (0oE and 359.5oE) and 90oN and 90oS since June 1974 according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The thin blue line represents the monthly value, while the thick red line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to the running 3 yr average. The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010. Last diagram update: 13 February 2011.

• Click here to download the entire series of NOAA monthly OLR-values since June 1974. Choose first 'OLR' then 'Select field'.
  
  
  
  

Polar Bear - I think you forgot to read the caption, even though you took the time to post it. That graph is for the atmospheric window not CO2 specific bands.

The pre-1980 portion looks to be more uncertain because there is a continuity break where the next satellite did not overlap with the one it was replacing.

The graph shows about 2w increase from 1980-2010. Temps rose about 1/2C. S-B says 5 or 6w increase for 1C if I remember correctly. The AW occupies the fat part of the curve. So I don't see how this graph proves or disproves anything. What were you expecting me to see?

 

[IanC]

is this more like what you were expecting? lowered total OLR?

it comes from here CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity . short time period, large differences depending on temp dataset, long extrapolation. not really something I can put too much faith in. still better than climate models though.

 

[IanC]

The CERES Calculated Surface Datasets

Willis does a check on CERES calculations using TAO data.

(dont tell jc and SSDD, it got downwelling longwave measurements in it)

 

[IanC]

Willis pokes holes in the IPCC explanation for the Pause. and fleshes out many of the ideas I have posted here on why runaway warming cannot happen.

CO2 and CERES

 

[SSDD]

I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance..

And I have always been bewildered by the pride you take in your belief in the magical properties of so called greenhouse gasses.

Science predicts the quantity and quality of surface radiation. Measurements confirm it.

Science predicts the quantity and quality of surface radiation that will be absorbed by the atmosphere. Measurements confirm it.

If all the 400w/m2 radiated from the surface escaped directly to space it would quickly and dramatically cool.

You say gas laws estimate temperature gradients and I agree somewhat. What you don't seem to grasp is that atmosphere heights and temperatures are connected to energy inputs and outputs plus the amount of stored energy. More total energy equals higher and warmer. Less total energy equals lower and cooler. Measurements show that the atmosphere fluffs up during daylight and relaxes again during nighttime.

And CO2 plays precisely no part in any of it....it isn't a coincidence that the US standard atmosphere predicts the temperature here without greenhouse gasses or magical fudge factors.