What the science says

[IanC]

I would be happy to answer that....as soon as you explain where you think the energy goes that is absorbed by CO2 but not released.

Try to focus

I stated it was absorbed in the oceans.

So you are saying that IR emitted by the surface and absorbed by CO2 is then transported to the oceans somehow. Would you mind expanding on the part where it travels to the oceans?

yeppers.

So, does it return from the atmosphere by, ahem, backradiation? So far you have given no clue as to how it is transported to the oceans.

convection.

Are you just throwing out the first thing that comes to your mind????

Explain how convection captures CO2 specific IR (that would directly escape to space without the presence of CO2) and transports it into the oceans. You aren't making sense. Are there some steps that you are leaving out ?

 

[SSDD]

[


I would be happy to answer that....as soon as you explain where you think the energy goes that is absorbed by CO2 but not released.

CO2 lacks the capacity to retain energy...all that is absorbed is then given up.

Exactly! Now we are getting somewhere.

The excited CO2 molecules give up their energy to the atmosphere. Of course the atmosphere is also giving energy to other CO2 molecules and exciting them. A constant interchange of energy from potential to kinetic, affected by the lapse rate, until the density of the air is thin enough that CO2 emissions can actually escape without being reabsorbed.

1 in a billion ian...i in a billion...the rest is convection....radiation plays almost no part in energy transfer in the lower atmosphere

 

[Crick]

Does it convect to space SID?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does it convect to space SID?

JC once claimed CO2 escapes into space.

 

[SSDD]

Does it convect to space SID?

So in addition to being completely unable to make any sense of a graph...you are unable to read even short simple sentences and comprehend what they say...here, let me type the sentence again for you...this time I will use large, easy to see letters, and some pretty colors for you......skidmark...

radiation plays almost no part in energy transfer in the lower atmosphere

 

[Crick]

Good. So you admit that the process is controlled entirely by radiative transfer to space. Well, that's a start.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good. So you admit that the process is controlled entirely by radiative transfer to space. Well, that's a start.

Is that his roundabout admission that CO2 does slow the loss of heat to space?
Takes a lot longer for "warm" CO2 to rise high enough to radiate to space than for the IR to
move from the surface to space.

 

[SSDD]

Good. So you admit that the process is controlled entirely by radiative transfer to space. Well, that's a start.

And the only part CO2 and other radiative gasses play in the lower atmosphere is to hasten energy to space...non radiative gasses are the blanket...as they only move energy by convection...radiative gasses are holes in the blanket which allow energy to reach space much more quickly than it would by conduction alone.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good. So you admit that the process is controlled entirely by radiative transfer to space. Well, that's a start.

And the only part CO2 and other radiative gasses play in the lower atmosphere is to hasten energy to space...non radiative gasses are the blanket...as they only move energy by convection...radiative gasses are holes in the blanket which allow energy to reach space much more quickly than it would by conduction alone.

And the only part CO2 and other radiative gasses play in the lower atmosphere is to hasten energy to space...

Which is why we see rapid night time cooling in desert areas. DERP!

non radiative gasses are the blanket...as they only move energy by convection

Yup. A blanket that allows IR to escape directly into space.

You're actually getting dumber the longer the post.

 

[miketx]

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal

1. the highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons showing NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE

These satellite data say you're wrong. Or that you're lying.

These balloon data say you're wrong. Or that you're lying.

Why don't you show us this "highly correlated" shite you've been babbling about post after post after post?

2. ocean raw data shows NO WARMING in the oceans

What data would that be? Because, these data:

say that you're full of shite. Or that you're lying.

3. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica adds at least 80 billion tons of new ice every year

The largest factor in sea level rise is steric expansion from the heating just demonstrated. Seas are also rising from meltwater from the world's glaciers and Antarctica and Greenland. Zwally is STILL the only scientist to conclude that Antarctica's mass balance is positive. More than a dozen other studies conclude that Greenland and Antarctica, particularly the western peninsula, are melting.

4. Antarctic Sea Ice continues to grow, setting 5 new all time record highs since O took office

Sea ice which was formerly Thwaites Glacier, Pine Island Glacier, Haynes, Smith, Pope and Kohler Glaciers.

5. the warmers cannot answer the question "why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?"

Jesus, is this the result of some sort of traumatic brain injury? There is a continent at the South Pole surrounded by oceans. There is an ocean at the North Pole surrounded by continents. How stupid do you have to be to think that's some great fucking mystery?

6. we continue to set a new all time record duration for no Cat 3 strikes on the US every day, with almost 200 years of data on that subject

Notice anything here numbnuts?

Indeed, there is unequivocal evidence to believe Global Warming is 100% fraud

Then let us SEE this "unequivocal evidence"

those behind it should be PROSECUTED for fraud and treason.

Treason? On what grounds, you ignorant ass?

Oh My Fucking God! Squiggly lines on the internet! Stop the presses stop the presses! Which way the white women! Full speed ahead! Let them eat cake! Yarrrrhrhrgrhrgrhrgrgh!

 

[IanC]

Does it convect to space SID?

So in addition to being completely unable to make any sense of a graph...you are unable to read even short simple sentences and comprehend what they say...here, let me type the sentence again for you...this time I will use large, easy to see letters, and some pretty colors for you......skidmark...

radiation plays almost no part in energy transfer in the lower atmosphere

You guys are being unfair to SSDD. He brought up an important point, and while he stated it incorrectly, it still needs to be addressed.

Roughly 1/4 of the 400w radiated from the surface escapes through the atmospheric window directly to space at the speed of light. Hardly 'plays almost no part'.

Roughly 1/8 of the 400w radiated from the surface is absorbed in a band that only reacts with CO2. That energy does not escape directly to space at the speed of light.

This is CO2's part in the mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect. Personally I cannot understand why anyone would deny the GHE or CO2's role in it.

As I have stated many times in the past, there is a bottleneck at the surface. Most of the radiation cannot freely escape so it finds another pathway. Evaporation cools the surface, moist air is lighter than dry air so it rises, it then cools from the lapse rate and condenses into clouds and precipitation releasing the latent heat from phase change. A lot of energy has been transported away from the surface to a point where it can more easily escape to space by radiation.

Even Trenberth's Cartoon acknowledges that almost half of the surface energy takes this 'elevator' up. Adding more GHGs shunts more energy into this pathway. BUT the surface temperature must rise at least slightly otherwise the energy would ALREADY be taking this pathway. Nature finds the most efficient route to shed energy.

 

[IanC]

Good. So you admit that the process is controlled entirely by radiative transfer to space. Well, that's a start.

And the only part CO2 and other radiative gasses play in the lower atmosphere is to hasten energy to space...non radiative gasses are the blanket...as they only move energy by convection...radiative gasses are holes in the blanket which allow energy to reach space much more quickly than it would by conduction alone.

This comment is garbled by undefined pronouns.

Without GHGs all of the surface radiation would escape directly to space and it would be very cold.

 

[jc456]

yeppers.

So, does it return from the atmosphere by, ahem, backradiation? So far you have given no clue as to how it is transported to the oceans.

convection.

IR is transported by convection?

I wasn't talking about IR. Why would you think that since I didn't state such a thing?

I wasn't talking about IR. Why would you think that since I didn't state such a thing?

Because if you follow the comments back up the thread, you'd see that IanC asked you a question about IR and you never told him what happened to the IR.

Well I did

 

[IanC]

So, does it return from the atmosphere by, ahem, backradiation? So far you have given no clue as to how it is transported to the oceans.

convection.

IR is transported by convection?

I wasn't talking about IR. Why would you think that since I didn't state such a thing?

I wasn't talking about IR. Why would you think that since I didn't state such a thing?

Because if you follow the comments back up the thread, you'd see that IanC asked you a question about IR and you never told him what happened to the IR.

Well I did

Please post the comment number where you did. I must have missed it somehow.

 

[IanC]

an interesting view on the radiation budget. Does the Trenberth et al “Earth’s Energy Budget Diagram” Contain a Paradox?

the values are always different for any pathway but the overall directions are similar

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing...........you AGW guys are getting schooled on a thread you've all started. fAiL.........but might I remind you. Nobody out there is caring about the science.

 

[westwall]

Good. So you admit that the process is controlled entirely by radiative transfer to space. Well, that's a start.

Really? That's all you've got? UV interaction with the oceans has nothing to do with it? Long wave IR's inability to penetrate the skin of the water sails right over your tiny little head?

 

[westwall]

an interesting view on the radiation budget. Does the Trenberth et al “Earth’s Energy Budget Diagram” Contain a Paradox?

the values are always different for any pathway but the overall directions are similar

That graph is truly a piece of shit. It tries to make an incredibly complex engine (climate) into a simple diagram. A diagram that doesn't even really come close to reality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Im laughing...........you AGW guys are getting schooled on a thread you've all started. fAiL.........but might I remind you. Nobody out there is caring about the science.

Any AGW guys in particular?

 

[Old Rocks]

Good. So you admit that the process is controlled entirely by radiative transfer to space. Well, that's a start.

Really? That's all you've got? UV interaction with the oceans has nothing to do with it? Long wave IR's inability to penetrate the skin of the water sails right over your tiny little head?

LOL So, if IR cannot penetrate the skin of water it cannot warm it? LOL So that rock that you just burned your hand on in July in the desert must have been heated by magic. LOL Because the IR did not penetrate the skin of the rock.