Challenge to the Skeptics: What's Your Theory?

[flacaltenn]

WireBender:

Of course it's gonna re-radiate some of it. Maybe MOST of it at IR wavelengths. That's the "TRANSMISSION Quotient" shown in the graph. The question isn't how much filtering protection the CO2 offers from the sun's rays, but it's ability to deflect EM (IR) radiation FROM the surface -- back TO the surface or directed downwards in the atmosphere. OR to retain heat in the molecules themselves from either incident sunlight or surface reflected IR.

In the case of ::

Quote: Originally Posted by flacaltenn
I find it bizarre that you can't impart heat to CO2 ("or ANY OTHER GAS, other than water vapor"). It makes that opening scene in MacBeth with all the witches pure magic... How does it get from frozen witches brew to spewing around the stage?

WireBender:

I never said that you couldn't impart heat to the substance. I said that it wouldn't retain it.

Of course it "retains" it. Dry Ice warms and goes to it's vapor state. It only stays in gaseous state because it's RETAINING heat. At high altitude, the loss is pretty quick but that's thermodynamics driven. Just like the thermal diff that causes the stage effect for the witches.

Now here's the deal.. The heat can come from IR radiation OR it can come from any of the THERMAL transfer modes associated with heat transfer in materials. Even gases exchange heat thru conduction and convection for example (not just solids and liquids). I have many ways to make that Dry Ice smoke (by WARMING it)..

The question really goes back to your 1000W heater analogy. I can't CREATE additional heat from that heater, but could I INSULATE it with a gas that would marginally raise (say) the surface temp of that heater? I KNOW that's possible with a blanket because that's why the lawyers warn you in the instruction manual not to block the convection path of the heater. So given the fact that gases DO retain conductive/convective heat (not EM IR) -- I really don't see why you're so insistent on NO heat retention by the CO2. Any compound that can't "retain" heat is foreign to this universe..

BTW: those transmission curves I posted are not labeled for the transmission factors. But (100% - transmission factor) will give you an idea of heat energy retained.

 

[flacaltenn]

WireBender:

Here's a clever way of looking at JUST the Insulator problem... Turn off the sun.. It's nightime in the desert. NO incident NOTHING except moonlight and moonbats..

The principal source of infra red radiation is solar during the daytime highs (out of the solar constant of about 1390 W/m2 [1], Approximately 415 W/m2 [2] are in the infra red portion) and terrestrial during the night-time lows. Like all greenhouse agents CO2 absorbs some of this radiation and radiates it back in random directions. Including some back towards the source. Thus the effects of this absorption and re-radiation as measured on the ground will be different. The daytime highs will be lower and the night-time low will be higher than they would have been without the moderation of the atmospheric greenhouse agents including CO2. This method has an advantage in that it offers a way to separate heating due to greenhouse effects and that due to increased solar radiation. The focus is on how things cool rather than how they heat. The greatest greenhouse agent is water vapor. An arid environment, which by definition has a low water vapor content, displays a wider range of temperatures than non-arid locals do. The heating and cooling in the arid environment of New Mexico provides a good example of this effect. In addition this lower water vapor content should also help separate and isolate the greenhouse effects of CO2.

A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

There ya go.. Without water vapor present -- yet the surface doesn't assume absolute zero.. Guess there's SOME GAS acting like an insulator --- isn't there? And it's somewhat counterintuitive, but DAYTIME highs lower, NIGHTTIME lows higher IS the global warming effect that you would expect from atmospheric "heat filtering".. So forget the SUN, explain it to me in these terms. Because I just had a mental breakthru..

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW: That last link I posted is a DAMNED good refutation of the CO2/ GW linkage WireBender. I'm not trying to subvert your efforts here.. ALL of the references I've used actually bolster the skeptical side..

In particular, they derive a thermal inertia (TI) metric and their conclusion is:

It has been shown that the metric TI correlates well with the greenhouse effects of water vapor as indicated by precipitation. It was further demonstrated that TI could be used to discriminate between an increase in atmospheric thermal inertia (greenhouse effect) and an increase in input energy. This property was used to demonstrate that the warming trend between 1973 and 1994 was due to increases in input energy and not increases in thermal inertia. There was no significant correlation between the rise in CO2 and the TI metric.

The lack of correlation between the rise in CO2 and TI, suggest either the rise in CO2 has not appreciably increased any greenhouse effect, or atmospheric CO2 has not been increasing over New Mexico.

We're on the same side here. Just trying to refine my understanding..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

WireBender:

Here's a clever way of looking at JUST the Insulator problem... Turn off the sun.. It's nightime in the desert. NO incident NOTHING except moonlight and moonbats..

The principal source of infra red radiation is solar during the daytime highs (out of the solar constant of about 1390 W/m2 [1], Approximately 415 W/m2 [2] are in the infra red portion) and terrestrial during the night-time lows. Like all greenhouse agents CO2 absorbs some of this radiation and radiates it back in random directions. Including some back towards the source. Thus the effects of this absorption and re-radiation as measured on the ground will be different. The daytime highs will be lower and the night-time low will be higher than they would have been without the moderation of the atmospheric greenhouse agents including CO2. This method has an advantage in that it offers a way to separate heating due to greenhouse effects and that due to increased solar radiation. The focus is on how things cool rather than how they heat. The greatest greenhouse agent is water vapor. An arid environment, which by definition has a low water vapor content, displays a wider range of temperatures than non-arid locals do. The heating and cooling in the arid environment of New Mexico provides a good example of this effect. In addition this lower water vapor content should also help separate and isolate the greenhouse effects of CO2.

A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

There ya go.. Without water vapor present -- yet the surface doesn't assume absolute zero.. Guess there's SOME GAS acting like an insulator --- isn't there? And it's somewhat counterintuitive, but DAYTIME highs lower, NIGHTTIME lows higher IS the global warming effect that you would expect from atmospheric "heat filtering".. So forget the SUN, explain it to me in these terms. Because I just had a mental breakthru..

"Essentially no correlation was found between the assumed CO2 atmospheric concentrations and the observed greenhouse changes, whereas there was a strong correlation between TI and precipitation. Further it is shown that periods of increase in the mean temperature correspond to heat gain, not heat retention. It is concluded that either the assumed CO2 concentrations are incorrect or that they have no measurable greenhouse effect in these data."

 

[daveman]

WireBender:

Here's a clever way of looking at JUST the Insulator problem... Turn off the sun.. It's nightime in the desert. NO incident NOTHING except moonlight and moonbats..

The principal source of infra red radiation is solar during the daytime highs (out of the solar constant of about 1390 W/m2 [1], Approximately 415 W/m2 [2] are in the infra red portion) and terrestrial during the night-time lows. Like all greenhouse agents CO2 absorbs some of this radiation and radiates it back in random directions. Including some back towards the source. Thus the effects of this absorption and re-radiation as measured on the ground will be different. The daytime highs will be lower and the night-time low will be higher than they would have been without the moderation of the atmospheric greenhouse agents including CO2. This method has an advantage in that it offers a way to separate heating due to greenhouse effects and that due to increased solar radiation. The focus is on how things cool rather than how they heat. The greatest greenhouse agent is water vapor. An arid environment, which by definition has a low water vapor content, displays a wider range of temperatures than non-arid locals do. The heating and cooling in the arid environment of New Mexico provides a good example of this effect. In addition this lower water vapor content should also help separate and isolate the greenhouse effects of CO2.

A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

There ya go.. Without water vapor present -- yet the surface doesn't assume absolute zero.. Guess there's SOME GAS acting like an insulator --- isn't there? And it's somewhat counterintuitive, but DAYTIME highs lower, NIGHTTIME lows higher IS the global warming effect that you would expect from atmospheric "heat filtering".. So forget the SUN, explain it to me in these terms. Because I just had a mental breakthru..

"Essentially no correlation was found between the assumed CO2 atmospheric concentrations and the observed greenhouse changes, whereas there was a strong correlation between TI and precipitation. Further it is shown that periods of increase in the mean temperature correspond to heat gain, not heat retention. It is concluded that either the assumed CO2 concentrations are incorrect or that they have no measurable greenhouse effect in these data."

Nuh-UH!!

/Old Rocks

 

[wirebender]

Of course it's gonna re-radiate some of it. Maybe MOST of it at IR wavelengths. That's the "TRANSMISSION Quotient" shown in the graph. The question isn't how much filtering protection the CO2 offers from the sun's rays, but it's ability to deflect EM (IR) radiation FROM the surface -- back TO the surface or directed downwards in the atmosphere. OR to retain heat in the molecules themselves from either incident sunlight or surface reflected IR.

No energy from the atmosphere is radiated back to the surface. I have described the laws of physics that support my position and done the math out in public for anyone to critique. To date, no one has pointed out any math error on my part or any law of physics that I have misapplied. If you believe my math is wrong, then point out where I am mistaken, describe the laws of physics that support your stance and show me the math. Otherwise, repeating your opinion in the face of my mathematical proof doesn't carry much weight.

Of course it "retains" it. Dry Ice warms and goes to it's vapor state. It only stays in gaseous state because it's RETAINING heat. At high altitude, the loss is pretty quick but that's thermodynamics driven. Just like the thermal diff that causes the stage effect for the witches.

The gas itself does not retain heat. Show me the math if you believe it does. Dry ice "sublimes" at room temperature. It is an endothermic reaction but no heat is retained.

Now here's the deal.. The heat can come from IR radiation OR it can come from any of the THERMAL transfer modes associated with heat transfer in materials. Even gases exchange heat thru conduction and convection for example (not just solids and liquids). I have many ways to make that Dry Ice smoke (by WARMING it)..

Warming it does not mean that it retains the heat.

The question really goes back to your 1000W heater analogy. I can't CREATE additional heat from that heater, but could I INSULATE it with a gas that would marginally raise (say) the surface temp of that heater?

You could never raise the temperature of the heating element and in essence radiate more than 1000 watts from the heater. To do so violates the law of conservation of energy. Once again, if you believe you can acheive such a feat, describe the physical law that predicts it and show me the math. If you can do it, I can show you how we both can become billionaires in quick time.

I KNOW that's possible with a blanket because that's why the lawyers warn you in the instruction manual not to block the convection path of the heater. So given the fact that gases DO retain conductive/convective heat (not EM IR) -- I really don't see why you're so insistent on NO heat retention by the CO2. Any compound that can't "retain" heat is foreign to this universe..

Sorry, but you have apparently never actually performed a controlled experiment with a blanket.

"Human Body Emission

As all matter, the human body radiates some of a person's energy away as infrared light.

The net power radiated is the difference between the power emitted and the power absorbed:

Applying the Stefan Boltzman Law

The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m², and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.[ Skin temperature is about 33 °C, but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 °C when the ambient temperature is 20 °C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about

"

If you put a 20C blanket (which is colder) on a warmer 33C body, the surface temperature is going to reduce to about 28C. Heat flowed from the warmer body to the cooler blanket just as the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts.

It is true that the blanket will trap warm air between the body and itself, but that heat will not increase the temperature of the body.

BTW: those transmission curves I posted are not labeled for the transmission factors. But (100% - transmission factor) will give you an idea of heat energy retained.

The graph is labled pretty conspicuously total absorption and scattering. There is nothing there indicating heat retention, even for water vapor.

 

[wirebender]

WireBender:

Here's a clever way of looking at JUST the Insulator problem... Turn off the sun.. It's nightime in the desert. NO incident NOTHING except moonlight and moonbats..

The principal source of infra red radiation is solar during the daytime highs (out of the solar constant of about 1390 W/m2 [1], Approximately 415 W/m2 [2] are in the infra red portion) and terrestrial during the night-time lows. Like all greenhouse agents CO2 absorbs some of this radiation and radiates it back in random directions. Including some back towards the source. Thus the effects of this absorption and re-radiation as measured on the ground will be different. The daytime highs will be lower and the night-time low will be higher than they would have been without the moderation of the atmospheric greenhouse agents including CO2. This method has an advantage in that it offers a way to separate heating due to greenhouse effects and that due to increased solar radiation. The focus is on how things cool rather than how they heat. The greatest greenhouse agent is water vapor. An arid environment, which by definition has a low water vapor content, displays a wider range of temperatures than non-arid locals do. The heating and cooling in the arid environment of New Mexico provides a good example of this effect. In addition this lower water vapor content should also help separate and isolate the greenhouse effects of CO2.

There is no radiation of energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth. If you believe there is, ONCE AGAIN, describe the physical law that allows energy to radiate from a cool object to a warm object and show me the math.

A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

From your own study:

"Essentially no correlation was found between the assumed CO2 atmospheric concentrations and the observed greenhouse changes, whereas there was a strong correlation between TI and precipitation. Further it is shown that periods of increase in the mean temperature correspond to heat gain, not heat retention. It is concluded that either the assumed CO2 concentrations are incorrect or that they have no measurable greenhouse effect in these data."

 

[wirebender]

BTW: That last link I posted is a DAMNED good refutation of the CO2/ GW linkage WireBender. I'm not trying to subvert your efforts here.. ALL of the references I've used actually bolster the skeptical side..

We're on the same side here. Just trying to refine my understanding..

I am still waiting for some proof that downdwelling radiation is warming the earth. Any claim made that includes that little nugget is fatally flawed. Again, I showed my math out in public for anyone to critique. Thus far, I have been told I am wrong and called uneducated but to date, no one has pointed out any error on my part. The bottom line of my work says that no energy from the cooler atmosphere can make it to the earth because the EM field propagated by the earth determines the direction of energy flow.

If you like, I can provide you with a set of plans to make a small, inexpensive solar oven with which you can prove to yourself that downdwelling radiation is a fiction.

If you take a solar oven (parabolic dish) and aim it at the sky on a clear day towards the sun, you can heat up objects in the oven in quick time. If you aim that same solar oven towards a clear sky but away from the sun on a clear day, you can cool objects in the oven by several degrees.

This is exactly what the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts. The heat from the warmer object in the oven will radiate into the cooler atmosphere. If downdwelling radiation were reaching the earth and were actually causing the surface of the earth to warm, it would not be possible to cool an object by pointing a parabolic dish at that same radiation.

If you take your solar oven out at night and point it at a clear sky you can realise quite a bit more cooling and if the ambient temperature is less than 48.5 degrees, you can make ice over the course of a night. Downdwelling radiation is supposed to be happening day and night.

Describe a law of physics that would allow downdwelling radiation to warm the earth and at the same time, cool objects placed in a parabolic dish pointed at that radiation and as always, show me your math.

This constitues observable proof that downdwelling radiation is not happening. It isn't a thought experiment, or an appeal to complexity or authority. It is an actual repeatable experiment that proves that radiation is not coming down from the atmosphere and warming the earth.

 

[flacaltenn]

WireBender:

Here's a clever way of looking at JUST the Insulator problem... Turn off the sun.. It's nightime in the desert. NO incident NOTHING except moonlight and moonbats..

The principal source of infra red radiation is solar during the daytime highs (out of the solar constant of about 1390 W/m2 [1], Approximately 415 W/m2 [2] are in the infra red portion) and terrestrial during the night-time lows. Like all greenhouse agents CO2 absorbs some of this radiation and radiates it back in random directions. Including some back towards the source. Thus the effects of this absorption and re-radiation as measured on the ground will be different. The daytime highs will be lower and the night-time low will be higher than they would have been without the moderation of the atmospheric greenhouse agents including CO2. This method has an advantage in that it offers a way to separate heating due to greenhouse effects and that due to increased solar radiation. The focus is on how things cool rather than how they heat. The greatest greenhouse agent is water vapor. An arid environment, which by definition has a low water vapor content, displays a wider range of temperatures than non-arid locals do. The heating and cooling in the arid environment of New Mexico provides a good example of this effect. In addition this lower water vapor content should also help separate and isolate the greenhouse effects of CO2.

There is no radiation of energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth. If you believe there is, ONCE AGAIN, describe the physical law that allows energy to radiate from a cool object to a warm object and show me the math.

Not neccessary for flow in that direction. The atmosphere simply acts as a thermal resistance to nightime (for instance) radiation of surface heat from the earth. Works for water vapor and to a much lesser extent for CO2 and other gases. Anyone who doesn't live in a Park Ave condo knows that a winter night is warmer with cloud cover.

A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

From your own study:

"Essentially no correlation was found between the assumed CO2 atmospheric concentrations and the observed greenhouse changes, whereas there was a strong correlation between TI and precipitation. Further it is shown that periods of increase in the mean temperature correspond to heat gain, not heat retention. It is concluded that either the assumed CO2 concentrations are incorrect or that they have no measurable greenhouse effect in these data."

In that case the author is referring to DAYTIME heat gain (the forcing function of solar irradiance), not the heat loss (retention) at nightime. THat's the wonderful result of this study. To decouple the sun from the equation EXCEPT for the amount of heat that accumulates on the local surface during the daytime.

Look WireBender -- we're gonna disagree about your side-stepping my observations on Dry Ice by invoking "subliming" and or endothermic reactions (really man?). I expect you've seen it snowing CO2 and Methane since there's no heat retention in these gases.. But not on Earth.

And the human in a blanket experiment is flawed by not realizing that the blanket represents a thermal resistance that does not MAINTAIN at 20degC, but actually changes over time as heat energy in Whrs are continually pumped into the system. You'll find there is a thermal resistance to convection that causes a rise in BOTH the blanket and the body surface. I know this because I'm an electronics designer and often have to model complex convections thru metals and thermal grease and PC boards and you DON'T assume the INITIAL TEMPERATURES of those components will REMAIN at those temperatures over time. There will be an equilibrium if the forcing heat source is constant and the air flow is constant. And the END temperatures will be considerably higher.. BTW: Congrats on getting the human body Pwatts radiation correct and MOST of the other details! Doesn't jive with my wife's feet, but hey it's good estimating..

BUT --- overall -- your conclusions are STILL correct about any AGW models that assume the earth re-radiates TWICE the incident radiant energy are phony. And of course -- we agree that the CONCLUSION of all of this is correct. Which is that CO2 plays a MINUTE role if any in retaining surface heat. That study I found today is a treasure. It's a beautiful way of turning off the sun and studying the GreenHouse theory. And a reminder that IF the theory were correct it would lead to LOWER daytime highs and HIGHER nighttime lows in general which is completely intuitive once one is beaten with that point. The fact that they found NO correlation with the historical increasing CO2 levels leads me to the next post..

 

[flacaltenn]

Since the thread is "What's your Theory" -- I've got one.. Not formally researched, but vetted enough to be interesting..

Our ability to accurately study the sun's radiation has only existed for about 25 years. Before that time, any measurements of the radiance were flawed and convoluted by absorbtion of energy in the atmosphere. Scientists could only really GUESS at what the incident radiation at the top of the atmosphere looked like. It was the early solar space probes in the late 70's that allowed us to measure intensity and spectral distribution to any accuracy.

http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/FrohlichLeanSolIrdOverview1.pdf

Prior to the advent of space-based observations, astronomers and solar physicists
argued that the radiative output of the sun as a star changed in a substantial
way only on evolutionary time scales, and was invariant for all practical purposes
such as contemporary terrestrial effects. While it was recognized that the occurrence
of sunspots might change the irradiance at the Earth, their effect was considered
negligible because they cover at most a few tenths of a percent of the visible
solar disk.

Solar observations made with radiometers in space provided the rst unequivocal
evidence of solar irradiance variability on time scales from minutes to days and
months (Willson et al., 1981). The radiometers detected uctuations that sometimes
reached a few tenths percent and were associated with the movement of
sunspots across the face of the solar disk visible at Earth as the sun rotated on its
axis. Establishing the reality of 11-year cycle-related solar irradiance variations
proved more difcult. An overall decrease of the irradiance from the solar activity
maximum in 1980 to activity minimum in 1986 was recognized as being of solar
origin (rather than instrumental drift) only after the irradiance increased again
towards the next solar maximum.

It was ONLY 1986 when we 1st confirmed the 11 yr solar cycle. But still TODAY, we are not certain how subtle shifts in the SPECTRUM of solar radiation might interract with the atmosphere. EVERY component gas has relatively narrow freq (color) bands of absorption and re-radiation. And any small shifts in freq max/mins (color) from the sun would really screw with the "greenhouse" effect. So in short, we just STARTED to study this whole important issue.. I know these things for sure..

1) There's reason to believe that solar irradiance shifts are prevalent on a minute, daily, yearly and even longer basis.

2) The early AGW modeling only cared about solar Constant radiation and did not include ANY variability in that at all. I DON'T know how much solar modeling has been added, but it isn't sufficient.

3) I've run into MANY references to the fact that scientists are frantically studying satellite data and trying to come to conclusions about multi-decadenal stability of the solar spectrum. It will be years until we have a clue.

4) Anyone with a basic knowledge of astronomy knows that our "yellow" sun is on a multi-billion year path to turning orange and then onto a RED giant. I'm not proposing that the answer is that simple. BUT - it is a reminder that we ought not ASSUME that there ISN'T a cyclical or long-term change in how the sun's spectral output interacts with our atmosphere.

5) THere is a general assumption that there is a general UP-trend in the solar Constant (the total energy radiation number). Not enough to account for the total warming. At least not without an analysis of the interaction with the transmittance spectrum "filtering" effect of the atmosphere. See the next quote.

The extent
of longer-term, inter-cycle radiative output changes during past centuries has also
been speculated, based on cosmogenic isotope archives of solar activity and variations
in sun-like stars. However, the record of direct irradiance observations (» 25
years) is too short, as yet, to clarify the extent of the changes postulated.

And here is the techy version of my theory as presented in the link.

A balance between incoming solar radiation (which peaks in the visible spectrum,
Figure 3), referred to as short-wave, and outgoing terrestrial radiation (which
peaks in the vicinity of 10 ¹m), referred to as long-wave, establishes the equilibrium
temperature in the vicinity of the Earth's surface. The spectrum of the sun's
irradiance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere is therefore a critical determinant
of Earth's climate (Peixoto and Oort, 1992, e.g.). Both the solar spectral irradiance
variability and the processes that facilitate climate response to solar radiative
forcing are strongly wavelength dependent. There is considerable atmospheric
absorption in the ultraviolet (UV) and near infrared (IR) spectral regions, which
depletes certain spectral regions and produces a solar irradiance spectrum at the
Earth's surface (0 km in Figure 3) that differs substantially from the unattenuated
spectrum.

Since the sun's electromagnetic radiation is the primary source of energy for
the Earth, even small variations in irradiance have the potential to influence Earth's
climate and atmosphere, including the ozone layer (e.g. Cubasch and Voss, 2000;
Lean and Rind, 2001; Rind, 2002; Haigh, 2003). Furthermore, the extinction of
solar radiation by absorption and scattering in the Earth's atmosphere, and its re-
flection by land surfaces and oceans are strongly wavelength dependent, as are the
processes through which climate responds to radiative input changes, involving
atmospheric constituents such as water vapour and ozone, surface properties such
as sea ice and snow cover, and most importantly clouds (e.g. Meehl et al., 2003).
Reliable knowledge of solar-induced variations is essential for understanding and
attribution of anthropogenic influences on Earth's climate (Stott et al., 2000) and
changes of the ozone layer in the stratosphere (e.g. Geller and Smyshlyaev, 2002).
This requires the specification of solar spectral irradiance from 0.1 to 100 micron
on time scales of years to centuries.

Climate model simulations of Earth's surface temperature response to solar variability in past centuries require as input estimates of historical irradiance. However, on climatological and solar-evolution time scales the irradiance database acquired thus far is extremely short. This has motivated the development of variability models that reconstruct past irradiance changes, based on understanding the
sources of variability evident in the contemporary database and their relationship to solar activity indices. Most models adopt a speculated (but unproven) longterm
component which produces an irradiance increase in the range 0.2 to 0.4%

In response to such irradiance reconstructions, simulations of climate change in recent centuries suggest solar-related surface temperature changes between 0.2K (Crowley, 2000) and 0.4K
Solar Radiative Output and its Variability: Evidence and Mechanisms 9
(Rind et al., 1999, 2004), which are unable to account for global warming in the
past few decades. The state of the terrestrial upper atmosphere and ionosphere depends crucially
on solar irradiance in the extreme ultraviolet spectrum, which varies significantly
by factors of two to an order of magnitude during the solar cycle. These short
wavelength irradiance changes produce dramatic modulation of temperature and
densities that affect space weather (e.g. Lean, 1997). But since the contribution to
the total radiative output of solar irradiance variations at wavelengths shorter than
Ly-® is negligible, this spectral region is not considered here.

In other words, my buds, the science is NOT SETTLED. We don't know JACK about the most important part of the model. And there's a LOT of folks who are gonna look MIGHTY stupid in future science books. But you already knew that last part didn't you?????

 

[wirebender]

Not neccessary for flow in that direction. The atmosphere simply acts as a thermal resistance to nightime (for instance) radiation of surface heat from the earth. Works for water vapor and to a much lesser extent for CO2 and other gases. Anyone who doesn't live in a Park Ave condo knows that a winter night is warmer with cloud cover.

Of course it is necessary if you want to convince me. I did the math and the bottom line is that no, repeat , NO energy flows from a cool object to a warm object. If you believe it does, then show me the math. You guys who are convinced that backradiation is warming the earth never want to show the math or discuss the laws of physics that you believe might make it possible. It doesn't take a PhD to understand why. I had no problem at all doing the math and proving my claims because I knew beforehand what the second law of thermodynamics predicts and as a result knew what the application of the laws of physics would tell me.

Water vapor acts as a thermal blanket because water vapor can actually trap heat, CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses can not. You are correct that it has to do with phase change but only water can change to its various phases in the open atmosphere because only water has the capacity to actually trap heat withhout necessarily increasing in temperature.

In that case the author is referring to DAYTIME heat gain (the forcing function of solar irradiance), not the heat loss (retention) at nightime. THat's the wonderful result of this study. To decouple the sun from the equation EXCEPT for the amount of heat that accumulates on the local surface during the daytime.

The only retention is due to water vapor. And you can not remove the sun from the equation because it is still driving air currents etc.

Look WireBender -- we're gonna disagree about your side-stepping my observations on Dry Ice by invoking "subliming" and or endothermic reactions (really man?). I expect you've seen it snowing CO2 and Methane since there's no heat retention in these gases.. But not on Earth.

It is not a sidestep. It is the fact. Dry ice, and any other naturally occuring substance does not change phases in the open atmosphere because they can not absorb and retain heat. You can warm the other substances but they will not retain heat. Water does. Again, I can provide you with an experiment in which you can actually see water absorb energy but not increase in temperature. CO2 can't do that because it can't trap energy.

And the human in a blanket experiment is flawed by not realizing that the blanket represents a thermal resistance that does not MAINTAIN at 20degC, but actually changes over time as heat energy in Whrs are continually pumped into the system.

You interpetation is flawed because the experiment isn't about the blanket. It is about the body and the fact that no number of blanets can raise the temperature of the body; exactly as the second law of thermodynamics predicts. The body, or heater, or whatever you cover with a blanket or surround with reflectors is never going to radiate more energy as a result of the blankets. Energy is going to flow from the warmer surface to the colder blanket resulting in a net drop in temperature.

Here is a nifty little experiment that you can do on your kitchen counter to observe the truth of what I am saying. The one thing the guy fails to mention is that, accoding to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the surface temperature of the cubes will be constantly bleeding what heat they have into the blanket. He mentions that the blanket insulates from conduction and convection which I failed to note in my arguments so far.

Do Greenhouse Gases Act As Blankets? | Atmoz

Here is the bottom line guy. I want to see you, or anyone else explain ( and back it up with physics and show your math) how wrapping a -20 degree C blanket of atmosphere around a -18 degree C Earth causes the earth to heat up by a full 33 degrees C to +15 degrees C.


Relate your blanket hypothesis to the atmosphere and apply just a bit of logic.

You'll find there is a thermal resistance to convection that causes a rise in BOTH the blanket and the body surface.

There will be no rise in the temperature of the body. I just showed you the math. If you believe otherwise then show me your math. Explain how you bypass the second law of physics that states pretty clearly that the warmer surface is going to have to give up some of its heat to the colder blanket.

BUT --- overall -- your conclusions are STILL correct about any AGW models that assume the earth re-radiates TWICE the incident radiant energy are phony. And of course -- we agree that the CONCLUSION of all of this is correct. Which is that CO2 plays a MINUTE role if any in retaining surface heat. That study I found today is a treasure. It's a beautiful way of turning off the sun and studying the GreenHouse theory.

If you turn off the sun, both the earth and the atmosphere will soon drop to near absolute zero hust as quickly as the surface of the earth can radiate off any stored energy and as soon as the oceans which contain a great deal of heat can radiate off theirs, proving ultimately that the greenhouse effect is just so much bunkum.

 

[wirebender]

It was ONLY 1986 when we 1st confirmed the 11 yr solar cycle. But still TODAY, we are not certain how subtle shifts in the SPECTRUM of solar radiation might interract with the atmosphere.

The second law of thermodynamics and elementary chemistry tell us how subtle shifts in the spectrum will interact with the atmosphere. What we don't know is how those subtle shifts will effect the amount of incoming radiation to the earth's surface. The only material in the atmosphere that can actually trap and hold heat is water vapor, the rest will either be invisible to the changes or will absorb and emit the differences resulting in a zero sum.

EVERY component gas has relatively narrow freq (color) bands of absorption and re-radiation. And any small shifts in freq max/mins (color) from the sun would really screw with the "greenhouse" effect. So in short, we just STARTED to study this whole important issue.. I know these things for sure..

There is no greenhouse effect with the exception of water vapor.

2) The early AGW modeling only cared about solar Constant radiation and did not include ANY variability in that at all. I DON'T know how much solar modeling has been added, but it isn't sufficient.

Early AGW modeling as with present AGW modeling only cares about CO2 and as a result, the models are flawed beyond usefullness. They don't reflect the real world because CO2 can not, does not, never has, nor never will absorb and trap heat, nor will it ever radiate energy to the surface of the earth until such time as the atmosphere becomes warmer than the earth at which time, backradiation will not be a concern.

4) Anyone with a basic knowledge of astronomy knows that our "yellow" sun is on a multi-billion year path to turning orange and then onto a RED giant. I'm not proposing that the answer is that simple. BUT - it is a reminder that we ought not ASSUME that there ISN'T a cyclical or long-term change in how the sun's spectral output interacts with our atmosphere.

In other words, my buds, the science is NOT SETTLED. We don't know JACK about the most important part of the model. And there's a LOT of folks who are gonna look MIGHTY stupid in future science books. But you already knew that last part didn't you?????

As I said early on in our conversation, the earth has one energy source. If you want to see what drives the climate, you need only look as far as that energy source. As to interaction with the atmosphere, again, the 2nd law of thermodynamics and elementary chemistry predict interactions with the atmosphere already. It is the net input of energy that we are unable to predict.

 

[midcan5]

Worldview

Interesting way of posing the question. I'm not a gambler, I do gamble on occasion and often travel to the Atlantic City casinos and see the effect gambling has on some, its (money's) power to manage, and before smoking ban, on the atmosphere of very large rooms.

I have commuted by bicycle for over twenty five years and see the impact of cars, smog, heat, and big city life firsthand. I don't commute as often today as technology has allowed one to control the universe from a desk at home. A good thing in many ways.

Is climate changing, yes, there is no doubt in my experience, I've been here a while and see it. What else do we see, creeks, rivers, and lakes polluted, seas so sick you can't swim today, dead trees, and coated cars with the smog and the ash of fire. These things have improved a bit, but cancer rates, autism, mortality, and other results still exist. Remember smoking, oh that's right.

My point: money doesn't give a flying fluck if you live or die, if you breath fresh air, if your child is sick with asthma or the future goes dark. Do you gamble that all these particulates don't matter, ask a lung cancer victim. Ask a forest with dead trees. If we can ruin bits of the earth, we can ruin lots, seems reasonable. But money isn't reasonable, money is partisan and loves more money. So do we gamble on our children's lives, on the earth's future, on our source of life and very existence based on a gamble, managed by money or do we say what the fluck, even if we are wrong and science is wrong, and things improve by other means, why not cut the grass, mow the lawn, control the dust, clean the street, and think, damn, I won't be here again but others will.

 

[wirebender]

Worldview

Interesting way of posing the question. I'm not a gambler, I do gamble on occasion and often travel to the Atlantic City casinos and see the effect gambling has on some, its (money's) power to manage, and before smoking ban, on the atmosphere of very large rooms.

I have commuted by bicycle for over twenty five years and see the impact of cars, smog, heat, and big city life firsthand. I don't commute as often today as technology has allowed one to control the universe from a desk at home. A good thing in many ways.

Is climate changing, yes, there is no doubt in my experience, I've been here a while and see it. What else do we see, creeks, rivers, and lakes polluted, seas so sick you can't swim today, dead trees, and coated cars with the smog and the ash of fire. These things have improved a bit, but cancer rates, autism, mortality, and other results still exist. Remember smoking, oh that's right.

My point: money doesn't give a flying fluck if you live or die, if you breath fresh air, if your child is sick with asthma or the future goes dark. Do you gamble that all these particulates don't matter, ask a lung cancer victim. Ask a forest with dead trees. If we can ruin bits of the earth, we can ruin lots, seems reasonable. But money isn't reasonable, money is partisan and loves more money. So do we gamble on our children's lives, on the earth's future, on our source of life and very existence based on a gamble, managed by money or do we say what the fluck, even if we are wrong and science is wrong, and things improve by other means, why not cut the grass, mow the lawn, control the dust, clean the street, and think, damn, I won't be here again but others will.

I am all for cleaning up the environment. I live what most would call a pretty green lifestyle but I do it because I want to keep my little corner of the earth clean. I have no delusions at all that anything I might do is going to alter the climate. It wouldn't bother me a bit to see draconian prison sentences imposed on those who dump illegally and life sentences for second time offenders. I would favor tax breaks for research into more environmentally friendly fertilizers and insect control etc.

There is a distinct difference, however between cleaning up the environment and doing great damage to the world economy in the name of a politically motivated hoax.

 

[flacaltenn]

From the manuscript for your memoirs MidCan? I'd get into this with you -- but it's basically non-responsive to THIS thread anyways.. "cars coated with the smog and ash of fires" --- you're a hoot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

From the manuscript for your memoirs MidCan? I'd get into this with you -- but it's basically non-responsive to THIS thread anyways.. "cars coated with the smog and ash of fires" --- you're a hoot.

 

[flacaltenn]

WireBender;

Really don't want to discourage you from pondering the issue. And it's against my better judgement to pursue this issue with you.. As I said, your observation about CO2 not being a significant contributing factor to HEAT RETENTION is correct -- but NOT because it doesn't retain heat.. Here's a definitive Global Warming skeptic making that argument CORRECTLY... Please read it carefully...

WEBCommentary(tm) - Carbon Dioxide Emission Controls - Costly and Pointless

According to highly respected physicist (Prof. Emeritus, U. of CT, PhD) Howard C. Hayden (and others, including Australians Dr. Bob Carter and David C. Archibald), the ability of atmospheric CO2 to act as a greenhouse gas is severely curtailed at today's levels of atmospheric CO2. There are three key pieces of scientific fact that lead to this inescapable conclusion: (1) the primary greenhouse agent (water vapor, clouds) is responsible for the vast majority of "greenhouse" heat retention by absorbing and reflecting heat radiation in a large portion (but not all) of the IR; (2) CO2 has heat retention capability that overlaps the portion of the IR that water vapor already traps (no additional heat in that portion of the IR can be retained by adding either more water vapor or more CO2 to the atmosphere), so very little of reflected heat (in the IR) is available for CO2 to influence; and, (3) a property of CO2's heat retention capacity is that it diminishes logarithmically as quantity of atmospheric CO2 increases (i.e., it becomes less capable of affecting temperature). The heat retention capacity with the first 20 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere cannot be matched until another 400 ppm of CO2 are added! In other words, adding more CO2 has severely diminishing returns. Coupled with the small portion of the IR over which CO2 is meaningful (given water vapor has already saturated the heat retention ability of the atmosphere over the remainder of CO2's IR potential), the belief that atmospheric CO2 is a significant climate change force is simply unfounded in scientific fact. Indeed, the theory that atmospheric CO2 produced by human activity can be a significant climate force is absolutely refuted by scientific facts that are simply not in doubt.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter...

Listen up AGW buffs:

Now to be fair -- reviewing these comments as a scientific dude, the assumption that CO2 can't trap what water vapor already has filtered out at the mutual IR frequencies --- ASSUMES that water vapor is present in sufficient quantities LOCALLY to perform those functions. It COULD BE that for instance in the deserts or the portions of the atmosphere that are significantly dry that CO2 PREDOMINATES in that absorption; Thus STILL influencing a meaningless (IMHO) number like Global Average Surface Temperature.. But I don't know enough about MINIMUM water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere or their distribution to refute his claim.. I'll leave that to MidCan and OldRocks to hash out.. I'm SURE they'll want to take a pencil to that claim!

 

[flacaltenn]

From the manuscript for your memoirs MidCan? I'd get into this with you -- but it's basically non-responsive to THIS thread anyways.. "cars coated with the smog and ash of fires" --- you're a hoot.

Yeah -- kinda like that.. Disasters of biblical proportions.. We sweat equations and chemistry and science -- and they give us prose and fear...

 

[skookerasbil]

Im a skeptic.

My theory is that the global warming alarmists science is bogus.

And my theory wins in something called the real world...........which is not even debatable anywhere on the internet.........that is unless somebody can provide a link to show me America cares to ANY extent about the "grave threat".

Please...........give me something assholes................

Knock yourselves out..............

 

[wirebender]

Really don't want to discourage you from pondering the issue. And it's against my better judgement to pursue this issue with you.. As I said, your observation about CO2 not being a significant contributing factor to HEAT RETENTION is correct -- but NOT because it doesn't retain heat.. Here's a definitive Global Warming skeptic making that argument CORRECTLY... Please read it carefully...

I read carefully. I have been reading carefully for years. One thing you, and and the rest of the luke warmers have in common is that you never, I REPEAT NEVER, discuss the laws of physics upon which you make your assumptions, nor do you ever, I REPEAT, EVER show your work. Pointing to an article written by a professor who also doesn't show is work is no more and no less than an appeal to authority. An authority that I don't recognize because they don't discuss how they get around the laws of physics and validate their assumptions.

Again, I posted my reasoning, the laws of physics that support it and did the work in public for anyone to critique. You didn't point out a single error in my work nor any law of physics that I applied incorrectly. You hinted around being a science guy and strongly suggested that you can do the math and yet, you have pointed out no error in the work I have done. That being the case, I suppose my work is correct but flies in the face of what you choose to believe.

That's fine, but don't pretend you know something that I don't when you can't back it up with anything approaching hard science and aren't willing to show the work in public for scrutiny.