CO2 Follows Temperature

[IanC]

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L07706, 5 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2009GL037527

Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiation

Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiation
Kevin E. Trenberth

National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

John T. Fasullo

National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Global climate models used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) are examined for the top‐of‐atmosphere radiation changes as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases build up from 1950 to 2100. There is an increase in net radiation absorbed, but not in ways commonly assumed. While there is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback), this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures. Instead the main warming from an energy budget standpoint comes from increases in absorbed solar radiation that stem directly from the decreasing cloud amounts. These findings underscore the need to ascertain the credibility of the model changes, especially insofar as changes in clouds are concerned.
Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiation

this is another of those squirrelly papers that doesnt appear to make much sense if you follow it through to its natural conclusion.

somehow ghg's warm the temps and cause more humidity which lessen (???) the clouds and allow more radiation to escape (P~T^4). sounds like Lindzen's Iris Theory which was roundly criticized. these are negative feedbacks which arent stated as such. perhaps Trenberth is creating an escape hatch for when the whole CAGW edifice comes tumbling down. he wouldnt be the first.

 

[SSDD]

I guess you just have to laugh at the irony of a skeptic arguing the warmists' side.

Are you always so superior whether the attitude is warranted or not? Why laugh at anyone? If you don't want to talk, simply say so and I will ignore your posts in the future.

why would you see a significant drop in outgoing radiation?

Personally, I never thought that you should, but THIS paper was heralded for quite some time as the final nail in the skeptic's argument because it proported to demonstrate a decrease in outgoing longwave as CO2 increased. Clearly that claim was wrong as is about every other claim by warmists and luke warmists.

The truth is ian, that even if CO2, the magical gas could somehow delay the exit of OLR from the atmosphere, the result would be undetectably small and would be completely and effectively overwhelmed by conduction and convection. That is one of the great flaws in the warmist and lukewarmist thinking.....the omission of conduction and convection when those two are the movers and shakers till you reach the highest atmosphere and obviously there is no heat buildup there.

I think the skeptics should continue the work of showing that the feedbacks are far less than the models predict, and probably negative, rather than scoff at the notion that CO2 does anything at all.

Skeptics should work to tear down every falsehood in the greenhouse hypothesis, beginning with the numerous magical properties ascribed to CO2. So long as people continue to believe that they know for a fact that CO2 can do the amazing things that it is claimed to be able to do, the hypothesis will not die. Why should it, after all, when it is believed to be "known for a fact" that it can do what it is believed to be able to do. Erase the magic, and magical thinking attached to CO2 and the beast dies and then maybe all, or at least some of that grant money can be put to better uses like environmental problems that we actually have some control over. So long as luke warmists support the existence of the magic only claiming the magic to be less powerful, that money will continue to flow to the true believers where it is flushed down a drain from which it can never be recovered. Lukewarmism is like making a protest vote for a third party candidate who has no chance. Maybe you get to feel good on principle, but in fact, you give the election to the greater of two evils.

every change has an effect however small and when you deny an obvious change (increased CO2) and an obvious effect (scattered longwave radiation) then you lose the attention of ordinary people who will dismiss everything you say because the one thing 'they know for a fact' is being ridiculed.

First, scattering is a cooling mechanism. There exists a long, and rich history of people in the right losing the attention and being scoffed at by the believers of the day. And each and every one of those "scoffers" thought that they knew the facts.

For future reference Ian.....do you know for a fact that CO2 causes a bottleneck, however small, of outgoing LW radiation or is it just a belief that you hold because it is a mental picture that you have and "understand"?

And again, if you really are, or think you are so superior that it is a chore for you to talk, just say so and I will ignore you in the future....no hard feelings.

 

[IanC]

I guess you just have to laugh at the irony of a skeptic arguing the warmists' side.

Are you always so superior whether the attitude is warranted or not? Why laugh at anyone? If you don't want to talk, simply say so and I will ignore your posts in the future.


.

I have to admit my first inclination is to tell you to fuck off.

obviously you have no experience in trying to change people's ideas in the real world or your personal skills wouldnt be so bad.

 

[editec]

A new study by Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, and Jan-Erik Solheim, published in the journal Global and Planetary Change finds that (surprise surprise) CO2 follows changes in temperature as opposed to the common belief by warmists that CO2 drives temperatures. This study finds the lag between temperature and changes in atmospheric CO2 holds true on the millineum, century, yearly, and monthly time scales.

ScienceDirect.com - Global and Planetary Change - The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Sad that this would actually require a study since ice cores have been telling us this very thing for decades in spite of the beliefs and wishes of warmists.

So we are informed by the vast majority of science.

And on its face, the evidence does seem rather compelling, too.

I am NOT qualified to judge the validity of the science or the statistical methodology behind that science, though.

Are you?

 

[Old Rocks]

And the Arctic Sea Ice and the alpine glaciers just keep right on melting as the CO2 level rises.

Simple fact. There are only two things that in the long term affect the temperature. One is the amount of energy we get from the sun. The other is the amount we retain.The amount that we get from the sun has been declining slightly for the last two solar cycles. The amount we retain has been increasing because of the amount of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

And the Arctic Sea Ice and the alpine glaciers just keep right on melting as the CO2 level rises.

Simple fact. There are only two things that in the long term affect the temperature. One is the amount of energy we get from the sun. The other is the amount we retain.The amount that we get from the sun has been declining slightly for the last two solar cycles. The amount we retain has been increasing because of the amount of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

do you think that there is any correlation between the solar Grand Maximum of the 20th century and the rise in temps? now that the sun seems less active the temperatures arent rising anymore either.

 

[SSDD]

I have to admit my first inclination is to tell you to fuck off.

obviously you have no experience in trying to change people's ideas in the real world or your personal skills wouldnt be so bad.

You aren't exactly demonstrating admirable personal skills yourself there Ian, and it was you who initiated the less than cordial tone as well and made the conversation somehow "personal". But feel free to follow your first inclination as you are just text on a screen to me anyway.

 

[SSDD]

And the Arctic Sea Ice and the alpine glaciers just keep right on melting as the CO2 level rises.

Simple fact. There are only two things that in the long term affect the temperature. One is the amount of energy we get from the sun. The other is the amount we retain.The amount that we get from the sun has been declining slightly for the last two solar cycles. The amount we retain has been increasing because of the amount of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

But that ice and those glaciers were melting thousands and thousands of years before the industrial age ever began.

Can you tell me what makes you believe the present warming period should somehow stop before the temperatures equal at least those of the medieval warm period if not the roman warm period or even the holocene maximum?

And the simple fact is that at present, we have not even begun to scratch the surface as far as knowing what drives the earth's climate. What we have done is gather a good bit of hard evidence to support a claim that CO2 is at best a minor player if it has any role at all in the earth's climate.

 

[konradv]

Maximum solubility decreases, but that's only relevant, if we're near maximum. If we're not near maximum, increasing ocean temps would not effect how much atmospheric CO2 becomes solubilized.

What? Absorption not dependent on temp? Especially SURFACE temp? 'splain this to me..

Temp not only influences absorption, but it drives how much can be retained. And not just at Maximum?

I thought the whole deal of describing CO2 concentration in liquid by gas pressure (pC02) was to specify the variation wrt both temp and pressures on both sides of the interface.

The temp tells you the maximum amount that can be absorbed. If CO2 is not at maximum, then the temperature is irrelevant and water can continue to absorb CO2. Water will only lose CO2 if the concentration exceeds the maximum for that temperature, assuming the partial pressure of CO2 is low enough. The assumption of my statement is that CO2 is going up, as in has since the advent of the Industrial revolution, so that would not contribute to CO2 loss, but the opposite.

 

[flacaltenn]

Maximum solubility decreases, but that's only relevant, if we're near maximum. If we're not near maximum, increasing ocean temps would not effect how much atmospheric CO2 becomes solubilized.

What? Absorption not dependent on temp? Especially SURFACE temp? 'splain this to me..

Temp not only influences absorption, but it drives how much can be retained. And not just at Maximum?

I thought the whole deal of describing CO2 concentration in liquid by gas pressure (pC02) was to specify the variation wrt both temp and pressures on both sides of the interface.

The temp tells you the maximum amount that can be absorbed. If CO2 is not at maximum, then the temperature is irrelevant and water can continue to absorb CO2. Water will only lose CO2 if the concentration exceeds the maximum for that temperature, assuming the partial pressure of CO2 is low enough. The assumption of my statement is that CO2 is going up, as in has since the advent of the Industrial revolution, so that would not contribute to CO2 loss, but the opposite.

Clearly for fixed pCO2 at the interface -- there is a temperature at which absorption will revert to emission (and vice versa). But the temperature at all relevant pressure gradients will also determine the RATE of absorption or release.

You might be looking at the steady state solution that holds the pCO2 at equilibrum given a fixed water temp and calling that a MAXIMUM. But any change in water temp will thereafter cause a different rate of exchange to occur. EG -- Higher transient temp from "equilibrium" --> higher rate of emission..

THis is what happens when you have upwelling deep cold water with higher pCO2 reaching the surface. It's that transient temp that causes a high release rate of CO2 as gas.

 

[flacaltenn]

I guess you just have to laugh at the irony of a skeptic arguing the warmists' side.

Are you always so superior whether the attitude is warranted or not? Why laugh at anyone? If you don't want to talk, simply say so and I will ignore your posts in the future.

why would you see a significant drop in outgoing radiation?

Personally, I never thought that you should, but THIS paper was heralded for quite some time as the final nail in the skeptic's argument because it proported to demonstrate a decrease in outgoing longwave as CO2 increased. Clearly that claim was wrong as is about every other claim by warmists and luke warmists.

The truth is ian, that even if CO2, the magical gas could somehow delay the exit of OLR from the atmosphere, the result would be undetectably small and would be completely and effectively overwhelmed by conduction and convection. That is one of the great flaws in the warmist and lukewarmist thinking.....the omission of conduction and convection when those two are the movers and shakers till you reach the highest atmosphere and obviously there is no heat buildup there.

I think the skeptics should continue the work of showing that the feedbacks are far less than the models predict, and probably negative, rather than scoff at the notion that CO2 does anything at all.

Skeptics should work to tear down every falsehood in the greenhouse hypothesis, beginning with the numerous magical properties ascribed to CO2. So long as people continue to believe that they know for a fact that CO2 can do the amazing things that it is claimed to be able to do, the hypothesis will not die. Why should it, after all, when it is believed to be "known for a fact" that it can do what it is believed to be able to do. Erase the magic, and magical thinking attached to CO2 and the beast dies and then maybe all, or at least some of that grant money can be put to better uses like environmental problems that we actually have some control over. So long as luke warmists support the existence of the magic only claiming the magic to be less powerful, that money will continue to flow to the true believers where it is flushed down a drain from which it can never be recovered. Lukewarmism is like making a protest vote for a third party candidate who has no chance. Maybe you get to feel good on principle, but in fact, you give the election to the greater of two evils.

every change has an effect however small and when you deny an obvious change (increased CO2) and an obvious effect (scattered longwave radiation) then you lose the attention of ordinary people who will dismiss everything you say because the one thing 'they know for a fact' is being ridiculed.

First, scattering is a cooling mechanism. There exists a long, and rich history of people in the right losing the attention and being scoffed at by the believers of the day. And each and every one of those "scoffers" thought that they knew the facts.

For future reference Ian.....do you know for a fact that CO2 causes a bottleneck, however small, of outgoing LW radiation or is it just a belief that you hold because it is a mental picture that you have and "understand"?

And again, if you really are, or think you are so superior that it is a chore for you to talk, just say so and I will ignore you in the future....no hard feelings.

Seems to me that convection and conduction ARE the primary "bottleneck".. It's the blanket on the bulb -- that Ian was referring to. It doesn't "delay" the exit of OLR -- it ANNIHILATES OLR and turns it to heat.

Those Thermodynamic interactions are the key to MEASURING increasing temps in the troposphere. CO2 just serves as the convertor from EM radiation to heat. Because OLR IS EM not heat. (I vaguely remember that "Fields and Waves" was a different class from "Thermo")

Any greenhouse gas is a greenhouse gas because of it's unique ability to allow incoming EM radiation to pass, but to block OLR and RETAIN the heat from absorption of the EM - IR.

Now -- think about WHY "that" paper was wrong. Why the amount of OLR might NOT decrease as the CO2 builds up at Mauna Loa... Where were they looking? Was there an albedo change? Is there just ONE expected global value for updwelling IR emissions? Or could it be lower water vapor as that main factor? Scattering? ALL OF THE ABOVE?

Doesn't mean that CO2 (or H2O) is NOT warming the lower troposphere to some extent..

It simply IS.

Just a footnote here. IanC is the MOST diplomatic poster in this forum. He's often TOO diplomatic for my tastes..

 

[IanC]

I guess you just have to laugh at the irony of a skeptic arguing the warmists' side.

Are you always so superior whether the attitude is warranted or not? Why laugh at anyone? If you don't want to talk, simply say so and I will ignore your posts in the future.




Personally, I never thought that you should, but THIS paper was heralded for quite some time as the final nail in the skeptic's argument because it proported to demonstrate a decrease in outgoing longwave as CO2 increased. Clearly that claim was wrong as is about every other claim by warmists and luke warmists.

The truth is ian, that even if CO2, the magical gas could somehow delay the exit of OLR from the atmosphere, the result would be undetectably small and would be completely and effectively overwhelmed by conduction and convection. That is one of the great flaws in the warmist and lukewarmist thinking.....the omission of conduction and convection when those two are the movers and shakers till you reach the highest atmosphere and obviously there is no heat buildup there.



Skeptics should work to tear down every falsehood in the greenhouse hypothesis, beginning with the numerous magical properties ascribed to CO2. So long as people continue to believe that they know for a fact that CO2 can do the amazing things that it is claimed to be able to do, the hypothesis will not die. Why should it, after all, when it is believed to be "known for a fact" that it can do what it is believed to be able to do. Erase the magic, and magical thinking attached to CO2 and the beast dies and then maybe all, or at least some of that grant money can be put to better uses like environmental problems that we actually have some control over. So long as luke warmists support the existence of the magic only claiming the magic to be less powerful, that money will continue to flow to the true believers where it is flushed down a drain from which it can never be recovered. Lukewarmism is like making a protest vote for a third party candidate who has no chance. Maybe you get to feel good on principle, but in fact, you give the election to the greater of two evils.

every change has an effect however small and when you deny an obvious change (increased CO2) and an obvious effect (scattered longwave radiation) then you lose the attention of ordinary people who will dismiss everything you say because the one thing 'they know for a fact' is being ridiculed.

First, scattering is a cooling mechanism. There exists a long, and rich history of people in the right losing the attention and being scoffed at by the believers of the day. And each and every one of those "scoffers" thought that they knew the facts.

For future reference Ian.....do you know for a fact that CO2 causes a bottleneck, however small, of outgoing LW radiation or is it just a belief that you hold because it is a mental picture that you have and "understand"?

And again, if you really are, or think you are so superior that it is a chore for you to talk, just say so and I will ignore you in the future....no hard feelings.

Seems to me that convection and conduction ARE the primary "bottleneck".. It's the blanket on the bulb -- that Ian was referring to. It doesn't "delay" the exit of OLR -- it ANNIHILATES OLR and turns it to heat.

Those Thermodynamic interactions are the key to MEASURING increasing temps in the troposphere. CO2 just serves as the convertor from EM radiation to heat. Because OLR IS EM not heat. (I vaguely remember that "Fields and Waves" was a different class from "Thermo")

Any greenhouse gas is a greenhouse gas because of it's unique ability to allow incoming EM radiation to pass, but to block OLR and RETAIN the heat from absorption of the EM - IR.

Now -- think about WHY "that" paper was wrong. Why the amount of OLR might NOT decrease as the CO2 builds up at Mauna Loa... Where were they looking? Was there an albedo change? Is there just ONE expected global value for updwelling IR emissions? Or could it be lower water vapor as that main factor? Scattering? ALL OF THE ABOVE?

Doesn't mean that CO2 (or H2O) is NOT warming the lower troposphere to some extent..

It simply IS.

Just a footnote here. IanC is the MOST diplomatic poster in this forum. He's often TOO diplomatic for my tastes..

thanks for your kind words flac

 

[IanC]

why I believe it is foolish to categorically deny that CO2 has an effect on surface temperature and why it is detrimental to the skeptical case to deny obvious physical mechanisms.

simplest case. the surface emits a photon with a frequency that can interact with a CO2 molecule (roughly 8% of the total). the most efficient cooling happens when that photon escapes directly into space at the speed of light. if that photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule and re-emitted towards space where it escapes then the speed has slowed considerably compared to c, therefore less efficient. an insulating effect. I could stop there, the mechanism is obvious even if the effect is imperceptably tiny.

next case- the photon is absorbed then re-emitted towards the surface and doesnt escape at all. one half of the 8% of IR capable of interacting with CO2 which gets absorbed and immediately re-emitted doesnt leave but gets plowed back into the surface (slightly less due to the curvature of the earth and the altitude at re-emmision). this mechanism is obvious and of a significant size.

the third case is where the photon is absorbed, causing the CO2 molecule to vibrate, and before it emits the same frequency photon, there is a collision with another molecule in the atmosphere which affects both the speed of the colliding molecules (temperature) and/or emits corresponding radiation (also near 50/50 up/down) according to Planck's Law.

until someone can prove to me that these things do not happen then I dont think we should scoff at people who are concerned with the build up of CO2. in the past I have looked for quantification of these various pathways but the information is not easily found. it is certainly less than 4% (half of 8%), and more importantly we are only talking about the recent increase of CO2 on a previously equilibrated system, which is known to decrease its effect logarithmically.

 

[SSDD]

Seems to me that convection and conduction ARE the primary "bottleneck".. It's the blanket on the bulb -- that Ian was referring to. It doesn't "delay" the exit of OLR -- it ANNIHILATES OLR and turns it to heat.

So if the blanket (CO2) annihlates the OLR and turns it to heat, then outgoing OLR measurements should be lessened. They aren't.

The problem with thinking of greenhouse gasses as a blanket is that a blanket is a fixed quantity. Throw it over the heat source and wait a while for equliibrium to be reached then the outgoing OLR will resume. If you are always throwing more, or less blankets on the heat source, then that original amount of OLR won't be reached and the number will be fluxuating....usually decreasing with the addition of more blankets (CO2).

Those Thermodynamic interactions are the key to MEASURING increasing temps in the troposphere. CO2 just serves as the convertor from EM radiation to heat. Because OLR IS EM not heat. (I vaguely remember that "Fields and Waves" was a different class from "Thermo")

Which is why it was predicted that there would be a hotspot in the troposphere that would be the fingerprint of man's domination of the climate. No hot spot...no fingerprint....no magical warming gas.

Any greenhouse gas is a greenhouse gas because of it's unique ability to allow incoming EM radiation to pass, but to block OLR and RETAIN the heat from absorption of the EM - IR.

Show me an experiment that proves a greenhouse gas's ability to block and retain heat in an open atmosphere. That is a hell of a property to claim but be unable to demonstrate experimentally.

Now -- think about WHY "that" paper was wrong. Why the amount of OLR might NOT decrease as the CO2 builds up at Mauna Loa... Where were they looking? Was there an albedo change? Is there just ONE expected global value for updwelling IR emissions? Or could it be lower water vapor as that main factor? Scattering? ALL OF THE ABOVE?

If CO2 had the amazing properties ascribed, and it is constantly increasing in the atmosphere, there would be a slight decrease in OLR over time, not an increase.

Doesn't mean that CO2 (or H2O) is NOT warming the lower troposphere to some extent..

It simply IS.

The only warming gasses cause is due to pressure. If temperature is rising, then the warming is coming from somewhere else or the pressure is increasing.

Just a footnote here. IanC is the MOST diplomatic poster in this forum. He's often TOO diplomatic for my tastes..

None the less, he switched the conversation from cordial to personal. Not that I am thin skinned, or above jabbing my opponent mind you, but it is a poor diplomat that shifts gears from cordial to personal without just cause.

 

[SSDD]

why I believe it is foolish to categorically deny that CO2 has an effect on surface temperature and why it is detrimental to the skeptical case to deny obvious physical mechanisms.

I never said catergorically that CO2 has no effect on surface temperature. You apparently are so ready for a fight that you are willing to ascribe claims to me that I never made. I said that if it (CO2) did have an effect, it would be so small as to be meaningless and would be no more than a very small, nearly undetectable bit of noise.

simplest case. the surface emits a photon with a frequency that can interact with a CO2 molecule (roughly 8% of the total). the most efficient cooling happens when that photon escapes directly into space at the speed of light. if that photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule and re-emitted towards space where it escapes then the speed has slowed considerably compared to c, therefore less efficient. an insulating effect. I could stop there, the mechanism is obvious even if the effect is imperceptably tiny.

Slowed considerably? Does that photon slow to below the speed of light in the interim between absorption and emission while it is in the CO2 molecule? If it does, how does this happen? If it doesn't, how long does it take to pass through a CO2 molecule at the speed of light? Slowed considerably is a term with no meaning in that context.

next case- the photon is absorbed then re-emitted towards the surface and doesnt escape at all. one half of the 8% of IR capable of interacting with CO2 which gets absorbed and immediately re-emitted doesnt leave but gets plowed back into the surface (slightly less due to the curvature of the earth and the altitude at re-emmision). this mechanism is obvious and of a significant size.

First, are we talking heat, or radiation? If we are talking radiation, then in so far as warming the atmosphere goes, the net change in temperature is zero. If we are talking about heat, then we run afoul of the second law of thermodynamics which states pretty clearly that heat won't spontaneously move from cool to warm. And yes, I have heard the arguments regarding net heat flow but they are theoretical and not proven experimentally.

the third case is where the photon is absorbed, causing the CO2 molecule to vibrate, and before it emits the same frequency photon, there is a collision with another molecule in the atmosphere which affects both the speed of the colliding molecules (temperature) and/or emits corresponding radiation (also near 50/50 up/down) according to Planck's Law.

All of these cases are dependent upon photons existing as discrete particles which is questionable.

until someone can prove to me that these things do not happen then I dont think we should scoff at people who are concerned with the build up of CO2. in the past I have looked for quantification of these various pathways but the information is not easily found. it is certainly less than 4% (half of 8%), and more importantly we are only talking about the recent increase of CO2 on a previously equilibrated system, which is known to decrease its effect logarithmically.

No one need prove to you that those things do not happen. All you need do is look at the real world and see whether or not the things that are claimed to result from those things are happening or not. Observation tells us that they are not. No hot spot in the troposphere, no reduction in OLR. Long term static, and perhaps even slightly cooling global temps in spite of increased atmospheric CO2. Atmospheric CO2 has been far higher than it is at present with none of the disasterous effects claimed that even 450 or 500ppm might cause. The predicted result of those things happening are just not evident so either they are happening but the result is vanishingly small or the claims of such things happening are the result of misunderstood, or misapplied physics and they are simply not happening regardless of what the models say. In either event, no real effect is being observed in the atmosphere or the climate and the excessive waste of money on a non existent or an incapable greenhouse effect continues.

There may be a theoretical case to be made in a world where radiation is the dominant means of heat transfer but we don't live in that world and observation keeps telling us daily that such an argument fails in this world.

 

[editec]

All I know is this:

If CO2 is not largely responsible for the apparent rise in gloabl temperature, then we're looking at one hell of a coincidence.

 

[SSDD]

All I know is this:

If CO2 is not largely responsible for the apparent rise in gloabl temperature, then we're looking at one hell of a coincidence.

What do you mean coincidence. The warming trend that the earth is experiencing began 14,000 years ago. In that time, the polar ice caps have melted back nearly 2,000 miles and sea level has risen about 600 feet.

I don't even think it could be called coincidence that we emerged as the far dominant species on this planet during a warm period. We obviously didn't do much in the way of advancement during the hard freeze.

What is coincidence is the fact that the figures resulting from the greenhouse effect hypothesis roughly match the temperatures on earth. When those same physics and models are applied to other planets in the solar system with atmospheres, the resulting temperatures aren't even close. That alone should tell you that the hypothesis and resulting models are wrong unless you believe that an entirely different set of physical laws are in operation outside the boundries of this planet.

 

[IanC]

Quote: Originally Posted by IanC
simplest case. the surface emits a photon with a frequency that can interact with a CO2 molecule (roughly 8% of the total). the most efficient cooling happens when that photon escapes directly into space at the speed of light. if that photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule and re-emitted towards space where it escapes then the speed has slowed considerably compared to c, therefore less efficient. an insulating effect. I could stop there, the mechanism is obvious even if the effect is imperceptably tiny.
SSDD said-Slowed considerably? Does that photon slow to below the speed of light in the interim between absorption and emission while it is in the CO2 molecule? If it does, how does this happen? If it doesn't, how long does it take to pass through a CO2 molecule at the speed of light? Slowed considerably is a term with no meaning in that context.

are you saying that you dont believe that the CO2 molecule absorbs the photon and becomes excited in one or the other of two vibrational states before it re-emits an identical photon in a random direction as it returns to ground state? perhaps you just think that that process takes exactly zero time. if it does take some finite amount of time then the average speed from when the photon leaves the surface until the same type of photon leaves the atmosphere has declined significantly if it has been absorbed and re-emitted.

 

[IanC]

Quote: Originally Posted by IanC
next case- the photon is absorbed then re-emitted towards the surface and doesnt escape at all. one half of the 8% of IR capable of interacting with CO2 which gets absorbed and immediately re-emitted doesnt leave but gets plowed back into the surface (slightly less due to the curvature of the earth and the altitude at re-emmision). this mechanism is obvious and of a significant size.
SSDD said- First, are we talking heat, or radiation? If we are talking radiation, then in so far as warming the atmosphere goes, the net change in temperature is zero. If we are talking about heat, then we run afoul of the second law of thermodynamics which states pretty clearly that heat won't spontaneously move from cool to warm. And yes, I have heard the arguments regarding net heat flow but they are theoretical and not proven experimentally.

we are talking radiation. the CO2 molecule does not test the universe for its temperature before it emits a photon in a random direction.

as far as the supposed violation of the SLoT, the returning radiation does not heat the surface, it obstructs the loss of heat. the ordered shortwave radiation from the sun does the 'heating'. a thermos doesnt heat or cool its contents, it only slows the movement towards equilibrium.

 

[IanC]

Quote: Originally Posted by IanC
the third case is where the photon is absorbed, causing the CO2 molecule to vibrate, and before it emits the same frequency photon, there is a collision with another molecule in the atmosphere which affects both the speed of the colliding molecules (temperature) and/or emits corresponding radiation (also near 50/50 up/down) according to Planck's Law.
SSDD said- All of these cases are dependent upon photons existing as discrete particles which is questionable.

photons have the properties of both particles and waves, therefore they are obviously neither.

are you questioning that matter radiates according to its temperature as well?