Does AR5 contain observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW

[Crick]

And is their some directional preference for molecular collisions in a gas?

The pseudo conversation you quote comes from: Gmail - Another dumb question from Dave
and is an exchange between a Dr David Burton and Professor William Happer of Princeton and the Bush Administration Energy Department. There are a few comments from readers. None of them are supportive of Dr Happer's views save those from Dave Burton. The thread includes the following:

From: T Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:03 PM
To: David Burton
Dave,
That is interesting, but not sure what the significance is to the discussion.
If greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere due to absorption of photons, and emission is dependent only on temperature, isn't the net effect the same? A warmer atmosphere emits more LW radiation.
[...snip...]

From: T Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:46 PM
To: David Burton
Dave,
I'm not sure that functionally there is any difference. If the ground emits more LW, the atmosphere warms and responds by emitting more LW. So they aren't independent. That is why the air warms during a sunny day, because of increased IR emissions from the ground.
[...snip...]


From: Robert G. Brown Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:29 PM
To: David Burton
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, David Burton wrote:

Dear Prof. Brown,
I think you might find the discussion below interesting. Prof. Happer's
reply to me is in [BLUE] below.

Yeah, I already know most of that stuff, and I'm pretty sure I have his
powerpoint presentation slides as well. I wasn't aware that there were
levels with lifetimes as long as 1 second -- that's actually pretty long
as atomic/molecular lifetimes go -- but those particular levels are then
going to be very sharp and not terribly responsive to non-resonant IR.
Either way, CO_2 doesn't "scatter" LWIR radiation, it absorbs it
(typically within a few meters, the mean free path at atmospheric
concentrations) and the energy is almost instantly transferred to the
surrounding air.

That doesn't mean that they don't radiate. It just means that their
radiation temperature is in equilibrium in the surrounding air, and it
isn't reradiating of a photon it absorbed, it is radiation initiated by
e.g. a collision with an air molecule.

That's why the greenhouse effect is basically logarithmic at this point.
It is long ago and overwhelmingly saturated. The atmosphere is
basically totally opaque in the CO_2 aborptive bands from sea level up
to maybe 8 or 9 km. Somewhere up there, where the air is much colder,
the molecules get far enough apart that LWIR emitted from the colder air
have a good chance of escaping without being reabsorbed. Increasing
CO_2 basically causes a very small variation of the average height and
-- due to the adiabatic lapse rate, which has little that is directly
due to the GHE itself -- therefore the temperature at which the
atmosphere becomes effectively transparent. The rate at which the
energy in this band emerges from the atmosphere is hence much less than
the rate at which it was originally emitted at the surface in this band.
Given constant average SWV (visible) delivery of radiation into the
system from the Sun, the ground temperature has to warm a tiny bit in
order to compensate for the loss of outgoing power in the CO_2 band.

Here is a curve indicating just how much explanatory power CO_2 has as
far as the temperatures over the last 164 years are concerned. Quite a
lot, actually. Happer might be interested in this curve. I think he
passed on the reference to Wilson and Gea-Banacloche in AJP (2012) which
reviews the CO_2-only no-feedback GHE and ends up concluding that the
no-feedback total climate sensitivity on doubling CO_2 ought to be
around 0.9 to 1.1C. I get an excellent fit to all of HadCRUT4 with TCS
around 1.8C,

If I add an entirely heuristic (but obvious) harmonic correction to the
fit to account for the 67 year whatever is causing the systematic
variation, the fit is even better, but the direct fit to the physically
motivated log only has enormous statistical explanatory power with a
residual standard error of 0.1 on 163 degrees of freedom and only two
fit parameters, one of which does nothing but line up the (arbitrary)
scale of the anomaly with that of the fit. There is, in fact, almost
nothing left to explain but noise and the harmonic term. Hard to see
why we need to bother with the world's most expensive, difficult,
chaotic, nonlinear, horribly underresolved models at all, if they cannot
beat a one parameter physically motivated radiative model that ignores
everything but CO_2.

rgb
[...snip...]

Robert G. Brown Robert G. Brown's Home Page
Duke University Dept. of Physics, Box 90305
Durham, N.C. 27708-0305
Phone: 1-919-660-2567 Fax: 919-660-2525

Attachments to this last comment:

 

[westwall]

The Greenhouse Effect predates the recent global warming Scare. This effect is necessary to explain the difference between solar input and the actual surface temperature. Roughly 30C difference.

There are well known physical processes that describe why this mechanism is in place, has to be in place.

The Greenhouse Effect is there, so any additional GHGs will add a warming influence. But there are many other factors involved as well which are not so easily understood or explained or quantified.

One huge factor is clouds. The uncertainty in the effect of timing and type of clouds totally swamps the effect of CO2. But that does not mean that CO2's contribution is not there, it is.

Catastrophic global warming depends not on the simply calculated CO2 influence but on the the highly speculative feedbacks in response. That is why the climate models continue to churn out incorrect numbers.

The best lies incorporate as much truth as possible. The best liars believe their lies. The climate science community has followed an error cascade to a point where they cannot easily back up from their mistakes. Political groups have run with the catastrophic predictions and made it even more difficult to correct the mistakes. The media one-sidedly reports predictions of Doom while ignoring any evidence of mistakes or exaggerations.

CRE evidence and observations show the IPCC model failure. A massive failure of -1.62 deg C of forcing per doubling of CO2. The models have failed miserably due to failed understanding of how the water cycle actually works.

Willis Eschenbach eviscerates AR5 Working group 5's work with empirical evidence..

Cloud Feedback

??????

I cannot see how that article is anything but supportive of my position over the last 5+ years of posting here.

Do you think that Willis denies the mechanism of greenhouse gas warming, or the ridiculous exaggerations of the IPCC feedbacks?

Willis simply does the math.. Uses the equations used in the IPCC modeling and compares it to empirical evidence. Willis understands the theoretical energy loss retardation of GHG's but he also questions their validity by showing how it simply doesn't add up.

What no one has been able to do is show, empirically, what CO2 is capable of in our atmosphere. Their so called "end of times trigger levels of CO2" can easily be shown a deception and outright lie by looking at the paleo records.

There still is no hard empirical evidence to suggest AGW is dangerous or if we can even influence natural changes or shifts beyond a localized influence.

The US-CRN shows no warming now for over 17 years and a cooling trend for 13 years. Quite the opposite of the UHI induced, localized changes, which affect only aggregate records such as our satellite records.

When we look at just areas of the planet not influenced by man directly the AGW premise falls apart, as it shows no warming despite increasing CO2 levels.. No correlation is even observed.

Natural factors can easily overwhelm CO2 influence. That does not mean that CO2 doesn't have an influence.

You saying CO2 is inconsequential is just as bad as the warmers saying CO2 will cause doom.

Not at all. CO2 has a vanishingly small effect in our atmosphere. It is there, but it is so minuscule that we have no instruments capable of separating it out from the background. That is pretty clear. Were it a more powerful influence it COULDN'T be so easily overwhelmed by natural factors.

 

[Crick]

You have now been presented with multiple direct measurements of downwelling radiation in which the CO2 emissions spectrum is clearly visible. That obviously refutes your statement.

 

[IanC]

The Greenhouse Effect predates the recent global warming Scare. This effect is necessary to explain the difference between solar input and the actual surface temperature. Roughly 30C difference.

There are well known physical processes that describe why this mechanism is in place, has to be in place.

The Greenhouse Effect is there, so any additional GHGs will add a warming influence. But there are many other factors involved as well which are not so easily understood or explained or quantified.

One huge factor is clouds. The uncertainty in the effect of timing and type of clouds totally swamps the effect of CO2. But that does not mean that CO2's contribution is not there, it is.

Catastrophic global warming depends not on the simply calculated CO2 influence but on the the highly speculative feedbacks in response. That is why the climate models continue to churn out incorrect numbers.

The best lies incorporate as much truth as possible. The best liars believe their lies. The climate science community has followed an error cascade to a point where they cannot easily back up from their mistakes. Political groups have run with the catastrophic predictions and made it even more difficult to correct the mistakes. The media one-sidedly reports predictions of Doom while ignoring any evidence of mistakes or exaggerations.

CRE evidence and observations show the IPCC model failure. A massive failure of -1.62 deg C of forcing per doubling of CO2. The models have failed miserably due to failed understanding of how the water cycle actually works.

Willis Eschenbach eviscerates AR5 Working group 5's work with empirical evidence..

Cloud Feedback

??????

I cannot see how that article is anything but supportive of my position over the last 5+ years of posting here.

Do you think that Willis denies the mechanism of greenhouse gas warming, or the ridiculous exaggerations of the IPCC feedbacks?

Willis simply does the math.. Uses the equations used in the IPCC modeling and compares it to empirical evidence. Willis understands the theoretical energy loss retardation of GHG's but he also questions their validity by showing how it simply doesn't add up.

What no one has been able to do is show, empirically, what CO2 is capable of in our atmosphere. Their so called "end of times trigger levels of CO2" can easily be shown a deception and outright lie by looking at the paleo records.

There still is no hard empirical evidence to suggest AGW is dangerous or if we can even influence natural changes or shifts beyond a localized influence.

The US-CRN shows no warming now for over 17 years and a cooling trend for 13 years. Quite the opposite of the UHI induced, localized changes, which affect only aggregate records such as our satellite records.

When we look at just areas of the planet not influenced by man directly the AGW premise falls apart, as it shows no warming despite increasing CO2 levels.. No correlation is even observed.

Natural factors can easily overwhelm CO2 influence. That does not mean that CO2 doesn't have an influence.

You saying CO2 is inconsequential is just as bad as the warmers saying CO2 will cause doom.

Not at all. CO2 has a vanishingly small effect in our atmosphere. It is there, but it is so minuscule that we have no instruments capable of separating it out from the background. That is pretty clear. Were it a more powerful influence it COULDN'T be so easily overwhelmed by natural factors.

we may be arguing from different standpoints.

I say that CO2 is an integral part of the Greenhouse Effect. if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere then the band(s) of IR specific to CO2 would directly escape to space at the speed of light. that energy would be gone, it would not be used to raise the energy of the atmosphere, it would no longer be available to be re-radiated by the atmosphere. the difference would be significant, and the surface would be much cooler.

you, on the other hand, seem to be saying that recent increase of CO2 has miniscule effect therefore CO2 can be ignored.


I agree that recent increases of CO2 have minor impact, and that other pathways mask that impact. but the total CO2 influence is large and the recent increase still has an influence even if it cannot be teased out of the background noise.

 

[IanC]

Careful Ian, he's an atmospheric physicist. And Willis Eschenbach! He's a... he's a... I guess he's a blogger with a BA in psychology. I can see why Billy would go that direction for some real expertise.

An awful lot of folks, more qualified than any of us, have been working on climate sensitivity for quite a few years. I really think the reality of transient response of the system as a whole (including those multipliers) cannot at this point be found to be below 3.0.

Someone, Reagan perhaps, said that liberals are dangerous because so much of what they 'know' simply isn't true. Crick is a prime example of this. Transient response has never been 3 degrees.

I am sure Crick has seen the graph estimates for both transient and equilibrium responses done over the last 15 years. Both have been going down and appear to be converging to 1.0 and 1.5C.

Before AR5 was released I questioned how they would handle these changes. They simply kept their 1.5-4.5 range and refused to provide a best guess central estimate. The projections for 2100 temperature did not go down, and the SLR predictions actually went up!

Willis is a very creative polymath even if he hasn't got formal training and credentials. His latest article references a paper that showed the large range of estimates for different factors in a number of climate models. Isn't it odd that such highly divergent quantities always seem to add up to similar end values? It's almost as if they peeked at the end result and tuned the models to agree with each other.

Crick believes in every new paper (that agrees with his opinion) and refuses to acknowledge any criticisms. If the article disagrees with his position he simply reverses his formula and only acknowledges the criticisms while denigrating the ideas and character of the authors.

the climate sensitivity figures have been going down for a decade. the predictions of doom...not so much

 

[IanC]

Like I said....you can't explain. You simply hand wave it away.

Energy that would directly escape to space is trapped in the atmosphere until it finds another pathway out. The atmosphere, especially near surface, is warmer than it would be. How anyone can say that is inconsequential is absurd.

Surface is warmer due to pressure, no?

Sure. How does that change the fact that CO2 absorbs IR?

It's a billion times more likely that the radiated photon does not interact with CO2 in the first place.

?????

Are you saying CO2 doesn't absorb certain wavelengths of IR, which stops that energy from leaving the Earth unimpeded? You aren't making sense to me.

Are you saying CO2 has special magnetic field and sucks up every photon within miles of it?

There was a previous thread that the odds of an emitted photon being absorbed by CO2 are about 1 in a billion.

use of terms like '1 in a billion' are a misdirection when you are talking about unimaginably large numbers of molecules and even larger amounts of photons.

from what I have read it appears that all of the CO2 specific IR emitted by the surface is absorbed in the first ~10 metres of atmosphere. because the time between absorption and re-emission is larger than the time between molecular collisions (at surface like temperatures and pressure) that means the energy absorbed is more likely to be redistributed by collision than by re-emission.

ie. most absorbed IR energy is turned into kinetic/potential energy stored in the atmosphere. likewise most excited state CO2 emission is caused by molecular collision not the absorption of a photon. the singular case of a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon and holding on to that energy long enough to re-emit it is rare. although I have heard it is only one or two orders of magnitude, not the '1 in a billion' that you quote.

the simplified version most often seen in the media is a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon from below and re-emitting in a random direction, therefore half returns to the surface. while this over simplification generally holds true for near surface altitudes due to the equipartition theorum, it rapidly changes with altitude as both temperature and density decrease, until the air is thin enough that CO2 specific emission can escape without being recaptured. of course the temperature is much colder by then so the amount leaving the Earth TOA is much less than what was put into the atmosphere at the surface. this retained energy is the basis for the greenhouse effect.

 

[SSDD]

You have now been presented with multiple direct measurements of downwelling radiation in which the CO2 emissions spectrum is clearly visible. That obviously refutes your statement.

No crick...we haven't...because no measurement of "backradition" has ever been made at ambient temperature....all the instruments supposedly measuring back radiation have been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...therefore all that is being measured is energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that isn't back radiation...that is just energy movement as predicted by the second law.

 

[SSDD]

we may be arguing from different standpoints.

I say that CO2 is an integral part of the Greenhouse Effect. if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere then the band(s) of IR specific to CO2 would directly escape to space at the speed of light. that energy would be gone, it would not be used to raise the energy of the atmosphere, it would no longer be available to be re-radiated by the atmosphere. the difference would be significant, and the surface would be much cooler.

Doesn't matter...radiation is such a small part of the energy movement to the upper atmosphere that it just doesn't matter...CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with rising the temperature of the atmosphere beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere.

 

[jc456]

CRE evidence and observations show the IPCC model failure. A massive failure of -1.62 deg C of forcing per doubling of CO2. The models have failed miserably due to failed understanding of how the water cycle actually works.

Willis Eschenbach eviscerates AR5 Working group 5's work with empirical evidence..

Cloud Feedback

??????

I cannot see how that article is anything but supportive of my position over the last 5+ years of posting here.

Do you think that Willis denies the mechanism of greenhouse gas warming, or the ridiculous exaggerations of the IPCC feedbacks?

Willis simply does the math.. Uses the equations used in the IPCC modeling and compares it to empirical evidence. Willis understands the theoretical energy loss retardation of GHG's but he also questions their validity by showing how it simply doesn't add up.

What no one has been able to do is show, empirically, what CO2 is capable of in our atmosphere. Their so called "end of times trigger levels of CO2" can easily be shown a deception and outright lie by looking at the paleo records.

There still is no hard empirical evidence to suggest AGW is dangerous or if we can even influence natural changes or shifts beyond a localized influence.

The US-CRN shows no warming now for over 17 years and a cooling trend for 13 years. Quite the opposite of the UHI induced, localized changes, which affect only aggregate records such as our satellite records.

When we look at just areas of the planet not influenced by man directly the AGW premise falls apart, as it shows no warming despite increasing CO2 levels.. No correlation is even observed.

Natural factors can easily overwhelm CO2 influence. That does not mean that CO2 doesn't have an influence.

You saying CO2 is inconsequential is just as bad as the warmers saying CO2 will cause doom.

Not at all. CO2 has a vanishingly small effect in our atmosphere. It is there, but it is so minuscule that we have no instruments capable of separating it out from the background. That is pretty clear. Were it a more powerful influence it COULDN'T be so easily overwhelmed by natural factors.

we may be arguing from different standpoints.

I say that CO2 is an integral part of the Greenhouse Effect. if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere then the band(s) of IR specific to CO2 would directly escape to space at the speed of light. that energy would be gone, it would not be used to raise the energy of the atmosphere, it would no longer be available to be re-radiated by the atmosphere. the difference would be significant, and the surface would be much cooler.

you, on the other hand, seem to be saying that recent increase of CO2 has miniscule effect therefore CO2 can be ignored.


I agree that recent increases of CO2 have minor impact, and that other pathways mask that impact. but the total CO2 influence is large and the recent increase still has an influence even if it cannot be teased out of the background noise.

If there wasn't CO2, there would be no plant life, and no human life. So all anyone like me is asking is show the evil CO2 observed temperatures.

 

[westwall]

CRE evidence and observations show the IPCC model failure. A massive failure of -1.62 deg C of forcing per doubling of CO2. The models have failed miserably due to failed understanding of how the water cycle actually works.

Willis Eschenbach eviscerates AR5 Working group 5's work with empirical evidence..

Cloud Feedback

??????

I cannot see how that article is anything but supportive of my position over the last 5+ years of posting here.

Do you think that Willis denies the mechanism of greenhouse gas warming, or the ridiculous exaggerations of the IPCC feedbacks?

Willis simply does the math.. Uses the equations used in the IPCC modeling and compares it to empirical evidence. Willis understands the theoretical energy loss retardation of GHG's but he also questions their validity by showing how it simply doesn't add up.

What no one has been able to do is show, empirically, what CO2 is capable of in our atmosphere. Their so called "end of times trigger levels of CO2" can easily be shown a deception and outright lie by looking at the paleo records.

There still is no hard empirical evidence to suggest AGW is dangerous or if we can even influence natural changes or shifts beyond a localized influence.

The US-CRN shows no warming now for over 17 years and a cooling trend for 13 years. Quite the opposite of the UHI induced, localized changes, which affect only aggregate records such as our satellite records.

When we look at just areas of the planet not influenced by man directly the AGW premise falls apart, as it shows no warming despite increasing CO2 levels.. No correlation is even observed.

Natural factors can easily overwhelm CO2 influence. That does not mean that CO2 doesn't have an influence.

You saying CO2 is inconsequential is just as bad as the warmers saying CO2 will cause doom.

Not at all. CO2 has a vanishingly small effect in our atmosphere. It is there, but it is so minuscule that we have no instruments capable of separating it out from the background. That is pretty clear. Were it a more powerful influence it COULDN'T be so easily overwhelmed by natural factors.

we may be arguing from different standpoints.

I say that CO2 is an integral part of the Greenhouse Effect. if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere then the band(s) of IR specific to CO2 would directly escape to space at the speed of light. that energy would be gone, it would not be used to raise the energy of the atmosphere, it would no longer be available to be re-radiated by the atmosphere. the difference would be significant, and the surface would be much cooler.

you, on the other hand, seem to be saying that recent increase of CO2 has miniscule effect therefore CO2 can be ignored.


I agree that recent increases of CO2 have minor impact, and that other pathways mask that impact. but the total CO2 influence is large and the recent increase still has an influence even if it cannot be teased out of the background noise.

I have to disagree with you on this issue Ian. CO2 is such a vanishingly small percentage of the atmosphere that it's effect is miniscule. Were it the only GHG that had effect on the global temp my guess is the temp increase would be only a few degrees above absolute zero. Thankfully we have an atmosphere that is awash in water vapor. That GHG is THE dominant gas in our atmosphere by many, many orders of magnitude and it is because of that blanket that we don't lose all the heat to space every night.

The GHG effect is grossly misunderstood IMHO. It doesn't cause temps to rise to a certain point., It merely prevents heat from escaping. Thus whatever the Sun gives us, that is the theoretical maximum. It can't go any higher. And, based on thermodynamics the reality is we never get up to the maximum temp possible, due, once again to that blanket. It prevents us from getting too hot, and minimizes the amount of heat loss at night.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You have now been presented with multiple direct measurements of downwelling radiation in which the CO2 emissions spectrum is clearly visible. That obviously refutes your statement.

down welling is not the issue.. Its the speed at which the earth sheds energy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Surface is warmer due to pressure, no?

Sure. How does that change the fact that CO2 absorbs IR?

It's a billion times more likely that the radiated photon does not interact with CO2 in the first place.

?????

Are you saying CO2 doesn't absorb certain wavelengths of IR, which stops that energy from leaving the Earth unimpeded? You aren't making sense to me.

Are you saying CO2 has special magnetic field and sucks up every photon within miles of it?

There was a previous thread that the odds of an emitted photon being absorbed by CO2 are about 1 in a billion.

use of terms like '1 in a billion' are a misdirection when you are talking about unimaginably large numbers of molecules and even larger amounts of photons.

from what I have read it appears that all of the CO2 specific IR emitted by the surface is absorbed in the first ~10 metres of atmosphere. because the time between absorption and re-emission is larger than the time between molecular collisions (at surface like temperatures and pressure) that means the energy absorbed is more likely to be redistributed by collision than by re-emission.

ie. most absorbed IR energy is turned into kinetic/potential energy stored in the atmosphere. likewise most excited state CO2 emission is caused by molecular collision not the absorption of a photon. the singular case of a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon and holding on to that energy long enough to re-emit it is rare. although I have heard it is only one or two orders of magnitude, not the '1 in a billion' that you quote.

the simplified version most often seen in the media is a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon from below and re-emitting in a random direction, therefore half returns to the surface. while this over simplification generally holds true for near surface altitudes due to the equipartition theorum, it rapidly changes with altitude as both temperature and density decrease, until the air is thin enough that CO2 specific emission can escape without being recaptured. of course the temperature is much colder by then so the amount leaving the Earth TOA is much less than what was put into the atmosphere at the surface. this retained energy is the basis for the greenhouse effect.

"it appears that all of the CO2 specific IR emitted by the surface is absorbed in the first ~10 metres of atmosphere. because the time between absorption and re-emission is larger than the time between molecular collisions "

This is why the water cycle and convection are the PRIMARY escape route for surface heat and also why CO2 has little effect at causing heat retention. This also explains why there is no atmospheric hot spot.

It is simple things like this that lay the AGW meme waste, but the misunderstanding of function and the energy escape routs has allowed erroneous assumptions to be made.

 

[IanC]

??????

I cannot see how that article is anything but supportive of my position over the last 5+ years of posting here.

Do you think that Willis denies the mechanism of greenhouse gas warming, or the ridiculous exaggerations of the IPCC feedbacks?

Willis simply does the math.. Uses the equations used in the IPCC modeling and compares it to empirical evidence. Willis understands the theoretical energy loss retardation of GHG's but he also questions their validity by showing how it simply doesn't add up.

What no one has been able to do is show, empirically, what CO2 is capable of in our atmosphere. Their so called "end of times trigger levels of CO2" can easily be shown a deception and outright lie by looking at the paleo records.

There still is no hard empirical evidence to suggest AGW is dangerous or if we can even influence natural changes or shifts beyond a localized influence.

The US-CRN shows no warming now for over 17 years and a cooling trend for 13 years. Quite the opposite of the UHI induced, localized changes, which affect only aggregate records such as our satellite records.

When we look at just areas of the planet not influenced by man directly the AGW premise falls apart, as it shows no warming despite increasing CO2 levels.. No correlation is even observed.

Natural factors can easily overwhelm CO2 influence. That does not mean that CO2 doesn't have an influence.

You saying CO2 is inconsequential is just as bad as the warmers saying CO2 will cause doom.

Not at all. CO2 has a vanishingly small effect in our atmosphere. It is there, but it is so minuscule that we have no instruments capable of separating it out from the background. That is pretty clear. Were it a more powerful influence it COULDN'T be so easily overwhelmed by natural factors.

we may be arguing from different standpoints.

I say that CO2 is an integral part of the Greenhouse Effect. if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere then the band(s) of IR specific to CO2 would directly escape to space at the speed of light. that energy would be gone, it would not be used to raise the energy of the atmosphere, it would no longer be available to be re-radiated by the atmosphere. the difference would be significant, and the surface would be much cooler.

you, on the other hand, seem to be saying that recent increase of CO2 has miniscule effect therefore CO2 can be ignored.


I agree that recent increases of CO2 have minor impact, and that other pathways mask that impact. but the total CO2 influence is large and the recent increase still has an influence even if it cannot be teased out of the background noise.

I have to disagree with you on this issue Ian. CO2 is such a vanishingly small percentage of the atmosphere that it's effect is miniscule. Were it the only GHG that had effect on the global temp my guess is the temp increase would be only a few degrees above absolute zero. Thankfully we have an atmosphere that is awash in water vapor. That GHG is THE dominant gas in our atmosphere by many, many orders of magnitude and it is because of that blanket that we don't lose all the heat to space every night.

The GHG effect is grossly misunderstood IMHO. It doesn't cause temps to rise to a certain point., It merely prevents heat from escaping. Thus whatever the Sun gives us, that is the theoretical maximum. It can't go any higher. And, based on thermodynamics the reality is we never get up to the maximum temp possible, due, once again to that blanket. It prevents us from getting too hot, and minimizes the amount of heat loss at night.

your post is chock full of mistakes, misunderstandings and misdirection. the topic is CO2 and its contribution to the greenhouse effect.

I would suggest that everyone examine this diagram until they get the gist of it. the coloured top portion shows the Sun's radiation as a 5500K blackbody Planck curve in red with the actual radiation reaching the surface as a notched curve underneath. Likewise the surface radiation is shown as three blackbody curves of various temps with transmitted radiation of the middle blue Planck curve.

underneath are the major GHGs. look at the absorption spectrum of ozone. it reacts with ultraviolet, and it can be seen in the top diagram that the same ultraviolet has been removed and does not reach the surface.

the topic is CO2 so let's examine that spectrum. CO2 has three vibrational modes modes and sure enough there are three main absorption peaks. two of them can be ignored in our general discussion. Why? because they appear where very little solar input is coming in, and very little terrestrial output is leaving.

that leaves the 15 micron band, where none of the surface radiation is transmitted. this band is important because roughly 8% of the surface power is radiated here. that 8% is not directly lost to space, instead it is absorbed by the atmosphere and becomes part of the total energy. if that 8% did directly leave, and was not adding to the atmosphere's energy total, there would be dramatic cooling.

I hope this explanation also helps to give a mental picture of why it can appear the energy is doubled when in reality it is only stored and not lost to space, and the near equilibrium has long since been reached.

 

[IanC]

Sure. How does that change the fact that CO2 absorbs IR?

It's a billion times more likely that the radiated photon does not interact with CO2 in the first place.

?????

Are you saying CO2 doesn't absorb certain wavelengths of IR, which stops that energy from leaving the Earth unimpeded? You aren't making sense to me.

Are you saying CO2 has special magnetic field and sucks up every photon within miles of it?

There was a previous thread that the odds of an emitted photon being absorbed by CO2 are about 1 in a billion.

use of terms like '1 in a billion' are a misdirection when you are talking about unimaginably large numbers of molecules and even larger amounts of photons.

from what I have read it appears that all of the CO2 specific IR emitted by the surface is absorbed in the first ~10 metres of atmosphere. because the time between absorption and re-emission is larger than the time between molecular collisions (at surface like temperatures and pressure) that means the energy absorbed is more likely to be redistributed by collision than by re-emission.

ie. most absorbed IR energy is turned into kinetic/potential energy stored in the atmosphere. likewise most excited state CO2 emission is caused by molecular collision not the absorption of a photon. the singular case of a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon and holding on to that energy long enough to re-emit it is rare. although I have heard it is only one or two orders of magnitude, not the '1 in a billion' that you quote.

the simplified version most often seen in the media is a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon from below and re-emitting in a random direction, therefore half returns to the surface. while this over simplification generally holds true for near surface altitudes due to the equipartition theorum, it rapidly changes with altitude as both temperature and density decrease, until the air is thin enough that CO2 specific emission can escape without being recaptured. of course the temperature is much colder by then so the amount leaving the Earth TOA is much less than what was put into the atmosphere at the surface. this retained energy is the basis for the greenhouse effect.

"it appears that all of the CO2 specific IR emitted by the surface is absorbed in the first ~10 metres of atmosphere. because the time between absorption and re-emission is larger than the time between molecular collisions "

This is why the water cycle and convection are the PRIMARY escape route for surface heat and also why CO2 has little effect at causing heat retention. This also explains why there is no atmospheric hot spot.

It is simple things like this that lay the AGW meme waste, but the misunderstanding of function and the energy escape routs has allowed erroneous assumptions to be made.

I actually agree with most of what you have said.

the main difference we have is that CO2 would not cause the hotspot. it is the supposed water vapor/cloud/precipitation positive feedbacks to increased CO2 that would cause it. I have argued against those positive feedbacks from the beginning.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's a billion times more likely that the radiated photon does not interact with CO2 in the first place.

?????

Are you saying CO2 doesn't absorb certain wavelengths of IR, which stops that energy from leaving the Earth unimpeded? You aren't making sense to me.

Are you saying CO2 has special magnetic field and sucks up every photon within miles of it?

There was a previous thread that the odds of an emitted photon being absorbed by CO2 are about 1 in a billion.

use of terms like '1 in a billion' are a misdirection when you are talking about unimaginably large numbers of molecules and even larger amounts of photons.

from what I have read it appears that all of the CO2 specific IR emitted by the surface is absorbed in the first ~10 metres of atmosphere. because the time between absorption and re-emission is larger than the time between molecular collisions (at surface like temperatures and pressure) that means the energy absorbed is more likely to be redistributed by collision than by re-emission.

ie. most absorbed IR energy is turned into kinetic/potential energy stored in the atmosphere. likewise most excited state CO2 emission is caused by molecular collision not the absorption of a photon. the singular case of a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon and holding on to that energy long enough to re-emit it is rare. although I have heard it is only one or two orders of magnitude, not the '1 in a billion' that you quote.

the simplified version most often seen in the media is a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon from below and re-emitting in a random direction, therefore half returns to the surface. while this over simplification generally holds true for near surface altitudes due to the equipartition theorum, it rapidly changes with altitude as both temperature and density decrease, until the air is thin enough that CO2 specific emission can escape without being recaptured. of course the temperature is much colder by then so the amount leaving the Earth TOA is much less than what was put into the atmosphere at the surface. this retained energy is the basis for the greenhouse effect.

"it appears that all of the CO2 specific IR emitted by the surface is absorbed in the first ~10 metres of atmosphere. because the time between absorption and re-emission is larger than the time between molecular collisions "

This is why the water cycle and convection are the PRIMARY escape route for surface heat and also why CO2 has little effect at causing heat retention. This also explains why there is no atmospheric hot spot.

It is simple things like this that lay the AGW meme waste, but the misunderstanding of function and the energy escape routs has allowed erroneous assumptions to be made.

I actually agree with most of what you have said.



the main difference we have is that CO2 would not cause the hotspot. it is the supposed water vapor/cloud/precipitation positive feedbacks to increased CO2 that would cause it. I have argued against those positive feedbacks from the beginning.

Water vapor has shown NO POSITIVE FEEDBACK EFFECT by empirical evidence. The IPCC models are wrong, The CHIMP models are wrong, and the number of assumptions made from them are why every single model fails to date.

 

[westwall]

Willis simply does the math.. Uses the equations used in the IPCC modeling and compares it to empirical evidence. Willis understands the theoretical energy loss retardation of GHG's but he also questions their validity by showing how it simply doesn't add up.

What no one has been able to do is show, empirically, what CO2 is capable of in our atmosphere. Their so called "end of times trigger levels of CO2" can easily be shown a deception and outright lie by looking at the paleo records.

There still is no hard empirical evidence to suggest AGW is dangerous or if we can even influence natural changes or shifts beyond a localized influence.

The US-CRN shows no warming now for over 17 years and a cooling trend for 13 years. Quite the opposite of the UHI induced, localized changes, which affect only aggregate records such as our satellite records.

When we look at just areas of the planet not influenced by man directly the AGW premise falls apart, as it shows no warming despite increasing CO2 levels.. No correlation is even observed.

Natural factors can easily overwhelm CO2 influence. That does not mean that CO2 doesn't have an influence.

You saying CO2 is inconsequential is just as bad as the warmers saying CO2 will cause doom.

Not at all. CO2 has a vanishingly small effect in our atmosphere. It is there, but it is so minuscule that we have no instruments capable of separating it out from the background. That is pretty clear. Were it a more powerful influence it COULDN'T be so easily overwhelmed by natural factors.

we may be arguing from different standpoints.

I say that CO2 is an integral part of the Greenhouse Effect. if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere then the band(s) of IR specific to CO2 would directly escape to space at the speed of light. that energy would be gone, it would not be used to raise the energy of the atmosphere, it would no longer be available to be re-radiated by the atmosphere. the difference would be significant, and the surface would be much cooler.

you, on the other hand, seem to be saying that recent increase of CO2 has miniscule effect therefore CO2 can be ignored.


I agree that recent increases of CO2 have minor impact, and that other pathways mask that impact. but the total CO2 influence is large and the recent increase still has an influence even if it cannot be teased out of the background noise.

I have to disagree with you on this issue Ian. CO2 is such a vanishingly small percentage of the atmosphere that it's effect is miniscule. Were it the only GHG that had effect on the global temp my guess is the temp increase would be only a few degrees above absolute zero. Thankfully we have an atmosphere that is awash in water vapor. That GHG is THE dominant gas in our atmosphere by many, many orders of magnitude and it is because of that blanket that we don't lose all the heat to space every night.

The GHG effect is grossly misunderstood IMHO. It doesn't cause temps to rise to a certain point., It merely prevents heat from escaping. Thus whatever the Sun gives us, that is the theoretical maximum. It can't go any higher. And, based on thermodynamics the reality is we never get up to the maximum temp possible, due, once again to that blanket. It prevents us from getting too hot, and minimizes the amount of heat loss at night.

your post is chock full of mistakes, misunderstandings and misdirection. the topic is CO2 and its contribution to the greenhouse effect.

I would suggest that everyone examine this diagram until they get the gist of it. the coloured top portion shows the Sun's radiation as a 5500K blackbody Planck curve in red with the actual radiation reaching the surface as a notched curve underneath. Likewise the surface radiation is shown as three blackbody curves of various temps with transmitted radiation of the middle blue Planck curve.

underneath are the major GHGs. look at the absorption spectrum of ozone. it reacts with ultraviolet, and it can be seen in the top diagram that the same ultraviolet has been removed and does not reach the surface.

the topic is CO2 so let's examine that spectrum. CO2 has three vibrational modes modes and sure enough there are three main absorption peaks. two of them can be ignored in our general discussion. Why? because they appear where very little solar input is coming in, and very little terrestrial output is leaving.

that leaves the 15 micron band, where none of the surface radiation is transmitted. this band is important because roughly 8% of the surface power is radiated here. that 8% is not directly lost to space, instead it is absorbed by the atmosphere and becomes part of the total energy. if that 8% did directly leave, and was not adding to the atmosphere's energy total, there would be dramatic cooling.

I hope this explanation also helps to give a mental picture of why it can appear the energy is doubled when in reality it is only stored and not lost to space, and the near equilibrium has long since been reached.

I am fully aware of the graph, and I still believe as I stated. We know that the oceans are the heat reservoirs of the world. We know that UV radiation penetrates deep into those oceans to warm them up. We know that long wave IR can't penetrate the skin of the water, thus long wave IR, the very mechanism that CO2 is supposed to control, can't do a thing. We know these facts Ian.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Willis simply does the math.. Uses the equations used in the IPCC modeling and compares it to empirical evidence. Willis understands the theoretical energy loss retardation of GHG's but he also questions their validity by showing how it simply doesn't add up.

What no one has been able to do is show, empirically, what CO2 is capable of in our atmosphere. Their so called "end of times trigger levels of CO2" can easily be shown a deception and outright lie by looking at the paleo records.

There still is no hard empirical evidence to suggest AGW is dangerous or if we can even influence natural changes or shifts beyond a localized influence.

The US-CRN shows no warming now for over 17 years and a cooling trend for 13 years. Quite the opposite of the UHI induced, localized changes, which affect only aggregate records such as our satellite records.

When we look at just areas of the planet not influenced by man directly the AGW premise falls apart, as it shows no warming despite increasing CO2 levels.. No correlation is even observed.

Natural factors can easily overwhelm CO2 influence. That does not mean that CO2 doesn't have an influence.

You saying CO2 is inconsequential is just as bad as the warmers saying CO2 will cause doom.

Not at all. CO2 has a vanishingly small effect in our atmosphere. It is there, but it is so minuscule that we have no instruments capable of separating it out from the background. That is pretty clear. Were it a more powerful influence it COULDN'T be so easily overwhelmed by natural factors.

we may be arguing from different standpoints.

I say that CO2 is an integral part of the Greenhouse Effect. if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere then the band(s) of IR specific to CO2 would directly escape to space at the speed of light. that energy would be gone, it would not be used to raise the energy of the atmosphere, it would no longer be available to be re-radiated by the atmosphere. the difference would be significant, and the surface would be much cooler.

you, on the other hand, seem to be saying that recent increase of CO2 has miniscule effect therefore CO2 can be ignored.


I agree that recent increases of CO2 have minor impact, and that other pathways mask that impact. but the total CO2 influence is large and the recent increase still has an influence even if it cannot be teased out of the background noise.

I have to disagree with you on this issue Ian. CO2 is such a vanishingly small percentage of the atmosphere that it's effect is miniscule. Were it the only GHG that had effect on the global temp my guess is the temp increase would be only a few degrees above absolute zero. Thankfully we have an atmosphere that is awash in water vapor. That GHG is THE dominant gas in our atmosphere by many, many orders of magnitude and it is because of that blanket that we don't lose all the heat to space every night.

The GHG effect is grossly misunderstood IMHO. It doesn't cause temps to rise to a certain point., It merely prevents heat from escaping. Thus whatever the Sun gives us, that is the theoretical maximum. It can't go any higher. And, based on thermodynamics the reality is we never get up to the maximum temp possible, due, once again to that blanket. It prevents us from getting too hot, and minimizes the amount of heat loss at night.

your post is chock full of mistakes, misunderstandings and misdirection. the topic is CO2 and its contribution to the greenhouse effect.

I would suggest that everyone examine this diagram until they get the gist of it. the coloured top portion shows the Sun's radiation as a 5500K blackbody Planck curve in red with the actual radiation reaching the surface as a notched curve underneath. Likewise the surface radiation is shown as three blackbody curves of various temps with transmitted radiation of the middle blue Planck curve.

underneath are the major GHGs. look at the absorption spectrum of ozone. it reacts with ultraviolet, and it can be seen in the top diagram that the same ultraviolet has been removed and does not reach the surface.

the topic is CO2 so let's examine that spectrum. CO2 has three vibrational modes modes and sure enough there are three main absorption peaks. two of them can be ignored in our general discussion. Why? because they appear where very little solar input is coming in, and very little terrestrial output is leaving.

that leaves the 15 micron band, where none of the surface radiation is transmitted. this band is important because roughly 8% of the surface power is radiated here. that 8% is not directly lost to space, instead it is absorbed by the atmosphere and becomes part of the total energy. if that 8% did directly leave, and was not adding to the atmosphere's energy total, there would be dramatic cooling.

I hope this explanation also helps to give a mental picture of why it can appear the energy is doubled when in reality it is only stored and not lost to space, and the near equilibrium has long since been reached.

Willis simply does the math.. Uses the equations used in the IPCC modeling and compares it to empirical evidence. Willis understands the theoretical energy loss retardation of GHG's but he also questions their validity by showing how it simply doesn't add up.

What no one has been able to do is show, empirically, what CO2 is capable of in our atmosphere. Their so called "end of times trigger levels of CO2" can easily be shown a deception and outright lie by looking at the paleo records.

There still is no hard empirical evidence to suggest AGW is dangerous or if we can even influence natural changes or shifts beyond a localized influence.

The US-CRN shows no warming now for over 17 years and a cooling trend for 13 years. Quite the opposite of the UHI induced, localized changes, which affect only aggregate records such as our satellite records.

When we look at just areas of the planet not influenced by man directly the AGW premise falls apart, as it shows no warming despite increasing CO2 levels.. No correlation is even observed.

Natural factors can easily overwhelm CO2 influence. That does not mean that CO2 doesn't have an influence.

You saying CO2 is inconsequential is just as bad as the warmers saying CO2 will cause doom.

Not at all. CO2 has a vanishingly small effect in our atmosphere. It is there, but it is so minuscule that we have no instruments capable of separating it out from the background. That is pretty clear. Were it a more powerful influence it COULDN'T be so easily overwhelmed by natural factors.

we may be arguing from different standpoints.

I say that CO2 is an integral part of the Greenhouse Effect. if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere then the band(s) of IR specific to CO2 would directly escape to space at the speed of light. that energy would be gone, it would not be used to raise the energy of the atmosphere, it would no longer be available to be re-radiated by the atmosphere. the difference would be significant, and the surface would be much cooler.

you, on the other hand, seem to be saying that recent increase of CO2 has miniscule effect therefore CO2 can be ignored.


I agree that recent increases of CO2 have minor impact, and that other pathways mask that impact. but the total CO2 influence is large and the recent increase still has an influence even if it cannot be teased out of the background noise.

I have to disagree with you on this issue Ian. CO2 is such a vanishingly small percentage of the atmosphere that it's effect is miniscule. Were it the only GHG that had effect on the global temp my guess is the temp increase would be only a few degrees above absolute zero. Thankfully we have an atmosphere that is awash in water vapor. That GHG is THE dominant gas in our atmosphere by many, many orders of magnitude and it is because of that blanket that we don't lose all the heat to space every night.

The GHG effect is grossly misunderstood IMHO. It doesn't cause temps to rise to a certain point., It merely prevents heat from escaping. Thus whatever the Sun gives us, that is the theoretical maximum. It can't go any higher. And, based on thermodynamics the reality is we never get up to the maximum temp possible, due, once again to that blanket. It prevents us from getting too hot, and minimizes the amount of heat loss at night.

your post is chock full of mistakes, misunderstandings and misdirection. the topic is CO2 and its contribution to the greenhouse effect.

I would suggest that everyone examine this diagram until they get the gist of it. the coloured top portion shows the Sun's radiation as a 5500K blackbody Planck curve in red with the actual radiation reaching the surface as a notched curve underneath. Likewise the surface radiation is shown as three blackbody curves of various temps with transmitted radiation of the middle blue Planck curve.

underneath are the major GHGs. look at the absorption spectrum of ozone. it reacts with ultraviolet, and it can be seen in the top diagram that the same ultraviolet has been removed and does not reach the surface.

the topic is CO2 so let's examine that spectrum. CO2 has three vibrational modes modes and sure enough there are three main absorption peaks. two of them can be ignored in our general discussion. Why? because they appear where very little solar input is coming in, and very little terrestrial output is leaving.

that leaves the 15 micron band, where none of the surface radiation is transmitted. this band is important because roughly 8% of the surface power is radiated here. that 8% is not directly lost to space, instead it is absorbed by the atmosphere and becomes part of the total energy. if that 8% did directly leave, and was not adding to the atmosphere's energy total, there would be dramatic cooling.

I hope this explanation also helps to give a mental picture of why it can appear the energy is doubled when in reality it is only stored and not lost to space, and the near equilibrium has long since been reached.

Ian your the one who misunderstands.

Down-welling radiation stops around 4um. This is the heat input to the system..

Outgoing radiation starts there and continues to 70um.. This is the heat release from the system.

The intermediary is the key component as to wave length of BB-LWIR or Grey Body extremely long wave IR and therefore how the earth retains heat. The oceans are opaque thus they are GB and everything above 4um is absorbed or lost in the first 10 microns of the oceans surface. Only down-welling radiation causes the ocean to warm by empirical evidence. Clouds and rain have a direct effect on the incoming/loss ratio. A simple 1-2% change in cloud cover can cause the oceans to warm or cool, despite what the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are, simply because it radiates at a level which the oceans can not absorb.

The atmosphere is a combination of grey and black body but the majority of energy is lost to water vapor. That narrow band of 12-15um is primarily absorbed by water vapor at ground level and due to the energy loss it is re-transmitted at the cooler 17-24um by empirical evidence and lab studies. It is confirmed at TOA measurements.

While your graph is generally accepted as a correct representation of spectral pass, there are little things which it does not compensate for. Like how much of the energy is absorbed by other components of our atmosphere and transmitted at their cooler temperatures and thus longer wavelengths.

 

[IanC]

Natural factors can easily overwhelm CO2 influence. That does not mean that CO2 doesn't have an influence.

You saying CO2 is inconsequential is just as bad as the warmers saying CO2 will cause doom.

Not at all. CO2 has a vanishingly small effect in our atmosphere. It is there, but it is so minuscule that we have no instruments capable of separating it out from the background. That is pretty clear. Were it a more powerful influence it COULDN'T be so easily overwhelmed by natural factors.

we may be arguing from different standpoints.

I say that CO2 is an integral part of the Greenhouse Effect. if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere then the band(s) of IR specific to CO2 would directly escape to space at the speed of light. that energy would be gone, it would not be used to raise the energy of the atmosphere, it would no longer be available to be re-radiated by the atmosphere. the difference would be significant, and the surface would be much cooler.

you, on the other hand, seem to be saying that recent increase of CO2 has miniscule effect therefore CO2 can be ignored.


I agree that recent increases of CO2 have minor impact, and that other pathways mask that impact. but the total CO2 influence is large and the recent increase still has an influence even if it cannot be teased out of the background noise.

I have to disagree with you on this issue Ian. CO2 is such a vanishingly small percentage of the atmosphere that it's effect is miniscule. Were it the only GHG that had effect on the global temp my guess is the temp increase would be only a few degrees above absolute zero. Thankfully we have an atmosphere that is awash in water vapor. That GHG is THE dominant gas in our atmosphere by many, many orders of magnitude and it is because of that blanket that we don't lose all the heat to space every night.

The GHG effect is grossly misunderstood IMHO. It doesn't cause temps to rise to a certain point., It merely prevents heat from escaping. Thus whatever the Sun gives us, that is the theoretical maximum. It can't go any higher. And, based on thermodynamics the reality is we never get up to the maximum temp possible, due, once again to that blanket. It prevents us from getting too hot, and minimizes the amount of heat loss at night.

your post is chock full of mistakes, misunderstandings and misdirection. the topic is CO2 and its contribution to the greenhouse effect.

I would suggest that everyone examine this diagram until they get the gist of it. the coloured top portion shows the Sun's radiation as a 5500K blackbody Planck curve in red with the actual radiation reaching the surface as a notched curve underneath. Likewise the surface radiation is shown as three blackbody curves of various temps with transmitted radiation of the middle blue Planck curve.

underneath are the major GHGs. look at the absorption spectrum of ozone. it reacts with ultraviolet, and it can be seen in the top diagram that the same ultraviolet has been removed and does not reach the surface.

the topic is CO2 so let's examine that spectrum. CO2 has three vibrational modes modes and sure enough there are three main absorption peaks. two of them can be ignored in our general discussion. Why? because they appear where very little solar input is coming in, and very little terrestrial output is leaving.

that leaves the 15 micron band, where none of the surface radiation is transmitted. this band is important because roughly 8% of the surface power is radiated here. that 8% is not directly lost to space, instead it is absorbed by the atmosphere and becomes part of the total energy. if that 8% did directly leave, and was not adding to the atmosphere's energy total, there would be dramatic cooling.

I hope this explanation also helps to give a mental picture of why it can appear the energy is doubled when in reality it is only stored and not lost to space, and the near equilibrium has long since been reached.

I am fully aware of the graph, and I still believe as I stated. We know that the oceans are the heat reservoirs of the world. We know that UV radiation penetrates deep into those oceans to warm them up. We know that long wave IR can't penetrate the skin of the water, thus long wave IR, the very mechanism that CO2 is supposed to control, can't do a thing. We know these facts Ian.

more evasion and misdirection away from the topic.

does the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere cause the atmosphere to be warmer than if it wasnt present. I say yes, and give the mechanism and evidence to support the premise. you say no, and then move on to other subjects.

 

[IanC]

Natural factors can easily overwhelm CO2 influence. That does not mean that CO2 doesn't have an influence.

You saying CO2 is inconsequential is just as bad as the warmers saying CO2 will cause doom.

Not at all. CO2 has a vanishingly small effect in our atmosphere. It is there, but it is so minuscule that we have no instruments capable of separating it out from the background. That is pretty clear. Were it a more powerful influence it COULDN'T be so easily overwhelmed by natural factors.

we may be arguing from different standpoints.

I say that CO2 is an integral part of the Greenhouse Effect. if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere then the band(s) of IR specific to CO2 would directly escape to space at the speed of light. that energy would be gone, it would not be used to raise the energy of the atmosphere, it would no longer be available to be re-radiated by the atmosphere. the difference would be significant, and the surface would be much cooler.

you, on the other hand, seem to be saying that recent increase of CO2 has miniscule effect therefore CO2 can be ignored.


I agree that recent increases of CO2 have minor impact, and that other pathways mask that impact. but the total CO2 influence is large and the recent increase still has an influence even if it cannot be teased out of the background noise.

I have to disagree with you on this issue Ian. CO2 is such a vanishingly small percentage of the atmosphere that it's effect is miniscule. Were it the only GHG that had effect on the global temp my guess is the temp increase would be only a few degrees above absolute zero. Thankfully we have an atmosphere that is awash in water vapor. That GHG is THE dominant gas in our atmosphere by many, many orders of magnitude and it is because of that blanket that we don't lose all the heat to space every night.

The GHG effect is grossly misunderstood IMHO. It doesn't cause temps to rise to a certain point., It merely prevents heat from escaping. Thus whatever the Sun gives us, that is the theoretical maximum. It can't go any higher. And, based on thermodynamics the reality is we never get up to the maximum temp possible, due, once again to that blanket. It prevents us from getting too hot, and minimizes the amount of heat loss at night.

your post is chock full of mistakes, misunderstandings and misdirection. the topic is CO2 and its contribution to the greenhouse effect.

I would suggest that everyone examine this diagram until they get the gist of it. the coloured top portion shows the Sun's radiation as a 5500K blackbody Planck curve in red with the actual radiation reaching the surface as a notched curve underneath. Likewise the surface radiation is shown as three blackbody curves of various temps with transmitted radiation of the middle blue Planck curve.

underneath are the major GHGs. look at the absorption spectrum of ozone. it reacts with ultraviolet, and it can be seen in the top diagram that the same ultraviolet has been removed and does not reach the surface.

the topic is CO2 so let's examine that spectrum. CO2 has three vibrational modes modes and sure enough there are three main absorption peaks. two of them can be ignored in our general discussion. Why? because they appear where very little solar input is coming in, and very little terrestrial output is leaving.

that leaves the 15 micron band, where none of the surface radiation is transmitted. this band is important because roughly 8% of the surface power is radiated here. that 8% is not directly lost to space, instead it is absorbed by the atmosphere and becomes part of the total energy. if that 8% did directly leave, and was not adding to the atmosphere's energy total, there would be dramatic cooling.

I hope this explanation also helps to give a mental picture of why it can appear the energy is doubled when in reality it is only stored and not lost to space, and the near equilibrium has long since been reached.

Natural factors can easily overwhelm CO2 influence. That does not mean that CO2 doesn't have an influence.

You saying CO2 is inconsequential is just as bad as the warmers saying CO2 will cause doom.

Not at all. CO2 has a vanishingly small effect in our atmosphere. It is there, but it is so minuscule that we have no instruments capable of separating it out from the background. That is pretty clear. Were it a more powerful influence it COULDN'T be so easily overwhelmed by natural factors.

we may be arguing from different standpoints.

I say that CO2 is an integral part of the Greenhouse Effect. if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere then the band(s) of IR specific to CO2 would directly escape to space at the speed of light. that energy would be gone, it would not be used to raise the energy of the atmosphere, it would no longer be available to be re-radiated by the atmosphere. the difference would be significant, and the surface would be much cooler.

you, on the other hand, seem to be saying that recent increase of CO2 has miniscule effect therefore CO2 can be ignored.


I agree that recent increases of CO2 have minor impact, and that other pathways mask that impact. but the total CO2 influence is large and the recent increase still has an influence even if it cannot be teased out of the background noise.

I have to disagree with you on this issue Ian. CO2 is such a vanishingly small percentage of the atmosphere that it's effect is miniscule. Were it the only GHG that had effect on the global temp my guess is the temp increase would be only a few degrees above absolute zero. Thankfully we have an atmosphere that is awash in water vapor. That GHG is THE dominant gas in our atmosphere by many, many orders of magnitude and it is because of that blanket that we don't lose all the heat to space every night.

The GHG effect is grossly misunderstood IMHO. It doesn't cause temps to rise to a certain point., It merely prevents heat from escaping. Thus whatever the Sun gives us, that is the theoretical maximum. It can't go any higher. And, based on thermodynamics the reality is we never get up to the maximum temp possible, due, once again to that blanket. It prevents us from getting too hot, and minimizes the amount of heat loss at night.

your post is chock full of mistakes, misunderstandings and misdirection. the topic is CO2 and its contribution to the greenhouse effect.

I would suggest that everyone examine this diagram until they get the gist of it. the coloured top portion shows the Sun's radiation as a 5500K blackbody Planck curve in red with the actual radiation reaching the surface as a notched curve underneath. Likewise the surface radiation is shown as three blackbody curves of various temps with transmitted radiation of the middle blue Planck curve.

underneath are the major GHGs. look at the absorption spectrum of ozone. it reacts with ultraviolet, and it can be seen in the top diagram that the same ultraviolet has been removed and does not reach the surface.

the topic is CO2 so let's examine that spectrum. CO2 has three vibrational modes modes and sure enough there are three main absorption peaks. two of them can be ignored in our general discussion. Why? because they appear where very little solar input is coming in, and very little terrestrial output is leaving.

that leaves the 15 micron band, where none of the surface radiation is transmitted. this band is important because roughly 8% of the surface power is radiated here. that 8% is not directly lost to space, instead it is absorbed by the atmosphere and becomes part of the total energy. if that 8% did directly leave, and was not adding to the atmosphere's energy total, there would be dramatic cooling.

I hope this explanation also helps to give a mental picture of why it can appear the energy is doubled when in reality it is only stored and not lost to space, and the near equilibrium has long since been reached.

Ian your the one who misunderstands.

Down-welling radiation stops around 4um. This is the heat input to the system..

Outgoing radiation starts there and continues to 70um.. This is the heat release from the system.

The intermediary is the key component as to wave length of BB-LWIR or Grey Body extremely long wave IR and therefore how the earth retains heat. The oceans are opaque thus they are GB and everything above 4um is absorbed or lost in the first 10 microns of the oceans surface. Only down-welling radiation causes the ocean to warm by empirical evidence. Clouds and rain have a direct effect on the incoming/loss ratio. A simple 1-2% change in cloud cover can cause the oceans to warm or cool, despite what the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are, simply because it radiates at a level which the oceans can not absorb.

The atmosphere is a combination of grey and black body but the majority of energy is lost to water vapor. That narrow band of 12-15um is primarily absorbed by water vapor at ground level and due to the energy loss it is re-transmitted at the cooler 17-24um by empirical evidence and lab studies. It is confirmed at TOA measurements.

While your graph is generally accepted as a correct representation of spectral pass, there are little things which it does not compensate for. Like how much of the energy is absorbed by other components of our atmosphere and transmitted at their cooler temperatures and thus longer wavelengths.

I see your short-lived moment of semi clarity has once again degenerated into bafflegab ala Cliff Clavin.

 

[SSDD]

more evasion and misdirection away from the topic.

does the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere cause the atmosphere to be warmer than if it wasnt present. I say yes, and give the mechanism and evidence to support the premise. you say no, and then move on to other subjects.

It does in so far as it contributes to the mass of the atmosphere....balanced, of course, by its ability to provide some small means for the atmosphere to radiatively cool itself.