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

[SSDD]

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

Says the guy who places his faith in a failed hypothesis.

 

[IanC]

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.

here we are....back at the same fruitless, one-sided discussion. I try to explain my side, using multiple interconnected examples and insights...you simply disagree and make unsupported contradictions that often fly in the face of known physics.

put up an explanation for how the mass makes a difference. I want to see it in your own words.

explain why CO2 absorbing energy at the surface makes no difference but emitting it further up does. again, in your own words.

 

[IanC]

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

Says the guy who places his faith in a failed hypothesis.

specifically, which failed hypothesis? preferably with a quote of mine but if you spell it out I will know if I said it or not.

 

[westwall]

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.

I did not deflect away from your question. I answered it. If there were no other component of our atmosphere than CO2 I stated that it would. On a planet with no water, on a planet with an atmosphere primarily made up of CO2 it would indeed cause warming. But on this planet the very mechanism that warms this particular planet, fails. As I stated quite clearly. We KNOW that the oceans are the heat engines of THIS world. Long wave IR from CO2 back radiation, or whatever you wish to call it is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus it CAN'T warm the oceans, thus it CAN'T affect global temperature. On this planet.

Not in any meaningful way.

 

[SSDD]

here we are....back at the same fruitless, one-sided discussion. I try to explain my side, using multiple interconnected examples and insights...you simply disagree and make unsupported contradictions that often fly in the face of known physics.

Not true Ian...my position flies in the face of your unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models...but not in the face of ever observation ever made.

 

[SSDD]

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

Says the guy who places his faith in a failed hypothesis.

specifically, which failed hypothesis? preferably with a quote of mine but if you spell it out I will know if I said it or not.

The greenhouse hypothesis itself has failed Ian...sorry that you haven't noticed.

 

[IanC]

green·house ef·fect
noun
the trapping of the sun's warmth in a planet's lower atmosphere due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface.


Is this the failed hypothesis you are talking about????

Surely not, because it is obviously true. Perhaps you should be more specific.

 

[SSDD]

green·house ef·fect
noun
the trapping of the sun's warmth in a planet's lower atmosphere due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface.


Is this the failed hypothesis you are talking about????

Surely not, because it is obviously true. Perhaps you should be more specific.

The greenhouse "effect" hypothesis predicts a tropospheric hot spot Ian...it hasn't shown up...so once again for the 6th or 7th time...how many predictive failures do you believe a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped and work begins on a more viable hypothesis....

By the way....the US standard atmosphere is accurate with no mention of any greenhouse effect.

 

[IanC]

green·house ef·fect
noun
the trapping of the sun's warmth in a planet's lower atmosphere due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface.


Is this the failed hypothesis you are talking about????

Surely not, because it is obviously true. Perhaps you should be more specific.

The greenhouse "effect" hypothesis predicts a tropospheric hot spot Ian...it hasn't shown up...so once again for the 6th or 7th time...how many predictive failures do you believe a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped and work begins on a more viable hypothesis....

By the way....the US standard atmosphere is accurate with no mention of any greenhouse effect.

Are you talking about climate model predictions? Why would I defend climate models?

The US Standard Atmosphere is reanalysis of known measurements.

 

[SSDD]

Are you talking about climate model predictions? Why would I defend climate models?

The US Standard Atmosphere is reanalysis of known measurements.

What's the matter Ian....are we getting dangerously close to questioning your faith here?.....you know as well as I that the greenhouse effect hypothesis itself predicts that if CO2 increases....that a tropospheric hot spot...the fingerprint of the greenhouse effect itself will develop...it hasn't happened....which means that the greenhouse hypothesis itself has failed a major predictive test....so again, for the 7th or 8th time...how many predictive failures should a hypothesis be allowed before it is scrapped and the search for a more viable hypothesis begins?....

 

[jc456]

Are you talking about climate model predictions? Why would I defend climate models?

The US Standard Atmosphere is reanalysis of known measurements.

What's the matter Ian....are we getting dangerously close to questioning your faith here?.....you know as well as I that the greenhouse effect hypothesis itself predicts that if CO2 increases....that a tropospheric hot spot...the fingerprint of the greenhouse effect itself will develop...it hasn't happened....which means that the greenhouse hypothesis itself has failed a major predictive test....so again, for the 7th or 8th time...how many predictive failures should a hypothesis be allowed before it is scrapped and the search for a more viable hypothesis begins?....

so they are in a conundrum, they believe that IR heats the CO2 molecule and the more CO2 molecules means more heat. It is exactly what the warmers use to scare the public with AGW. So, I'm confused at how they believe CO2 does this and yet doesn't follow the AGW hypothesis. A greenhouse does not use CO2 to keep plants warm, the concept is to recapture the water vapor using the enclosure along with the incoming sun rays. Also, I cannot find any link that can confirm CO2 getting warm after it absorbs. Just aren't any out there. Tyndall never confirmed temperature with the absorption.

 

[SSDD]

Are you talking about climate model predictions? Why would I defend climate models?

The US Standard Atmosphere is reanalysis of known measurements.

What's the matter Ian....are we getting dangerously close to questioning your faith here?.....you know as well as I that the greenhouse effect hypothesis itself predicts that if CO2 increases....that a tropospheric hot spot...the fingerprint of the greenhouse effect itself will develop...it hasn't happened....which means that the greenhouse hypothesis itself has failed a major predictive test....so again, for the 7th or 8th time...how many predictive failures should a hypothesis be allowed before it is scrapped and the search for a more viable hypothesis begins?....

so they are in a conundrum, they believe that IR heats the CO2 molecule and the more CO2 molecules means more heat. It is exactly what the warmers use to scare the public with AGW. So, I'm confused at how they believe CO2 does this and yet doesn't follow the AGW hypothesis. A greenhouse does not use CO2 to keep plants warm, the concept is to recapture the water vapor using the enclosure along with the incoming sun rays. Also, I cannot find any link that can confirm CO2 getting warm after it absorbs. Just aren't any out there. Tyndall never confirmed temperature with the absorption.

You aren't likely to find a link suggesting that a CO2 molecule warms as a result of absorption and emission either....I guess it is just another thing you must take on faith if you are going to be a member of the warmer cult...

 

[IanC]

green·house ef·fect
noun
the trapping of the sun's warmth in a planet's lower atmosphere due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface.


Is this the failed hypothesis you are talking about????

Surely not, because it is obviously true. Perhaps you should be more specific.

The greenhouse "effect" hypothesis predicts a tropospheric hot spot Ian...it hasn't shown up...so once again for the 6th or 7th time...how many predictive failures do you believe a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped and work begins on a more viable hypothesis....

By the way....the US standard atmosphere is accurate with no mention of any greenhouse effect.

Show me the link to where a tropospheric hotspot is a requirement for the Greenhouse Effect. IPCC model outputs are not acceptable, and I have argued against them in the past.

 

[IanC]

Are you talking about climate model predictions? Why would I defend climate models?

The US Standard Atmosphere is reanalysis of known measurements.

What's the matter Ian....are we getting dangerously close to questioning your faith here?.....you know as well as I that the greenhouse effect hypothesis itself predicts that if CO2 increases....that a tropospheric hot spot...the fingerprint of the greenhouse effect itself will develop...it hasn't happened....which means that the greenhouse hypothesis itself has failed a major predictive test....so again, for the 7th or 8th time...how many predictive failures should a hypothesis be allowed before it is scrapped and the search for a more viable hypothesis begins?....

so they are in a conundrum, they believe that IR heats the CO2 molecule and the more CO2 molecules means more heat. It is exactly what the warmers use to scare the public with AGW. So, I'm confused at how they believe CO2 does this and yet doesn't follow the AGW hypothesis. A greenhouse does not use CO2 to keep plants warm, the concept is to recapture the water vapor using the enclosure along with the incoming sun rays. Also, I cannot find any link that can confirm CO2 getting warm after it absorbs. Just aren't any out there. Tyndall never confirmed temperature with the absorption.

If it was just a simple case of absorption and emission, then where is the IR radiation that entered the atmosphere at the surface but is missing at the TOA?

My guess is that you will duck the question yet again.

 

[Crick]

Eight days since you asked this question Ian. That looks pretty well ducked to me.

 

[SSDD]

Eight days since you asked this question Ian. That looks pretty well ducked to me.

And how many days has it been and still not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data from AR5 in support of the A in AGW?....looks pretty well ducked to me...

 

[Crick]

Besides being a blatant and demonstrable lie, what does that have to do with the question Ian ducked? Nothing.

 

[jc456]

Besides being a blatant and demonstrable lie, what does that have to do with the question Ian ducked? Nothing.

well the question was the OP and you haven't complied.

 

[Crick]

I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.

 

[jc456]

I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here. But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.

nope.