Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[IanC]

It appears that he actually believes that greenhouse gasses increase the energy coming in from the sun. If we could only put that magic to use in a real way, our energy problem would be solved

Any time energy as heat flows through a system there is a temperature gradient. Different conditions cause differences in the gradient. CO2 reduces the ability to shed energy at the surface/atmosphere boundary. This energy that is not lost immediately to space accumulates and temperature rises to a new equilibrium. This is not new energy, it is redistributed energy. Space is cooler, the surface boundary is warmer. Once equilibrium is reached the input matches the output, as it was before CO2 changed the conditions.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It appears that he actually believes that greenhouse gasses increase the energy coming in from the sun. If we could only put that magic to use in a real way, our energy problem would be solved

Any time energy as heat flows through a system there is a temperature gradient. Different conditions cause differences in the gradient. CO2 reduces the ability to shed energy at the surface/atmosphere boundary. This energy that is not lost immediately to space accumulates and temperature rises to a new equilibrium. This is not new energy, it is redistributed energy. Space is cooler, the surface boundary is warmer. Once equilibrium is reached the input matches the output, as it was before CO2 changed the conditions.

And yet you can not show any evidence of you hypothesis. NO HOT SPOT... So how are you slowing energy release? IN what bands, and what corresponding bands are now carrying the heat to release?

Water vapor may receive energy at 14-18 microns but it emits it at near 20-24 microns due to its energy residency time and the lower temperature of water vapor in our atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

Hell, Ian misses the boat right off the bat by accepting that the earth is receiving only 341wm2 from the sun...that flat earth model puts you off the track of realty from the start.

Surely that is the least ambiguous measurement of all. The two dimensional disk shape is used to calculate how much sunlight is intercepted. We then use the area of the sphere to calculate the average input per unit of area. Most locations are not 'average', but so what? We were looking for the total input.

Satellites have measured all the regions of the Earth, both in reflected solar and in infrared. Those measurements can also be averaged. I am much less certain of those results.

In the process of turning highly ordered and energetic sunlight into diffuse low energy IR, useful energy has powered such things as atmospheric winds and ocean currents leaving behind crap IR that can't be used to perform any more work. Entropy has increased, the energy leaving the Earth is the same amount as entered it but it is now in a form that is relatively useless.

BTW, this is a main reason why climate models go off track. They keep the energy budget equal but ignore entropy. A watt of IR is not the same as a watt of sunlight.

So the answer is no...you have no actual evidence...what you have is the output from unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

 

[SSDD]

It appears that he actually believes that greenhouse gasses increase the energy coming in from the sun. If we could only put that magic to use in a real way, our energy problem would be solved

Any time energy as heat flows through a system there is a temperature gradient. Different conditions cause differences in the gradient. CO2 reduces the ability to shed energy at the surface/atmosphere boundary. This energy that is not lost immediately to space accumulates and temperature rises to a new equilibrium. This is not new energy, it is redistributed energy. Space is cooler, the surface boundary is warmer. Once equilibrium is reached the input matches the output, as it was before CO2 changed the conditions.

So at this point, all you can say for sure is that we don't really have a clue how energy moves through the system or what happens to it as it moves and failing computer models are just our best guess right now. Pretty much what I have been saying all along...I just choose to be rational about it and admit that we don't have a clue, while you like to pretend those failed climate models actually mean something other than that we don't have a clue.

The fact is Ian, that today, science is broken...and a field of physics that doesn't openly rebel at the claims and modeling being made and done by climate science is also broken.

 

[IanC]

Hell, Ian misses the boat right off the bat by accepting that the earth is receiving only 341wm2 from the sun...that flat earth model puts you off the track of realty from the start.

Surely that is the least ambiguous measurement of all. The two dimensional disk shape is used to calculate how much sunlight is intercepted. We then use the area of the sphere to calculate the average input per unit of area. Most locations are not 'average', but so what? We were looking for the total input.

Satellites have measured all the regions of the Earth, both in reflected solar and in infrared. Those measurements can also be averaged. I am much less certain of those results.

In the process of turning highly ordered and energetic sunlight into diffuse low energy IR, useful energy has powered such things as atmospheric winds and ocean currents leaving behind crap IR that can't be used to perform any more work. Entropy has increased, the energy leaving the Earth is the same amount as entered it but it is now in a form that is relatively useless.

BTW, this is a main reason why climate models go off track. They keep the energy budget equal but ignore entropy. A watt of IR is not the same as a watt of sunlight.

So the answer is no...you have no actual evidence...what you have is the output from unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

There is a mountain of evidence that supports the contention that CO2 slows the escape of surface radiation and pushes the surface equilibrium temperature up. You just reject it all, with no alternate reasoning to explain the evidence drawn from measuring reality.

 

[SSDD]

Hell, Ian misses the boat right off the bat by accepting that the earth is receiving only 341wm2 from the sun...that flat earth model puts you off the track of realty from the start.

Surely that is the least ambiguous measurement of all. The two dimensional disk shape is used to calculate how much sunlight is intercepted. We then use the area of the sphere to calculate the average input per unit of area. Most locations are not 'average', but so what? We were looking for the total input.

Satellites have measured all the regions of the Earth, both in reflected solar and in infrared. Those measurements can also be averaged. I am much less certain of those results.

In the process of turning highly ordered and energetic sunlight into diffuse low energy IR, useful energy has powered such things as atmospheric winds and ocean currents leaving behind crap IR that can't be used to perform any more work. Entropy has increased, the energy leaving the Earth is the same amount as entered it but it is now in a form that is relatively useless.

BTW, this is a main reason why climate models go off track. They keep the energy budget equal but ignore entropy. A watt of IR is not the same as a watt of sunlight.

So the answer is no...you have no actual evidence...what you have is the output from unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

There is a mountain of evidence that supports the contention that CO2 slows the escape of surface radiation and pushes the surface equilibrium temperature up. You just reject it all, with no alternate reasoning to explain the evidence drawn from measuring reality.

There is not one piece of actual evidence...observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of a gas and warming in the atmosphere...the model output you cherish so is not evidence of anything more than the failure of the modeling process by climate science.

 

[westwall]

Hell, Ian misses the boat right off the bat by accepting that the earth is receiving only 341wm2 from the sun...that flat earth model puts you off the track of realty from the start.

Surely that is the least ambiguous measurement of all. The two dimensional disk shape is used to calculate how much sunlight is intercepted. We then use the area of the sphere to calculate the average input per unit of area. Most locations are not 'average', but so what? We were looking for the total input.

Satellites have measured all the regions of the Earth, both in reflected solar and in infrared. Those measurements can also be averaged. I am much less certain of those results.

In the process of turning highly ordered and energetic sunlight into diffuse low energy IR, useful energy has powered such things as atmospheric winds and ocean currents leaving behind crap IR that can't be used to perform any more work. Entropy has increased, the energy leaving the Earth is the same amount as entered it but it is now in a form that is relatively useless.

BTW, this is a main reason why climate models go off track. They keep the energy budget equal but ignore entropy. A watt of IR is not the same as a watt of sunlight.

So the answer is no...you have no actual evidence...what you have is the output from unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

There is a mountain of evidence that supports the contention that CO2 slows the escape of surface radiation and pushes the surface equilibrium temperature up. You just reject it all, with no alternate reasoning to explain the evidence drawn from measuring reality.

No, Ian, there really isn't. There are no lab tests to support it. There are only computer models that tell us it is happening. But the very mechanism for maintaining the warmth of the planet refutes the claim. The oceans are the heat sinks of the world. UV radiation is the only KNOWN source of warming for those vast bodies of water.

Long wave IR, which as you know is what is returned to the surface from CO2 interference, is incapable of warming the oceans. That is KNOWN. So come up with a different mechanism to generate your heating.

 

[SSDD]

The only hypothesis that works wherever it is applied is the gravity-thermal effect...no need for fudge factors, and it accurately predicts temperatures both in the models and out in the real world.

Continued belief in a radiative greenhouse effect, and its bastard stepchild AGW is pure politics and pseudoscience.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hell, Ian misses the boat right off the bat by accepting that the earth is receiving only 341wm2 from the sun...that flat earth model puts you off the track of realty from the start.

Surely that is the least ambiguous measurement of all. The two dimensional disk shape is used to calculate how much sunlight is intercepted. We then use the area of the sphere to calculate the average input per unit of area. Most locations are not 'average', but so what? We were looking for the total input.

Satellites have measured all the regions of the Earth, both in reflected solar and in infrared. Those measurements can also be averaged. I am much less certain of those results.

In the process of turning highly ordered and energetic sunlight into diffuse low energy IR, useful energy has powered such things as atmospheric winds and ocean currents leaving behind crap IR that can't be used to perform any more work. Entropy has increased, the energy leaving the Earth is the same amount as entered it but it is now in a form that is relatively useless.

BTW, this is a main reason why climate models go off track. They keep the energy budget equal but ignore entropy. A watt of IR is not the same as a watt of sunlight.

"BTW, this is a main reason why climate models go off track. They keep the energy budget equal but ignore entropy. A watt of IR is not the same as a watt of sunlight."

And this Ian is where your models go off the rails.. Your "retention" scenario is based on false assumptions and over estimations that have no basis in empirically observed facts, yet you believe..

Absent a hot spot in our atmosphere, there is no downward pressure to create the work necessary to defeat entropy and energy escape. Either your assumptions are wrong, you failed in your attempt to model the system, or both are wrong. In any case you failed. Most modeling failures are due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the system your trying to model.

If I read your posts correctly, you admit both are wrong, yet you believe. Why?

 

[IanC]

Long wave IR, which as you know is what is returned to the surface from CO2 interference, is incapable of warming the oceans. That is KNOWN. So come up with a different mechanism to generate your heating.

Why the strawman?

You are a smart and educated man. Is it possible that you honestly don't understand my position after the hundreds of times that I have said that only the Sun heats the Earth surface? In dozens of ways?

Entropy (decay, increasing disorder) would be a lot easier for people to understand if we had a common word for the opposite (building up, increasing order). That is what makes life forms so amazing, they defy entropy at least for a short time.

Thermodynamics can be broken down into two types of processes. Passive, where every particle is trying to shed energy, every system is trying to shed heat in the most efficient way. And active, where an outside power source is adding energy and reversing entropy. There is of course a fuzzy boundary between the two. Is it new energy or just a redistribution of energy.

Ultimately, the Sun is our only power source (nuclear power on earth is just a remnant of a different star). Because the Earth is a spinning sphere it warms up roughly half the time and cools half the time. The surface is always passively trying to shed heat but it is only obvious to us when the Sun is not actively heating it. The surface is actually expelling more energy during the daylight heating phase, with a lag of course due to thermal inertia.

CO2 only effects the passive shedding of energy. It DOES NOT actively heat the surface, it reduces the surface passive cooling. There is no creation of extra energy, there is only a change in the distribution that leads to an accumulation energy in the atmosphere near the surface. This energy has just been 'borrowed' from space by not expelling it. Once equilibrium is again reached, the solar input matches terrestrial output again. The Earth's surface can have a wide range of average temperatures, and every one of them can be at equilibrium, it just depends on the conditions.

I think the total influence of CO2 from zero ppm to 400 ppm is probably about 8C. Extra CO2 has rapidly diminishing effect, but it still has an affect.

 

[IanC]

Hell, Ian misses the boat right off the bat by accepting that the earth is receiving only 341wm2 from the sun...that flat earth model puts you off the track of realty from the start.

Surely that is the least ambiguous measurement of all. The two dimensional disk shape is used to calculate how much sunlight is intercepted. We then use the area of the sphere to calculate the average input per unit of area. Most locations are not 'average', but so what? We were looking for the total input.

Satellites have measured all the regions of the Earth, both in reflected solar and in infrared. Those measurements can also be averaged. I am much less certain of those results.

In the process of turning highly ordered and energetic sunlight into diffuse low energy IR, useful energy has powered such things as atmospheric winds and ocean currents leaving behind crap IR that can't be used to perform any more work. Entropy has increased, the energy leaving the Earth is the same amount as entered it but it is now in a form that is relatively useless.

BTW, this is a main reason why climate models go off track. They keep the energy budget equal but ignore entropy. A watt of IR is not the same as a watt of sunlight.

"BTW, this is a main reason why climate models go off track. They keep the energy budget equal but ignore entropy. A watt of IR is not the same as a watt of sunlight."

And this Ian is where your models go off the rails.. Your "retention" scenario is based on false assumptions and over estimations that have no basis in empirically observed facts, yet you believe..

Absent a hot spot in our atmosphere, there is no downward pressure to create the work necessary to defeat entropy and energy escape. Either your assumptions are wrong, you failed in your attempt to model the system, or both are wrong. In any case you failed. Most modeling failures are due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the system your trying to model.

If I read your posts correctly, you admit both are wrong, yet you believe. Why?

I believe in the mechanism of CO2 because it is relatively simple, easy to demonstrate and calculate.

I disbelieve in the feedbacks due to H2O because there are many mechanisms and complex interactions but mostly because the models and predictions have been shown to be wrong. The hotspot is based on the water cycle, not CO2. Why do you keep saying it disproves the influence of CO2?

 

[IanC]

The only hypothesis that works wherever it is applied is the gravity-thermal effect...no need for fudge factors, and it accurately predicts temperatures both in the models and out in the real world.

As I have in the past, I publicly concur with SSDD that the atmosphere is a basic scaffold in determining the possible range of temperatures for the surface. Energy accumulated in the atmosphere is the main storage vehicle. Kinetic exchange at the boundary a main instrument for expressing the energy transfer from the surface.

I disagree with N&Z because they use specific parameter of pressure rather than the universal parameter of density. Their results are an example of circular reasoning and line fitting. Many temperatures would be found to be 'correct' by their method.

 

[IanC]

It appears that he actually believes that greenhouse gasses increase the energy coming in from the sun. If we could only put that magic to use in a real way, our energy problem would be solved

Any time energy as heat flows through a system there is a temperature gradient. Different conditions cause differences in the gradient. CO2 reduces the ability to shed energy at the surface/atmosphere boundary. This energy that is not lost immediately to space accumulates and temperature rises to a new equilibrium. This is not new energy, it is redistributed energy. Space is cooler, the surface boundary is warmer. Once equilibrium is reached the input matches the output, as it was before CO2 changed the conditions.

And yet you can not show any evidence of you hypothesis. NO HOT SPOT... So how are you slowing energy release? IN what bands, and what corresponding bands are now carrying the heat to release?

Water vapor may receive energy at 14-18 microns but it emits it at near 20-24 microns due to its energy residency time and the lower temperature of water vapor in our atmosphere.

Obviously I am talking about the 14-16 micron band absorbed by CO2. When you increase CO2 the notch becomes slightly deeper and wider. That extra energy accumulates in the atmosphere and warms it. The warmer atmosphere accepts less kinetic energy from the surface so the surface temperature goes up. The warmer surface temperature expels more radiation through the atmospheric window bringing the system back into equilibrium. The input matches output again but the temperature has gone up.

The opposite would also hold true. With less CO2 the atmosphere would absorb less surface radiation and cool. The cooler atmosphere would then accept more kinetic energy transfer at the boundary, which in turn would cool the surface and decrease the amount of energy escaping through the atmospheric window. The equilibrium would be restored.

In the first case atmospheric energy is accumulated, in the second it is dissapated.

 

[IanC]

The hotspot is a prediction based on the water cycle. Warmer water can evaporate more, warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour. Convection carries the lighter moist air up by convection. The water vapour condenses and releases the latent heat of phase change. What could be simpler, right? The mid troposphere must warm up from all the extra energy being released.

But water and ice particles in clouds reflect sunshine, cooling the water below them in shade. Not only that but it makes a difference WHEN the clouds form. If they reflect the sunlight at noon when the flux is greatest it makes more of a difference than in the late afternoon.

The water cycle acts as both a heater and an air conditioner, working at the same time. Climate science seems to have focused on the heater side and ignored the other effects because their predictions are wrong.


There is one other aspect of the hotspot model that does involve CO2. More CO2 means the emission layer for CO2 goes up, where CO2 specific radiation can finally escape because it is not being recaptured. This layer is close to the stratosphere. More CO2 means more atmospheric energy is converted to radiation. This has apparently happened because parts of the stratosphere are cooling. I am not thoroughly convinced but it is indicative until a better reason comes along.

Some of you may have noticed that there is an upward spike in the CO2 notch instead of a downward one. This is CO2's most favoured wavelength. It cannot escape the atmosphere until it is even farther up. Why does it appear to be coming from lower down in the atmosphere? Because the Stratosphere's temperature gradient starts going up with height. There are two intercepts for temperature, and this is the counter intuitive one.

 

[westwall]

Long wave IR, which as you know is what is returned to the surface from CO2 interference, is incapable of warming the oceans. That is KNOWN. So come up with a different mechanism to generate your heating.

Why the strawman?

You are a smart and educated man. Is it possible that you honestly don't understand my position after the hundreds of times that I have said that only the Sun heats the Earth surface? In dozens of ways?

Entropy (decay, increasing disorder) would be a lot easier for people to understand if we had a common word for the opposite (building up, increasing order). That is what makes life forms so amazing, they defy entropy at least for a short time.

Thermodynamics can be broken down into two types of processes. Passive, where every particle is trying to shed energy, every system is trying to shed heat in the most efficient way. And active, where an outside power source is adding energy and reversing entropy. There is of course a fuzzy boundary between the two. Is it new energy or just a redistribution of energy.

Ultimately, the Sun is our only power source (nuclear power on earth is just a remnant of a different star). Because the Earth is a spinning sphere it warms up roughly half the time and cools half the time. The surface is always passively trying to shed heat but it is only obvious to us when the Sun is not actively heating it. The surface is actually expelling more energy during the daylight heating phase, with a lag of course due to thermal inertia.

CO2 only effects the passive shedding of energy. It DOES NOT actively heat the surface, it reduces the surface passive cooling. There is no creation of extra energy, there is only a change in the distribution that leads to an accumulation energy in the atmosphere near the surface. This energy has just been 'borrowed' from space by not expelling it. Once equilibrium is again reached, the solar input matches terrestrial output again. The Earth's surface can have a wide range of average temperatures, and every one of them can be at equilibrium, it just depends on the conditions.

I think the total influence of CO2 from zero ppm to 400 ppm is probably about 8C. Extra CO2 has rapidly diminishing effect, but it still has an affect.

HOW does the CO2 have an effect? I agree that when dealing with an exoatmosphere, CO2 would have an effect, but in our atmosphere I have seen no evidence that it does.

 

[IanC]

Long wave IR, which as you know is what is returned to the surface from CO2 interference, is incapable of warming the oceans. That is KNOWN. So come up with a different mechanism to generate your heating.

Why the strawman?

You are a smart and educated man. Is it possible that you honestly don't understand my position after the hundreds of times that I have said that only the Sun heats the Earth surface? In dozens of ways?

Entropy (decay, increasing disorder) would be a lot easier for people to understand if we had a common word for the opposite (building up, increasing order). That is what makes life forms so amazing, they defy entropy at least for a short time.

Thermodynamics can be broken down into two types of processes. Passive, where every particle is trying to shed energy, every system is trying to shed heat in the most efficient way. And active, where an outside power source is adding energy and reversing entropy. There is of course a fuzzy boundary between the two. Is it new energy or just a redistribution of energy.

Ultimately, the Sun is our only power source (nuclear power on earth is just a remnant of a different star). Because the Earth is a spinning sphere it warms up roughly half the time and cools half the time. The surface is always passively trying to shed heat but it is only obvious to us when the Sun is not actively heating it. The surface is actually expelling more energy during the daylight heating phase, with a lag of course due to thermal inertia.

CO2 only effects the passive shedding of energy. It DOES NOT actively heat the surface, it reduces the surface passive cooling. There is no creation of extra energy, there is only a change in the distribution that leads to an accumulation energy in the atmosphere near the surface. This energy has just been 'borrowed' from space by not expelling it. Once equilibrium is again reached, the solar input matches terrestrial output again. The Earth's surface can have a wide range of average temperatures, and every one of them can be at equilibrium, it just depends on the conditions.

I think the total influence of CO2 from zero ppm to 400 ppm is probably about 8C. Extra CO2 has rapidly diminishing effect, but it still has an affect.

HOW does the CO2 have an effect? I agree that when dealing with an exoatmosphere, CO2 would have an effect, but in our atmosphere I have seen no evidence that it does.

Sorry, I don't get your point. Space doesn't care whether it goes without the temporarily retarded energy. It makes no difference.

The mean free path for 15 micron radiation is two metres. We take surface temperature readings at 1.5 metres. Much of the surface radiated 15 micron has already been absorbed by that point. All of it by 10 metres. All of that surface energy has been immediately absorbed and converted to other forms of atmospheric energy. It then bounces around until much farther up where it finally starts escaping but from a cooler temperature. Absorption is not controlled by temperature but emission is. The difference between the amount that goes in at the bottom, and comes out at the top is the amount of energy that accumulates until it finds a new path out of the system.

Adding more CO2 shortens the mean free path. Which puts that energy into a smaller volume of air. And while the energy does find a different pathway out, there must be some change of temperature, or something, because the energy wasn't taking that path before.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hell, Ian misses the boat right off the bat by accepting that the earth is receiving only 341wm2 from the sun...that flat earth model puts you off the track of realty from the start.

Surely that is the least ambiguous measurement of all. The two dimensional disk shape is used to calculate how much sunlight is intercepted. We then use the area of the sphere to calculate the average input per unit of area. Most locations are not 'average', but so what? We were looking for the total input.

Satellites have measured all the regions of the Earth, both in reflected solar and in infrared. Those measurements can also be averaged. I am much less certain of those results.

In the process of turning highly ordered and energetic sunlight into diffuse low energy IR, useful energy has powered such things as atmospheric winds and ocean currents leaving behind crap IR that can't be used to perform any more work. Entropy has increased, the energy leaving the Earth is the same amount as entered it but it is now in a form that is relatively useless.

BTW, this is a main reason why climate models go off track. They keep the energy budget equal but ignore entropy. A watt of IR is not the same as a watt of sunlight.

"BTW, this is a main reason why climate models go off track. They keep the energy budget equal but ignore entropy. A watt of IR is not the same as a watt of sunlight."

And this Ian is where your models go off the rails.. Your "retention" scenario is based on false assumptions and over estimations that have no basis in empirically observed facts, yet you believe..

Absent a hot spot in our atmosphere, there is no downward pressure to create the work necessary to defeat entropy and energy escape. Either your assumptions are wrong, you failed in your attempt to model the system, or both are wrong. In any case you failed. Most modeling failures are due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the system your trying to model.

If I read your posts correctly, you admit both are wrong, yet you believe. Why?

I believe in the mechanism of CO2 because it is relatively simple, easy to demonstrate and calculate.

I disbelieve in the feedbacks due to H2O because there are many mechanisms and complex interactions but mostly because the models and predictions have been shown to be wrong. The hotspot is based on the water cycle, not CO2. Why do you keep saying it disproves the influence of CO2?

Because without it and a positive response from water vapor it can not create the downward pressures necessary to force warming back to the surface. The absence of the hot spot shows there is no downward pressure to create warming. Without CO2 and this link the whole premise dies..

All Modeling, reflecting your beliefs, fails inside three years. So your understanding is wrong. Now you need to assess what it is that is wrong..

 

[SSDD]

I believe in the mechanism of CO2 because it is relatively simple, easy to demonstrate and calculate.

Believe being the operative word there. It is relatively simple to demonstrate and calculate all manner of fantasy so long as you are required to measure them in reality.

As I have already said there are no actual measurements that demonstrate a coherent relationship between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. It’s all models and all calculations and no relationship to reality.

You believe Ian, and belief is faith, not science.

 

[SSDD]

Hell, Ian misses the boat right off the bat by accepting that the earth is receiving only 341wm2 from the sun...that flat earth model puts you off the track of realty from the start.

Surely that is the least ambiguous measurement of all. The two dimensional disk shape is used to calculate how much sunlight is intercepted. We then use the area of the sphere to calculate the average input per unit of area. Most locations are not 'average', but so what? We were looking for the total input.

Satellites have measured all the regions of the Earth, both in reflected solar and in infrared. Those measurements can also be averaged. I am much less certain of those results.

In the process of turning highly ordered and energetic sunlight into diffuse low energy IR, useful energy has powered such things as atmospheric winds and ocean currents leaving behind crap IR that can't be used to perform any more work. Entropy has increased, the energy leaving the Earth is the same amount as entered it but it is now in a form that is relatively useless.

BTW, this is a main reason why climate models go off track. They keep the energy budget equal but ignore entropy. A watt of IR is not the same as a watt of sunlight.

"BTW, this is a main reason why climate models go off track. They keep the energy budget equal but ignore entropy. A watt of IR is not the same as a watt of sunlight."

And this Ian is where your models go off the rails.. Your "retention" scenario is based on false assumptions and over estimations that have no basis in empirically observed facts, yet you believe..

Absent a hot spot in our atmosphere, there is no downward pressure to create the work necessary to defeat entropy and energy escape. Either your assumptions are wrong, you failed in your attempt to model the system, or both are wrong. In any case you failed. Most modeling failures are due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the system your trying to model.

If I read your posts correctly, you admit both are wrong, yet you believe. Why?

I believe in the mechanism of CO2 because it is relatively simple, easy to demonstrate and calculate.

I disbelieve in the feedbacks due to H2O because there are many mechanisms and complex interactions but mostly because the models and predictions have been shown to be wrong. The hotspot is based on the water cycle, not CO2. Why do you keep saying it disproves the influence of CO2?

Because without it and a positive response from water vapor it can not create the downward pressures necessary to force warming back to the surface. The absence of the hot spot shows there is no downward pressure to create warming. Without CO2 and this link the whole premise dies..

All Modeling, reflecting your beliefs, fails inside three years. So your understanding is wrong. Now you need to assess what it is that is wrong..

I’m not surprised that Ian is denying that the hotspot was supposed to be smoking gun, the observable measurable fingerprint of man-made global warming due to our CO2 emissions, He seems to reject climate science when it suits him in favor of his own personal hypotheses. His description of the mechanism of AGW is not the same as that claimed by climate science but is just as unobservable and untestable as that promoted by climate science

What he doesn’t seem to be able to reject, are the unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable models based on QM. I have heard him expound at Length on how theoretical particles interact with matter. I wonder how he squares that with the QM claim that matter it’s not even real.

 

[westwall]

Long wave IR, which as you know is what is returned to the surface from CO2 interference, is incapable of warming the oceans. That is KNOWN. So come up with a different mechanism to generate your heating.

Why the strawman?

You are a smart and educated man. Is it possible that you honestly don't understand my position after the hundreds of times that I have said that only the Sun heats the Earth surface? In dozens of ways?

Entropy (decay, increasing disorder) would be a lot easier for people to understand if we had a common word for the opposite (building up, increasing order). That is what makes life forms so amazing, they defy entropy at least for a short time.

Thermodynamics can be broken down into two types of processes. Passive, where every particle is trying to shed energy, every system is trying to shed heat in the most efficient way. And active, where an outside power source is adding energy and reversing entropy. There is of course a fuzzy boundary between the two. Is it new energy or just a redistribution of energy.

Ultimately, the Sun is our only power source (nuclear power on earth is just a remnant of a different star). Because the Earth is a spinning sphere it warms up roughly half the time and cools half the time. The surface is always passively trying to shed heat but it is only obvious to us when the Sun is not actively heating it. The surface is actually expelling more energy during the daylight heating phase, with a lag of course due to thermal inertia.

CO2 only effects the passive shedding of energy. It DOES NOT actively heat the surface, it reduces the surface passive cooling. There is no creation of extra energy, there is only a change in the distribution that leads to an accumulation energy in the atmosphere near the surface. This energy has just been 'borrowed' from space by not expelling it. Once equilibrium is again reached, the solar input matches terrestrial output again. The Earth's surface can have a wide range of average temperatures, and every one of them can be at equilibrium, it just depends on the conditions.

I think the total influence of CO2 from zero ppm to 400 ppm is probably about 8C. Extra CO2 has rapidly diminishing effect, but it still has an affect.

HOW does the CO2 have an effect? I agree that when dealing with an exoatmosphere, CO2 would have an effect, but in our atmosphere I have seen no evidence that it does.

Sorry, I don't get your point. Space doesn't care whether it goes without the temporarily retarded energy. It makes no difference.

The mean free path for 15 micron radiation is two metres. We take surface temperature readings at 1.5 metres. Much of the surface radiated 15 micron has already been absorbed by that point. All of it by 10 metres. All of that surface energy has been immediately absorbed and converted to other forms of atmospheric energy. It then bounces around until much farther up where it finally starts escaping but from a cooler temperature. Absorption is not controlled by temperature but emission is. The difference between the amount that goes in at the bottom, and comes out at the top is the amount of energy that accumulates until it finds a new path out of the system.

Adding more CO2 shortens the mean free path. Which puts that energy into a smaller volume of air. And while the energy does find a different pathway out, there must be some change of temperature, or something, because the energy wasn't taking that path before.

My point is that in the complete absence of water vapor CO2 does indeed exert some power to warm. But in a dense water vapor atmosphere, such as ours, it doesn't. Whatever impact it could have was lost in the far more powerful water vapor signal. This belief that CO2 is the "control knob" is silly based on the observed scientific record.