In Support of the A in AGW

[Wuwei]

Continually monitored and yet, we aren't sure....
A quick search yields figures from 0.20 to about .040...quite a spread...and GCM's have traditionally characterized it as constant but we are finding now that it isn't but aren't sure of the variation from season to season and don't have a clue as to how it effects the global climate budget...gaping holes in a basic requirement for understanding the global climate....and yet, you think the science is settled...

Seasonal variations are part of the definition of averaging. So even if the figures are your worst case 20% off, that means the energy reaching the earth is 160 W/m2 + 20% = 192 W/m2. That is much higher than any figure in the literature, yet it is still much lower than the 400 W/m2 that the earth is radiating.

So you say and yet, it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor...

It is still a bogus blog posting. I read it once and it was simply full of crap. It assumed a long term effect from a static calculation.

I asked for observed, measured, quantified evidence collected from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world and thus far, neither you, nor anyone else has been able to put up...model output is all you have and it doesn't agree with actual observation...so what does climate science do?...it furiously manipulates the observed record in an attempt to keep up the models.

You were given observed, measured, quantified back-scatter data by others in this thread. The fact that you reject the science of thermodynamics as it stands, means that you deny what 100% of physical science know about thermodynamics – radiant energy must move between any objects at any temperatures. If you blindly reject that physics, of course you will reject everything else. So your opinion means nothing to anyone else in this thread or any university or any other institution that understands the science.

I answered the question...sorry you don't like it...now how about you....do you understand the point of this thread?....it is a request that you warmers provide some observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW that has actually been gathered out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence...it is a starting place...not an end... Do you think engineers start large projects based on model output that has not stood the test of observation, measurement, and quantification over and over and over again?

You did not answer the question, but evaded it. If you disagree, please direct me to your response on how the earth receives less than 200 W/m2 of SW radiation from the sun yet radiates 400 W/m2 of LW radiation.

Look, I really don't care if you and your minions here believe AGW is wrong. But what is wrong is using bogus science to attempt to make your point.

 

[SSDD]

It is still a bogus blog posting. I read it once and it was simply full of crap. It assumed a long term effect from a static calculation.

Ever see a static atmosphere? The fact is that pressure creates heat and would reach equilibrium in a static column of air...not so with the constant movement in a real atmosphere...

You were given observed, measured, quantified back-scatter data by others in this thread.

I was given measurements taken with an instrument cooled to -80F...that is not backscatter...that is simply energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...backscatter is something that would have to be measured at ambient temperature...where the instrument was warmer than the emitter...and such measurements have never been made or observed...

You did not answer the question, but evaded it. If you disagree, please direct me to your response on how the earth receives less than 200 W/m2 of SW radiation from the sun yet radiates 400 W/m2 of LW radiation.

Of course I did...that you don't like my answer doesn't change it.

Look, I really don't care if you and your minions here believe AGW is wrong. But what is wrong is using bogus science to attempt to make your point.

Then why bother...especially when you couldn't even begin to provide the evidence that was asked for in the OP...you couldn't because it doesn't exist...

 

[jc456]

Nope. Of course it seems strange to anyone who doesn't believe back-scatter. How else can you explain why the earth doesn't freeze when it's radiating 400W/m2. And only absorbing. 160 W/m2 from the sun.

You do realize don't you...that the solar flux at the TOA is 1368 wm2?.... That 161 number is an artifact of trenberths idiot cartoon pretending that the earth is flat, doesn't rotate and receives a weak twilight 24/7.... And the amount actually being absorbed across the entire surface of the earth is an estimate as to date, climate science isn't sure what the albedo of the earth is....

The solar flux is around 1368 only at the equator at high noon. The energy to the rest of the earth facing the sun fades to zero at sunset and sunrise. If you use Lambert's law, the average energy over the full daylight side drops by a factor of two. Then if you consider that half the earth is dark, the average energy drops by another factor of 2.

The total average energy per day and night is 1368 / 4 = 342 W/m2. A little over half that energy is not absorbed at the ground level and that amounts to around 160 W/m2. If you have a better idea of the albedo is, let us know, but I guarantee it will be much less than the 400 W/m2 the earth is continually radiating, day and night.

We went through all that a few months ago. Try to remember it this time.

Do you believe the earth doesn't absorb incoming UV? You know the earth is mostly ocean right? I don't know you and others seem to be stuck on back radiation is hotter than UV rays and nowhere can you show a hot spot that those IR waves would heat up anything.

BTW, others in here have stated that the cooler atmosphere slows the rate LWIR leaves the planet, not that back radiation heats the surface. so, what say you? Do you believe that IR causes a warmer surface or cool air causes warm air to become warmer?

 

[Wuwei]

Ever see a static atmosphere? The fact is that pressure creates heat and would reach equilibrium in a static column of air...not so with the constant movement in a real atmosphere...

That is exactly my point. Your blog gotten theory is in static equilibrium and ignores the large dynamic energy flows into and out of the earth.

I was given measurements taken with an instrument cooled to -80F...that is not backscatter...that is simply energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...backscatter is something that would have to be measured at ambient temperature...where the instrument was warmer than the emitter...and such measurements have never been made or observed...

So you believe, but no other scientist agrees.

Of course I did...that you don't like my answer doesn't change it

Do you believe the surface of the earth is radiating roughly 400 W/m2.

That is a very simple question with a very simple answer, but I am positive you will evade it, distract it, or ignore it.

Then why bother...especially when you couldn't even begin to provide the evidence that was asked for in the OP...you couldn't because it doesn't exist...

Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it true. But you are right, why bother. You have proven yourself to be a anti-science in many many areas that have been proven time and again, such as electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics.

 

[Olde Europe]

Do you believe the surface of the earth is radiating roughly 400 W/m2.

Got to admire your patience.

Maybe, just maybe, this helps:

 

[Wuwei]

Maybe, just maybe, this helps: ...

Thank you for your complement.
SSDD is certainly aware of charts like that, but he rejects them outright when inconvenient. I think his problem really could be a clinical denialism.

Denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Denialism

In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. ... In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas.​

That certainly sounds like what his posts reveal, but another obvious answer is simply he is a troll. Nevertheless it is interesting where he takes concepts that are well understood in science. He knows enough about the science to make this pursuit interesting. His "yes-man" minions are much less interesting because they have only a dim understanding of science.

 

[jc456]

Maybe, just maybe, this helps: ...

Thank you for your complement.
SSDD is certainly aware of charts like that, but he rejects them outright when inconvenient. I think his problem really could be a clinical denialism.

Denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Denialism

In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. ... In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas.​

That certainly sounds like what his posts reveal, but another obvious answer is simply he is a troll. Nevertheless it is interesting where he takes concepts that are well understood in science. He knows enough about the science to make this pursuit interesting. His "yes-man" minions are much less interesting because they have only a dim understanding of science.

or the piece that says back radiation isn't proven and doesn't exist. I agree with him.

 

[Billy_Bob]

My question is where is this evidence?
...
Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...

---
You made yourself a bitch.
Even if you really wanted to see the evidence, you would not know what to do with it.
It's clear you don't understand science. so how can you understand the scientific evidence?

GW is a fact
The scientific evidence supporting the greenhouse theory is so strong that all the top scientific academies in the world agree.
If you really wanted to see the evidence, you can start with the Working Group I contribution to IPCC's AR5, which provides a comprehensive assessment of the physical science basis of climate change.

However, as a non-scientist, your eyes & brain will glaze.
So what's the point, other than showing everyone what a bitch you are?
.

Come on and post up the evidence you say is soooo devastating.

---
Hey BBob, why don't you simply look for it if you're really interested?
I already mentioned the IPCC-AR5's WG1 report has the evidence you clowns are asking for.
Just download the full WG1 report (375mb) and read it.
Let us know which of the 9,000+ cited scientific publications you dispute.
.

I dont do appeals to authority and models accepted as fact. AR5- WG1 is based on theoretical MODELING not empirical evidence. Ive read it, and I am not impressed with these fools who cite fantasy modeling, which has no predictive power and fails empirical review claiming it as undeniable fact. It is pure conjecture and that is the sad state of what passes for climate science at the UN.

Please feel free to post up the empirical, quantifiable, observed evidence, where and when it was obtained, and what it's error bounds are..

That is right, Silly Billy. You don't do appeals to authority, because you never ever have bothered to read any authoritative sources. Instead, you pull really stupid numbers and claims out of your ass, and make braindead claims as to your educational background.

The evidence supporting the A in AGW is simply overwhelming. From the laws of physics, to the observed evidence in the rising temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans. By using the then known laws of physics, Svante Arrhenius was able to make a reasonable estimate of the effects of doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere in 1896. All that has happened since then has confirmed his estimates.

What evidence? Are you implying that models are evidence of any kind? Given they fail in three days or less at all levels, your so called evidence amounts to fantasy diddly-squat..

 

[IanC]

The atmosphere is only there because of solar input. Solar energy is stored as both potential and kinetic energy by gas molecules (thickness and temperature).

Molecular collisions cause blackbody radiation in all directions, some of which returns to the surface, which in turn lowers the net heat loss from the surface.

Greenhouse gases capture some of the IR radiation from the surface, warming the atmosphere, which in turn produces more blackbody radiation as well as reemiting much of the same type of radiation that was absorbed (but NOT from the same molecule that absorbed it).

SSDD and the others who agree with him are fundamentally confused as to what is going on. They are ignoring the fact that every object emits radiation according to temperature. In this case, our atmosphere whether or not it has a component of GHGs or not.

 

[jc456]

The atmosphere is only there because of solar input. Solar energy is stored as both potential and kinetic energy by gas molecules (thickness and temperature).

Molecular collisions cause blackbody radiation in all directions, some of which returns to the surface, which in turn lowers the net heat loss from the surface.

Greenhouse gases capture some of the IR radiation from the surface, warming the atmosphere, which in turn produces more blackbody radiation as well as reemiting much of the same type of radiation that was absorbed (but NOT from the same molecule that absorbed it).

SSDD and the others who agree with him are fundamentally confused as to what is going on. They are ignoring the fact that every object emits radiation according to temperature. In this case, our atmosphere whether or not it has a component of GHGs or not.

Again, your saying greenhouse gases are a source of heat and I don't agree with that. And it can't be proven. Or are you going to tell us you can read the signature of IR coming from the atmosphere? heat only flows hot to cold and not the other direction, and again, can't be proven.

You can pump as much CO2 into a cylinder as you want and heat it up, it won't ever get hotter than what the temperature of the source heat is. You all claim it will get hotter. Prove it. I agree the gases absorb the LWIR from the surface, and then it gets carried out of the atmosphere to space. How fast that all occurs I have no idea, but if the surface temp is 70 degrees, that CO2 or other gas leaving isn't any hotter than that 70 degrees. There is no hot spot in the atmosphere so it isn't getting hotter up there either.

BTW, if what you said was true, than there wouldn't be different temperatures everyday. It would consistently be the same temp based on your silly diagrams.

 

[Olde Europe]

heat only flows hot to cold and not the other direction

What you are saying, basically, is this:

A body (A) [for Atmosphere] at temperature x radiates energy if, and only if, there is a body somewhere near at a temperature <x, and only into that direction.

So, how does (A) figure out there is another body nearby, and what that body's temperature is, not to mention the direction where to find that body?

 

[jc456]

heat only flows hot to cold and not the other direction

What you are saying, basically, is this:

A body (A) [for Atmosphere] at temperature x radiates energy if, and only if, there is a body somewhere near at a temperature <x, and only into that direction.

So, how does (A) figure out there is another body nearby, and what that body's temperature is, not to mention the direction where to find that body?

I'm saying cold does not heat up warm.

 

[Olde Europe]

heat only flows hot to cold and not the other direction

What you are saying, basically, is this:

A body (A) [for Atmosphere] at temperature x radiates energy if, and only if, there is a body somewhere near at a temperature <x, and only into that direction.

So, how does (A) figure out there is another body nearby, and what that body's temperature is, not to mention the direction where to find that body?

I'm saying cold does not heat up warm.

Answer the question, then.

 

[jc456]

heat only flows hot to cold and not the other direction

What you are saying, basically, is this:

A body (A) [for Atmosphere] at temperature x radiates energy if, and only if, there is a body somewhere near at a temperature <x, and only into that direction.

So, how does (A) figure out there is another body nearby, and what that body's temperature is, not to mention the direction where to find that body?

I'm saying cold does not heat up warm.

Answer the question, then.

why does it matter? The answer is that warm flows to cold and not vice versa. It is true physics. Testable as well. you post up the experiment that shows an ice cube warming a pan at room temperature.

 

[IanC]

The atmosphere is only there because of solar input. Solar energy is stored as both potential and kinetic energy by gas molecules (thickness and temperature).

Molecular collisions cause blackbody radiation in all directions, some of which returns to the surface, which in turn lowers the net heat loss from the surface.

Greenhouse gases capture some of the IR radiation from the surface, warming the atmosphere, which in turn produces more blackbody radiation as well as reemiting much of the same type of radiation that was absorbed (but NOT from the same molecule that absorbed it).

SSDD and the others who agree with him are fundamentally confused as to what is going on. They are ignoring the fact that every object emits radiation according to temperature. In this case, our atmosphere whether or not it has a component of GHGs or not.

Again, your saying greenhouse gases are a source of heat and I don't agree with that. And it can't be proven. Or are you going to tell us you can read the signature of IR coming from the atmosphere? heat only flows hot to cold and not the other direction, and again, can't be proven.

You can pump as much CO2 into a cylinder as you want and heat it up, it won't ever get hotter than what the temperature of the source heat is. You all claim it will get hotter. Prove it. I agree the gases absorb the LWIR from the surface, and then it gets carried out of the atmosphere to space. How fast that all occurs I have no idea, but if the surface temp is 70 degrees, that CO2 or other gas leaving isn't any hotter than that 70 degrees. There is no hot spot in the atmosphere so it isn't getting hotter up there either.

BTW, if what you said was true, than there wouldn't be different temperatures everyday. It would consistently be the same temp based on your silly diagrams.

jc - we have been over this many times.

Do you agree that the atmosphere warms and moderates the temperature at the surface? If yes, then why?

Any composition atmosphere will have this effect. GHGs exacerbate the effect because they impede the escape of IR directly to space. Eg- if the surface was losing 400w while only receiving 160w solar input, we would cool rapidly, both the surface AND the atmosphere. Without GHGs the new equilibrium might be something like 250w or 300w which is very cold.

You are focusing your attention on minutiae and ignoring the bigger picture. Of course colder objects can warm warmer objects that are being heated by an outside source. Temperature is an equilibrium between energy input and energy loss. Reducing loss is equally effective as adding input.

 

[jc456]

The atmosphere is only there because of solar input. Solar energy is stored as both potential and kinetic energy by gas molecules (thickness and temperature).

Molecular collisions cause blackbody radiation in all directions, some of which returns to the surface, which in turn lowers the net heat loss from the surface.

Greenhouse gases capture some of the IR radiation from the surface, warming the atmosphere, which in turn produces more blackbody radiation as well as reemiting much of the same type of radiation that was absorbed (but NOT from the same molecule that absorbed it).

SSDD and the others who agree with him are fundamentally confused as to what is going on. They are ignoring the fact that every object emits radiation according to temperature. In this case, our atmosphere whether or not it has a component of GHGs or not.

Again, your saying greenhouse gases are a source of heat and I don't agree with that. And it can't be proven. Or are you going to tell us you can read the signature of IR coming from the atmosphere? heat only flows hot to cold and not the other direction, and again, can't be proven.

You can pump as much CO2 into a cylinder as you want and heat it up, it won't ever get hotter than what the temperature of the source heat is. You all claim it will get hotter. Prove it. I agree the gases absorb the LWIR from the surface, and then it gets carried out of the atmosphere to space. How fast that all occurs I have no idea, but if the surface temp is 70 degrees, that CO2 or other gas leaving isn't any hotter than that 70 degrees. There is no hot spot in the atmosphere so it isn't getting hotter up there either.

BTW, if what you said was true, than there wouldn't be different temperatures everyday. It would consistently be the same temp based on your silly diagrams.

jc - we have been over this many times.

Do you agree that the atmosphere warms and moderates the temperature at the surface? If yes, then why?

Any composition atmosphere will have this effect. GHGs exacerbate the effect because they impede the escape of IR directly to space. Eg- if the surface was losing 400w while only receiving 160w solar input, we would cool rapidly, both the surface AND the atmosphere. Without GHGs the new equilibrium might be something like 250w or 300w which is very cold.

You are focusing your attention on minutiae and ignoring the bigger picture. Of course colder objects can warm warmer objects that are being heated by an outside source. Temperature is an equilibrium between energy input and energy loss. Reducing loss is equally effective as adding input.

Do you agree that the atmosphere warms and moderates the temperature at the surface? If yes, then why?

No, I do not think the atmosphere warms the surface, it is what I disagree with. Heat is generated from the surface and heads upwards cause heat rises. How fast that all happens I haven’t a clue.

I also can tell you that it is cooler at night then during sunlight hours. And that after the heat of the day in a desert the nights are very cold. Why? Cause little to no moisture in the air and why it’s a desert.

Anecdotally, I can also tell you here in Chicago, one day it’s 80 degrees and the next day it’s 50 degrees. Well why wouldn’t the same atmosphere conditions keep the temperature steady day to day if feedback GHG was two thirds the warmth? I mean the input UV is still the same andthe atmosphere is still the same. This is the piece that I look at and logically can’t answer using the info you all give out on feedback. I would expect the feedback would be the same, unchanged, and yet there is 30 degree change immediately. I stand outside on both days and one day I feel the sun, the next I hardly feel it at all, which means the surface isn’t heating up. Still follows the surface heat.

Then we get back to the night time temps, if two thirds of incoming heat is from GHGs why such drastic temperature changes when the sun is gone?

Any composition atmosphere will have this effect. GHGs exacerbate the effect because they impede the escape of IR directly to space. Eg- if the surface was losing 400w while only receiving 160w solar input, we would cool rapidly, both the surface AND the atmosphere. Without GHGs the new equilibrium might be something like 250w or 300w which is very cold.

There would be a hot spot if the atmosphere was actually warming up. Get up in the atmosphere a bit and it’s cold. Really cold, lack of oxygen cold, why they have pressurized cabins on planes, why people die without it.

You’re asking me to abandon observed experiences with mumbo jumbo from a book that has never been tested. At least never posted in this place.

 

[IanC]

The atmosphere is only there because of solar input. Solar energy is stored as both potential and kinetic energy by gas molecules (thickness and temperature).

Molecular collisions cause blackbody radiation in all directions, some of which returns to the surface, which in turn lowers the net heat loss from the surface.

Greenhouse gases capture some of the IR radiation from the surface, warming the atmosphere, which in turn produces more blackbody radiation as well as reemiting much of the same type of radiation that was absorbed (but NOT from the same molecule that absorbed it).

SSDD and the others who agree with him are fundamentally confused as to what is going on. They are ignoring the fact that every object emits radiation according to temperature. In this case, our atmosphere whether or not it has a component of GHGs or not.

Again, your saying greenhouse gases are a source of heat and I don't agree with that. And it can't be proven. Or are you going to tell us you can read the signature of IR coming from the atmosphere? heat only flows hot to cold and not the other direction, and again, can't be proven.

You can pump as much CO2 into a cylinder as you want and heat it up, it won't ever get hotter than what the temperature of the source heat is. You all claim it will get hotter. Prove it. I agree the gases absorb the LWIR from the surface, and then it gets carried out of the atmosphere to space. How fast that all occurs I have no idea, but if the surface temp is 70 degrees, that CO2 or other gas leaving isn't any hotter than that 70 degrees. There is no hot spot in the atmosphere so it isn't getting hotter up there either.

BTW, if what you said was true, than there wouldn't be different temperatures everyday. It would consistently be the same temp based on your silly diagrams.

jc - we have been over this many times.

Do you agree that the atmosphere warms and moderates the temperature at the surface? If yes, then why?

Any composition atmosphere will have this effect. GHGs exacerbate the effect because they impede the escape of IR directly to space. Eg- if the surface was losing 400w while only receiving 160w solar input, we would cool rapidly, both the surface AND the atmosphere. Without GHGs the new equilibrium might be something like 250w or 300w which is very cold.

You are focusing your attention on minutiae and ignoring the bigger picture. Of course colder objects can warm warmer objects that are being heated by an outside source. Temperature is an equilibrium between energy input and energy loss. Reducing loss is equally effective as adding input.

Do you agree that the atmosphere warms and moderates the temperature at the surface? If yes, then why?

No, I do not think the atmosphere warms the surface, it is what I disagree with. Heat is generated from the surface and heads upwards cause heat rises. How fast that all happens I haven’t a clue.

I also can tell you that it is cooler at night then during sunlight hours. And that after the heat of the day in a desert the nights are very cold. Why? Cause little to no moisture in the air and why it’s a desert.

Anecdotally, I can also tell you here in Chicago, one day it’s 80 degrees and the next day it’s 50 degrees. Well why wouldn’t the same atmosphere conditions keep the temperature steady day to day if feedback GHG was two thirds the warmth? I mean the input UV is still the same andthe atmosphere is still the same. This is the piece that I look at and logically can’t answer using the info you all give out on feedback. I would expect the feedback would be the same, unchanged, and yet there is 30 degree change immediately. I stand outside on both days and one day I feel the sun, the next I hardly feel it at all, which means the surface isn’t heating up. Still follows the surface heat.

Then we get back to the night time temps, if two thirds of incoming heat is from GHGs why such drastic temperature changes when the sun is gone?

Any composition atmosphere will have this effect. GHGs exacerbate the effect because they impede the escape of IR directly to space. Eg- if the surface was losing 400w while only receiving 160w solar input, we would cool rapidly, both the surface AND the atmosphere. Without GHGs the new equilibrium might be something like 250w or 300w which is very cold.

There would be a hot spot if the atmosphere was actually warming up. Get up in the atmosphere a bit and it’s cold. Really cold, lack of oxygen cold, why they have pressurized cabins on planes, why people die without it.

You’re asking me to abandon observed experiences with mumbo jumbo from a book that has never been tested. At least never posted in this place.

the energy that warms the surface is generated in the Sun. the moon gets the same insolation but the average temp is lower that the earth, and the temp swings are much more exaggerated.

heat is a net movement of energy, always moving from warm to cool but faster from hot to cold.

without an atmosphere heat wouldnt rise, it would simply radiate away in the direction it was created. pockets of warm air rise because of gravity. there is a tremendous amount of energy stored in the atmosphere as potential energy, and in fact the atmosphere on the sunny side of the earth 'puffs up' every day only to relax again as it swings out of the sunlight.

deserts do indeed show that H2O is a more powerful GHG than CO2.

you say that the atmosphere doesnt affect temperatures yet you give an example of how surface temps can swing dozens of degrees in a short time. care to rethink that one?

I dont believe you have the faintest idea of what the hot spot is, or why it should be larger in a warming world.

hahahaha, the basic ideas I have been trying to point out to you are in EVERY physics text. sorry to hear that you have never read or understood one.

 

[jc456]

The atmosphere is only there because of solar input. Solar energy is stored as both potential and kinetic energy by gas molecules (thickness and temperature).

Molecular collisions cause blackbody radiation in all directions, some of which returns to the surface, which in turn lowers the net heat loss from the surface.

Greenhouse gases capture some of the IR radiation from the surface, warming the atmosphere, which in turn produces more blackbody radiation as well as reemiting much of the same type of radiation that was absorbed (but NOT from the same molecule that absorbed it).

SSDD and the others who agree with him are fundamentally confused as to what is going on. They are ignoring the fact that every object emits radiation according to temperature. In this case, our atmosphere whether or not it has a component of GHGs or not.

Again, your saying greenhouse gases are a source of heat and I don't agree with that. And it can't be proven. Or are you going to tell us you can read the signature of IR coming from the atmosphere? heat only flows hot to cold and not the other direction, and again, can't be proven.

You can pump as much CO2 into a cylinder as you want and heat it up, it won't ever get hotter than what the temperature of the source heat is. You all claim it will get hotter. Prove it. I agree the gases absorb the LWIR from the surface, and then it gets carried out of the atmosphere to space. How fast that all occurs I have no idea, but if the surface temp is 70 degrees, that CO2 or other gas leaving isn't any hotter than that 70 degrees. There is no hot spot in the atmosphere so it isn't getting hotter up there either.

BTW, if what you said was true, than there wouldn't be different temperatures everyday. It would consistently be the same temp based on your silly diagrams.

jc - we have been over this many times.

Do you agree that the atmosphere warms and moderates the temperature at the surface? If yes, then why?

Any composition atmosphere will have this effect. GHGs exacerbate the effect because they impede the escape of IR directly to space. Eg- if the surface was losing 400w while only receiving 160w solar input, we would cool rapidly, both the surface AND the atmosphere. Without GHGs the new equilibrium might be something like 250w or 300w which is very cold.

You are focusing your attention on minutiae and ignoring the bigger picture. Of course colder objects can warm warmer objects that are being heated by an outside source. Temperature is an equilibrium between energy input and energy loss. Reducing loss is equally effective as adding input.

Do you agree that the atmosphere warms and moderates the temperature at the surface? If yes, then why?

No, I do not think the atmosphere warms the surface, it is what I disagree with. Heat is generated from the surface and heads upwards cause heat rises. How fast that all happens I haven’t a clue.

I also can tell you that it is cooler at night then during sunlight hours. And that after the heat of the day in a desert the nights are very cold. Why? Cause little to no moisture in the air and why it’s a desert.

Anecdotally, I can also tell you here in Chicago, one day it’s 80 degrees and the next day it’s 50 degrees. Well why wouldn’t the same atmosphere conditions keep the temperature steady day to day if feedback GHG was two thirds the warmth? I mean the input UV is still the same andthe atmosphere is still the same. This is the piece that I look at and logically can’t answer using the info you all give out on feedback. I would expect the feedback would be the same, unchanged, and yet there is 30 degree change immediately. I stand outside on both days and one day I feel the sun, the next I hardly feel it at all, which means the surface isn’t heating up. Still follows the surface heat.

Then we get back to the night time temps, if two thirds of incoming heat is from GHGs why such drastic temperature changes when the sun is gone?

Any composition atmosphere will have this effect. GHGs exacerbate the effect because they impede the escape of IR directly to space. Eg- if the surface was losing 400w while only receiving 160w solar input, we would cool rapidly, both the surface AND the atmosphere. Without GHGs the new equilibrium might be something like 250w or 300w which is very cold.

There would be a hot spot if the atmosphere was actually warming up. Get up in the atmosphere a bit and it’s cold. Really cold, lack of oxygen cold, why they have pressurized cabins on planes, why people die without it.

You’re asking me to abandon observed experiences with mumbo jumbo from a book that has never been tested. At least never posted in this place.

the energy that warms the surface is generated in the Sun. the moon gets the same insolation but the average temp is lower that the earth, and the temp swings are much more exaggerated.

heat is a net movement of energy, always moving from warm to cool but faster from hot to cold.

without an atmosphere heat wouldnt rise, it would simply radiate away in the direction it was created. pockets of warm air rise because of gravity. there is a tremendous amount of energy stored in the atmosphere as potential energy, and in fact the atmosphere on the sunny side of the earth 'puffs up' every day only to relax again as it swings out of the sunlight.

deserts do indeed show that H2O is a more powerful GHG than CO2.

you say that the atmosphere doesnt affect temperatures yet you give an example of how surface temps can swing dozens of degrees in a short time. care to rethink that one?

I dont believe you have the faintest idea of what the hot spot is, or why it should be larger in a warming world.

hahahaha, the basic ideas I have been trying to point out to you are in EVERY physics text. sorry to hear that you have never read or understood one.

you say that the atmosphere doesn't affect temperatures yet you give an example of how surface temps can swing dozens of degrees in a short time. care to rethink that one?
I never said that. I said it doesn't make the surface warmer.
I dont believe you have the faintest idea of what the hot spot is, or why it should be larger in a warming world.
I don't think you have the faintest idea of what a hot spot looks like or you would post up where it is.
And you still can't show how your magical feedback loop can change temperatures by 30 degrees cooler day to day. A feedback requires actual something coming back. I say it ain't there and you say it is. yet my example is more incline to back me then you.

 

[SSDD]

That is exactly my point. Your blog gotten theory is in static equilibrium and ignores the large dynamic energy flows into and out of the earth.

Sorry, but it doesn't....and still it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even accurately predict the temperature of the earth without a fudge factor.

So you believe, but no other scientist agrees.

It isn't a matter of belief...you can't measure back scatter at ambient temperature even though it is supposedly twice as much radiation as comes in from the sun....while you can measure the incoming radiation from the sun at ambient temperature with no problem...energy moving from a warm object to a cooler object is not back scatter...it is simple energy transfer...

just because you keep saying that doesn't make it true. But you are right, why bother. You have proven yourself to be a anti-science in many many areas that have been proven time and again, such as electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics.

But you guys not providing it does make it true....for all the talk, not one shred of observed, measured, empirical evidence has been presented that supports the A in AGW...but if you believe some has, by all means point it out and say how you think it supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.

 

[SSDD]

The atmosphere is only there because of solar input. Solar energy is stored as both potential and kinetic energy by gas molecules (thickness and temperature).

Molecular collisions cause blackbody radiation in all directions, some of which returns to the surface, which in turn lowers the net heat loss from the surface.

Greenhouse gases capture some of the IR radiation from the surface, warming the atmosphere, which in turn produces more blackbody radiation as well as reemiting much of the same type of radiation that was absorbed (but NOT from the same molecule that absorbed it).

SSDD and the others who agree with him are fundamentally confused as to what is going on. They are ignoring the fact that every object emits radiation according to temperature. In this case, our atmosphere whether or not it has a component of GHGs or not.

And still no tropospheric hot spot as a result of increasing CO2....but believe on Garth...if it trips your trigger.