Multiple experiments confirm that CO2 lowers absorptivity & emissivity of air

[polarbear]

I shouldn't be so condescending. Obviously the problem is that people see the component of returning energy from the cooler object and treat it as a stand alone amount of energy that must be warming the warm object. The outgoing and incoming flows must be taken as a whole, the net energy flow, to access whether warming or cooling will be happening, and in which direction.

If T1>T2 then it will always be cooling.. period !
If an object emits photons at the same rate as it was absorbing it no additional warming is happening....period !
For T1 to get warmer with the photons emitted by the cooler T2 it would have to accumulate the energy of these photons before it could get any warmer....but in the AGW scenario these photons came from the T1 body in the first place.
So do tell us how you come up with these extra photons it takes to warm a real body in the real world that has a mass and a specific heat and takes x-time to warm with y-watts to raise T1 by z-degrees Kelvin !!!
During the time (x) T2 would have to emit more photons than it gets from T1 or defy the Boltzmann law how much it could radiate at T2 or T1 would have to emit less during x than it should radiate at T1.
You got 2 energy reservoirs T2 with say 100 watt seconds
These 100 watt seconds came from T1 so keep that in mind ! Starting out at T1 with 1100 watts you have to heat T2 until it holds these 100 watt seconds in the first place.
During the whole process they will transfer heat till they are both at 1100/2 watt seconds and at no time will either one stray from the # of watts as per StB they radiate as T1 goes down and T2 goes up.
There is no "additional" energy in the form of photons. If you want any then you have to go get them from another source, "back radiation" is not a source of energy in the real world no matter how you slice and dice it and it will always take ADDITIONAL ENERGY to raise the temperature of a mass !

 

[IanC]

Okay, let's try yet another way of explaining. I'll just keep trying until it sinks in.

The Earth's surface is intermittently warmed by the Sun. Actively heated so it is always chasing an equilibrium temperature that matches energy loss to energy gain. It stores heat in the daylight, releases heat at night. The calculated average temperature is cold, about -60C, but the actual number is not that important, just the idea that there is one.

This is the formula to calculate how much radiation is given off the surface, into space. The emmisivity is close to one, close to a perfect blackbody.

If we add a non-GHG atmosphere then some of that energy that would be radiated away is instead shunted into the atmosphere by conduction. The actual percentage is not important, just the fact that the atmosphere stores energy in the daylight and releases it at night, reducing the temperature swings of the surface, which in turn leads to a warmer average temperature. (Mathematically easy to show due to the T^4 relationship)

The non-GHG atmosphere has an emissivity of close to zero. All the surface energy not put into conduction simply escapes to space. The S-B equation,

does not hold because the emissivity is zero, therefore the power transferred to the atmosphere by radiation is zero.

If we add GHGs to the atmosphere then the emissivity is no longer zero. Energy IS transferred to the atmosphere, warming it. Conduction at the surface is lessened because the temperature differential is reduced, the surface warms up and more radiation is available to take the radiation pathway that is not blocked by GHGs.

Every time you increase the amount of energy stored in the atmosphere it causes the surface to warm to a higher temperature because the ability to shed energy is reduced. Equilibrium temperature is a function of both input and output. The Sun's input remains the same but GHGs reduce the output therefore the surface temperature goes up, compared to no GHGs.

SSDD believes only temperature matters in the S-B equation. I know that emissivity is also a large factor, especially with gases because they don't have a solid lattice structure that adds many absorption/emission bands to the total emissivity.

The overall combination of conduction, convection and radiation in shedding heat from the surface is complicated. Nature finds the most efficient pathways. But the mechanism for the radiation pathway is relatively clear, and GHGs cause conditions that lead to increased surface temperatures. The Sun (power source) causes the warming but other factors such as GHGs affect the actual temperature as it chases equilibrium.

 

[IanC]

I shouldn't be so condescending. Obviously the problem is that people see the component of returning energy from the cooler object and treat it as a stand alone amount of energy that must be warming the warm object. The outgoing and incoming flows must be taken as a whole, the net energy flow, to access whether warming or cooling will be happening, and in which direction.

If T1>T2 then it will always be cooling.. period !
If an object emits photons at the same rate as it was absorbing it no additional warming is happening....period !
For T1 to get warmer with the photons emitted by the cooler T2 it would have to accumulate the energy of these photons before it could get any warmer....but in the AGW scenario these photons came from the T1 body in the first place.
So do tell us how you come up with these extra photons it takes to warm a real body in the real world that has a mass and a specific heat and takes x-time to warm with y-watts to raise T1 by z-degrees Kelvin !!!
During the time (x) T2 would have to emit more photons than it gets from T1 or defy the Boltzmann law how much it could radiate at T2 or T1 would have to emit less during x than it should radiate at T1.
You got 2 energy reservoirs T2 with say 100 watt seconds
These 100 watt seconds came from T1 so keep that in mind ! Starting out at T1 with 1100 watts you have to heat T2 until it holds these 100 watt seconds in the first place.
During the whole process they will transfer heat till they are both at 1100/2 watt seconds and at no time will either one stray from the # of watts as per StB they radiate as T1 goes down and T2 goes up.
There is no "additional" energy in the form of photons. If you want any then you have to go get them from another source, "back radiation" is not a source of energy in the real world no matter how you slice and dice it and it will always take ADDITIONAL ENERGY to raise the temperature of a mass !

We have a source of energy, it's called the Sun. In the absence of active input everything cools but the presence and composition of objects can affect the rate of cooling. In the presence of active input there is warming but the presence and composition of objects can affect the rate of warming.

Which case are you debating? Active warming or passive cooling?

 

[SSDD]

This is the formula to calculate how much radiation is given off the surface, into space. The emmisivity is close to one, close to a perfect blackbody.
.

No ian, that is the formula for a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum.

 

[IanC]

This is the formula to calculate how much radiation is given off the surface, into space. The emmisivity is close to one, close to a perfect blackbody.
.

No ian, that is the formula for a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum.

The relationship was discovered on Earth using primitive equipment. It is good enough for our purposes.

Without an atmosphere the surface would be radiating into a vacuum.

With a non-GHG atmosphere the surface would still be radiating directly into space because the emissivity of the atmosphere would be close to zero.

With a GHG atmosphere some energy would be transferred to the atmosphere (edit- with a portion returned to the surface) but the rest would still be radiated directly to space.

 

[SSDD]

This is the formula to calculate how much radiation is given off the surface, into space. The emmisivity is close to one, close to a perfect blackbody.
.

No ian, that is the formula for a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum.

The relationship was discovered on Earth using primitive equipment. It is good enough for our purposes.

Without an atmosphere the surface would be radiating into a vacuum.

With a non-GHG atmosphere the surface would still be radiating directly into space because the emissivity of the atmosphere would be close to zero.

With a GHG atmosphere some energy would be transferred to the atmosphere (edit- with a portion returned to the surface) but the rest would still be radiated directly to space.

And yet, that hypothesis has left a trail of failed predictions behind it spanning decades. You seem reluctant to answer the question ian...in real science, how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is scrapped and work begins on a different hypothesis that doesn't fail prediction after prediction?

 

[jc456]

Really? Please explain that to the glaciers and ice caps.

Why are you true believers in Al Gore's CAGW doomsday cult prophecies so obsessed with glaciers?

What's up with that, Chicken Little?

Because they don't think logically, and glaciers make pretty pictures.

Why did most of the glacier retreat happen over a hundred years ago, before CO2 became 'the big problem'? They don't want to talk about that.

wow, and you say you've changed? I'll say you have.

 

[IanC]

Really? Please explain that to the glaciers and ice caps.

Why are you true believers in Al Gore's CAGW doomsday cult prophecies so obsessed with glaciers?

What's up with that, Chicken Little?

Because they don't think logically, and glaciers make pretty pictures.

Why did most of the glacier retreat happen over a hundred years ago, before CO2 became 'the big problem'? They don't want to talk about that.

wow, and you say you've changed? I'll say you have.

???? Changed in what way? My position on glaciers is the same as it ever was.

 

[Muhammed]

Glaciers move. If they didn't then they would not be glaciers in the first place.

There is no evidence of man made CO significantly altering the movement of glaciers, jackass.

 

[IanC]

This is the formula to calculate how much radiation is given off the surface, into space. The emmisivity is close to one, close to a perfect blackbody.
.

No ian, that is the formula for a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum.

The relationship was discovered on Earth using primitive equipment. It is good enough for our purposes.

Without an atmosphere the surface would be radiating into a vacuum.

With a non-GHG atmosphere the surface would still be radiating directly into space because the emissivity of the atmosphere would be close to zero.

With a GHG atmosphere some energy would be transferred to the atmosphere (edit- with a portion returned to the surface) but the rest would still be radiated directly to space.

And yet, that hypothesis has left a trail of failed predictions behind it spanning decades. You seem reluctant to answer the question ian...in real science, how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is scrapped and work begins on a different hypothesis that doesn't fail prediction after prediction?

My position is that the presence of CO2 has caused the surface to warm by blocking direct energy loss to space.

I surmise that adding more CO2 will add a further warming influence that may or may not express itself as warming depending on other factors but the mechanism is there and the direction is towards warming.

My position is not nullified by being overwhelmed by other natural factors, nor is it disproven by exaggerated predictions coming from failed climate models that incorrectly access the feedbacks.

 

[SSDD]

My position is that the presence of CO2 has caused the surface to warm by blocking direct energy loss to space.

Yeah..I know your position....but the graphs from the IRS and TES satellites between 1979 and 2006 show that you are wrong...you keep acting as if the red line (model prediction) is data...the black lines on the two graphs are identical and they represent the measured outgoing LW IR...1979 is identical to 2006 insofar as CO2 goes...and yet, you continue to believe.

I surmise that adding more CO2 will add a further warming influence that may or may not express itself as warming depending on other factors but the mechanism is there and the direction is towards warming.

Right...and even after the observed, measured, quantified data show you that you are wrong, you continue to believe what you believe...

My position is not nullified by being overwhelmed by other natural factors, nor is it disproven by exaggerated predictions coming from failed climate models that incorrectly access the feedbacks.

But is is proven wrong by observations made by satellites...reference IRIS and TES

 

[IanC]

My position is that the presence of CO2 has caused the surface to warm by blocking direct energy loss to space.

Yeah..I know your position....but the graphs from the IRS and TES satellites between 1979 and 2006 show that you are wrong...you keep acting as if the red line (model prediction) is data...the black lines on the two graphs are identical and they represent the measured outgoing LW IR...1979 is identical to 2006 insofar as CO2 goes...and yet, you continue to believe.

I surmise that adding more CO2 will add a further warming influence that may or may not express itself as warming depending on other factors but the mechanism is there and the direction is towards warming.

Right...and even after the observed, measured, quantified data show you that you are wrong, you continue to believe what you believe...

My position is not nullified by being overwhelmed by other natural factors, nor is it disproven by exaggerated predictions coming from failed climate models that incorrectly access the feedbacks.

But is is proven wrong by observations made by satellites...reference IRIS and TES

Except the graphs you produced don't prove me wrong.

 

[SSDD]

My position is that the presence of CO2 has caused the surface to warm by blocking direct energy loss to space.

Yeah..I know your position....but the graphs from the IRS and TES satellites between 1979 and 2006 show that you are wrong...you keep acting as if the red line (model prediction) is data...the black lines on the two graphs are identical and they represent the measured outgoing LW IR...1979 is identical to 2006 insofar as CO2 goes...and yet, you continue to believe.

I surmise that adding more CO2 will add a further warming influence that may or may not express itself as warming depending on other factors but the mechanism is there and the direction is towards warming.

Right...and even after the observed, measured, quantified data show you that you are wrong, you continue to believe what you believe...

My position is not nullified by being overwhelmed by other natural factors, nor is it disproven by exaggerated predictions coming from failed climate models that incorrectly access the feedbacks.

But is is proven wrong by observations made by satellites...reference IRIS and TES

Except the graphs you produced don't prove me wrong.

Of course they do...if you could read them...The black line from 1979 is identical to the black line from 2006...if you look up at the blue line it shows you the amount of LW IR observed was greater than the model prediction which was the red line.

 

[Billy_Bob]

emissivity, Stefan's constant and area are assumed to be equal for both objects, therefore we can bundle them together as (k).

So you have an assumption. That's it?

And here is a newsflash for you ian...Stefan didn't assume jack...you are the one doing the assuming...and far to much of the shit heap that is post modern science is assuming. Excuse me if I stick with every observation and measurement ever made and leave the assuming to the dingleberry tribe.

Whoaaaa now. Let's recap a little bit. I said SSDD was ignoring the complexities of calculating the net power by leaving out emissivity and area considerations. This can only be done by separating each side and doing individual calculations, rather than just subtracting T^4 - Tc^4.

Then SSDD said there wasn't two terms in the equation. As my phone does not handle math terminology images, I bundled the outside terms into a constant (k), and proceeded to show that there were two terms. The simplified version of the S-B equation also assumes emissivity is equal, otherwise it would have separate terms with separate emissivities.


Every time I call SSDD out on an issue he ignores my pointed questions, and changes the subject back to one of his talking points.

He has now criticized my use of the simplified S-B equation and the assumptions inherent in it. Will he now take a more mature view of energy transfer and its complexities? Or will he just revert to claiming only temperature makes a difference? I think we all know the answer to that.

Emisitivity is not equal. Changes in make up will change the result. Just one of the many reasons modeling fails 100% of the time .

 

[Zander]

"Climate science" is not a science. It is a criminal venture intended to extort money from the public.

 

[IanC]

I shouldn't be so condescending. Obviously the problem is that people see the component of returning energy from the cooler object and treat it as a stand alone amount of energy that must be warming the warm object. The outgoing and incoming flows must be taken as a whole, the net energy flow, to access whether warming or cooling will be happening, and in which direction.

If T1>T2 then it will always be cooling.. period !
If an object emits photons at the same rate as it was absorbing it no additional warming is happening....period !
For T1 to get warmer with the photons emitted by the cooler T2 it would have to accumulate the energy of these photons before it could get any warmer....but in the AGW scenario these photons came from the T1 body in the first place.
So do tell us how you come up with these extra photons it takes to warm a real body in the real world that has a mass and a specific heat and takes x-time to warm with y-watts to raise T1 by z-degrees Kelvin !!!
During the time (x) T2 would have to emit more photons than it gets from T1 or defy the Boltzmann law how much it could radiate at T2 or T1 would have to emit less during x than it should radiate at T1.
You got 2 energy reservoirs T2 with say 100 watt seconds
These 100 watt seconds came from T1 so keep that in mind ! Starting out at T1 with 1100 watts you have to heat T2 until it holds these 100 watt seconds in the first place.
During the whole process they will transfer heat till they are both at 1100/2 watt seconds and at no time will either one stray from the # of watts as per StB they radiate as T1 goes down and T2 goes up.
There is no "additional" energy in the form of photons. If you want any then you have to go get them from another source, "back radiation" is not a source of energy in the real world no matter how you slice and dice it and it will always take ADDITIONAL ENERGY to raise the temperature of a mass !

We have a source of energy, it's called the Sun. In the absence of active input everything cools but the presence and composition of objects can affect the rate of cooling. In the presence of active input there is warming but the presence and composition of objects can affect the rate of warming.

Which case are you debating? Active warming or passive cooling?

Do you feel like responding to this yet?

 

[IanC]

I shouldn't be so condescending. Obviously the problem is that people see the component of returning energy from the cooler object and treat it as a stand alone amount of energy that must be warming the warm object. The outgoing and incoming flows must be taken as a whole, the net energy flow, to access whether warming or cooling will be happening, and in which direction.

If T1>T2 then it will always be cooling.. period !
If an object emits photons at the same rate as it was absorbing it no additional warming is happening....period !
For T1 to get warmer with the photons emitted by the cooler T2 it would have to accumulate the energy of these photons before it could get any warmer....but in the AGW scenario these photons came from the T1 body in the first place.
So do tell us how you come up with these extra photons it takes to warm a real body in the real world that has a mass and a specific heat and takes x-time to warm with y-watts to raise T1 by z-degrees Kelvin !!!
During the time (x) T2 would have to emit more photons than it gets from T1 or defy the Boltzmann law how much it could radiate at T2 or T1 would have to emit less during x than it should radiate at T1.
You got 2 energy reservoirs T2 with say 100 watt seconds
These 100 watt seconds came from T1 so keep that in mind ! Starting out at T1 with 1100 watts you have to heat T2 until it holds these 100 watt seconds in the first place.
During the whole process they will transfer heat till they are both at 1100/2 watt seconds and at no time will either one stray from the # of watts as per StB they radiate as T1 goes down and T2 goes up.
There is no "additional" energy in the form of photons. If you want any then you have to go get them from another source, "back radiation" is not a source of energy in the real world no matter how you slice and dice it and it will always take ADDITIONAL ENERGY to raise the temperature of a mass !

We have a source of energy, it's called the Sun. In the absence of active input everything cools but the presence and composition of objects can affect the rate of cooling. In the presence of active input there is warming but the presence and composition of objects can affect the rate of warming.

Which case are you debating? Active warming or passive cooling?

Do you feel like responding to this yet?

Hello, hello. I know you're out there polarbear.

Why aren't you responding? You do realize the Sun is the power source for surface warming, right? Why do you keep pretending that the returning component of the energy flows between the surface and atmosphere is directly warming the surface?

 

[IanC]

I shouldn't be so condescending. Obviously the problem is that people see the component of returning energy from the cooler object and treat it as a stand alone amount of energy that must be warming the warm object. The outgoing and incoming flows must be taken as a whole, the net energy flow, to access whether warming or cooling will be happening, and in which direction.

If T1>T2 then it will always be cooling.. period !
If an object emits photons at the same rate as it was absorbing it no additional warming is happening....period !
For T1 to get warmer with the photons emitted by the cooler T2 it would have to accumulate the energy of these photons before it could get any warmer....but in the AGW scenario these photons came from the T1 body in the first place.
So do tell us how you come up with these extra photons it takes to warm a real body in the real world that has a mass and a specific heat and takes x-time to warm with y-watts to raise T1 by z-degrees Kelvin !!!
During the time (x) T2 would have to emit more photons than it gets from T1 or defy the Boltzmann law how much it could radiate at T2 or T1 would have to emit less during x than it should radiate at T1.
You got 2 energy reservoirs T2 with say 100 watt seconds
These 100 watt seconds came from T1 so keep that in mind ! Starting out at T1 with 1100 watts you have to heat T2 until it holds these 100 watt seconds in the first place.
During the whole process they will transfer heat till they are both at 1100/2 watt seconds and at no time will either one stray from the # of watts as per StB they radiate as T1 goes down and T2 goes up.
There is no "additional" energy in the form of photons. If you want any then you have to go get them from another source, "back radiation" is not a source of energy in the real world no matter how you slice and dice it and it will always take ADDITIONAL ENERGY to raise the temperature of a mass !

We have a source of energy, it's called the Sun. In the absence of active input everything cools but the presence and composition of objects can affect the rate of cooling. In the presence of active input there is warming but the presence and composition of objects can affect the rate of warming.

Which case are you debating? Active warming or passive cooling?

Do you feel like responding to this yet?

Hello, hello. I know you're out there polarbear.

Why aren't you responding? You do realize the Sun is the power source for surface warming, right? Why do you keep pretending that the returning component of the energy flows between the surface and atmosphere is directly warming the surface?

You hoo! I know you have been on the MB for the last few days. Why aren't you responding? Too embarrassing?

Hahahaha, I know you're getting alerts. Or have you put me on ignore? That would be a good solution for a swell-headed old german who can't handle his position falling apart.

 

[SSDD]

Hahahaha, I know you're getting alerts. Or have you put me on ignore? That would be a good solution for a swell-headed old german who can't handle his position falling apart.

Look whose talking...a swelled headed american magical thinker who doesn't have the first piece of real evidence to support anything he believes...all models all the time and they are all failing.

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha, I know you're getting alerts. Or have you put me on ignore? That would be a good solution for a swell-headed old german who can't handle his position falling apart.

Look whose talking...a swelled headed american magical thinker who doesn't have the first piece of real evidence to support anything he believes...all models all the time and they are all failing.

I am obviously not an American, which you would know if you paid attention.

You can call me swell-headed if you want, I prefer to think of it as being reasonably well informed and capable of explaining and defending my ideas.

Which models are you talking about? I believe CO2 has a warming influence. You say it causes cooling. The blog No Tricks Zone just put out a list of 60 papers with climate sensitivities of less than 1C per doubling of CO2. If you add those to the ones that show greater than 1C, it means I have hundreds on my side. How many do you have supporting your claim?