New Climate Paper Gives Global Warming Alarmists ‘One Helluva Beating’

[Crick]

There has been tremendous research into what factors raise and lower the Earth's temperature. You (SSDD) act as if our ignorance on the topic was complete. It is not and you are thus not able to use it for your free play room.

The primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years is human GHG emissions and deforestation. You can find orders of magnitude more evidence in support of that theory at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change than you will find for ANY other hypothesis. And before you take another step in these debates, it would serve us all were you to get some fucking science education. Your ideas go beyond stupid.

 

[IanC]

CO2 doesn't have any mechanism by which to absorb and hold on to heat, or energy...it absorbs and emits. Of all the so called greenhouse gasses, only water vapor can actually absorb and hold on to energy...it has to do with its ability to change phases at temperatures that can be found in the open atmosphere.

of course CO2 can warm the atmosphere. it absorbs 15 micron radiation (amongst others) and collides with another molecule, that energy is now part of the pool of energy that leaves the collision (kinetic and blackbody radiation). because the average time between absorption and emission in the CO2 molecule is roughly one order of magnitude (ie. 10 times) longer than the average time between collisions (at sea level, atmospheric density), most excited CO2 molecules lose that energy via collision rather than re-emittance.[/QUOTE]


Sorry Ian... Give it time and actual research and watch the sensitivity to CO2 drop to zero and below.[/QUOTE]


you have already admitted that CO2 absorbs 15 micron radiation. absorption/re-emission time is ~10^-4s, extinction length is 10m at sea level so lets guestimate that the average pathlength all the way up is 10m and I'll just assume every emission is outward. 99% of the atmosphere by 100km sound about right? I'll ignore the actual travel time.

100km=100000m, divide by 10m/emission, = 10^4 emissions, times 10^-4 seconds per emission, = 1 second.

reactive band for CO2 at 15 microns is about 8% of the power of the surface radiation. there are also other bands that CO2 absorbs, so lets call it 10% total.

10% of the surface radiation held for one second sound like a HUGE heatsink to me. I suppose we could get the surface area of the Earth, multiply that by 400w/m2 and get a meaninglessly large number of joules but I think you get the point (or at least should).

 

[IanC]

BTW, that back of the envelope calculation was to show SSDD that his way of thinking still involved a huge heatsink. I do not believe CO2 predominately re-emits the photon. I believe the surface 15 micron radiation is thermalized almost totally within the first few metres of the surface.

 

[IanC]

Ian, are you unwilling to make the simple statement that the sensitivity is positive?

I have asked you repeatedly to quote my words before you make remarks about what my position is on a specific topic.

On climate sensitivity I have stated dozens of times that I agree with the calculated 1C increase for doubling CO2 but that I disagree with the predicted feedbacks that will add another 1-3.5C additional warming. (0.5-3.5C in AR5)

 

[SSDD]

There has been tremendous research into what factors raise and lower the Earth's temperature. You (SSDD) act as if our ignorance on the topic was complete. It is not and you are thus not able to use it for your free play room.

What caused the pause? Which of the 50 odd reasons for it do you subscribe to and why do you discount the other 49?

If you can't say for certain what caused the pause, then you can't say what caused the increase. One thing for sure is that it was not CO2...temps up, temps flat while CO2 continues on its merry way.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 doesn't have any mechanism by which to absorb and hold on to heat, or energy...it absorbs and emits. Of all the so called greenhouse gasses, only water vapor can actually absorb and hold on to energy...it has to do with its ability to change phases at temperatures that can be found in the open atmosphere.

of course CO2 can warm the atmosphere. it absorbs 15 micron radiation (amongst others) and collides with another molecule, that energy is now part of the pool of energy that leaves the collision (kinetic and blackbody radiation). because the average time between absorption and emission in the CO2 molecule is roughly one order of magnitude (ie. 10 times) longer than the average time between collisions (at sea level, atmospheric density), most excited CO2 molecules lose that energy via collision rather than re-emittance.

Sorry Ian... Give it time and actual research and watch the sensitivity to CO2 drop to zero and below.[/QUOTE]


you have already admitted that CO2 absorbs 15 micron radiation. absorption/re-emission time is ~10^-4s, extinction length is 10m at sea level so lets guestimate that the average pathlength all the way up is 10m and I'll just assume every emission is outward. 99% of the atmosphere by 100km sound about right? I'll ignore the actual travel time.

100km=100000m, divide by 10m/emission, = 10^4 emissions, times 10^-4 seconds per emission, = 1 second.

reactive band for CO2 at 15 microns is about 8% of the power of the surface radiation. there are also other bands that CO2 absorbs, so lets call it 10% total.

10% of the surface radiation held for one second sound like a HUGE heatsink to me. I suppose we could get the surface area of the Earth, multiply that by 400w/m2 and get a meaninglessly large number of joules but I think you get the point (or at least should).[/QUOTE]

Sorry Ian, kid yourself all you like...climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less. Not a whit of actual evidence says otherwise after all the billions that have been spent.

 

[SSDD]

BTW, that back of the envelope calculation was to show SSDD that his way of thinking still involved a huge heatsink. I do not believe CO2 predominately re-emits the photon. I believe the surface 15 micron radiation is thermalized almost totally within the first few metres of the surface.

The 15 micron radiation that is radiating at a peak temperature of -80C? OK.

 

[Crick]

Ian, are you unwilling to make the simple statement that the sensitivity is positive?

I have asked you repeatedly to quote my words before you make remarks about what my position is on a specific topic.

On climate sensitivity I have stated dozens of times that I agree with the calculated 1C increase for doubling CO2 but that I disagree with the predicted feedbacks that will add another 1-3.5C additional warming. (0.5-3.5C in AR5)

I did not make remarks about your position on a specific topic. I asked whether or not you were willing to make a statement you had not yet made; one you seemed to be dancing around.

 

[Crick]

What caused the pause? Which of the 50 odd reasons for it do you subscribe to and why do you discount the other 49?

My personal favorite is that warming led to changes in tropical wind patterns which led to the subduction of warmed surface water and its replacement with cold water from the bottom. It's the first idea I ever heard on the topic and it has done nothing but gain evidentiary support.

 

[IanC]

Ian, are you unwilling to make the simple statement that the sensitivity is positive?

I have asked you repeatedly to quote my words before you make remarks about what my position is on a specific topic.

On climate sensitivity I have stated dozens of times that I agree with the calculated 1C increase for doubling CO2 but that I disagree with the predicted feedbacks that will add another 1-3.5C additional warming. (0.5-3.5C in AR5)

I did not make remarks about your position on a specific topic. I asked whether or not you were willing to make a statement you had not yet made; one you seemed to be dancing around.

I have made the statement multiple times. are you willing to bet a week's worth of time out if I can prove you have seen me make the statement before? no posting for a week, no sock puppets.

 

[SSDD]

What caused the pause? Which of the 50 odd reasons for it do you subscribe to and why do you discount the other 49?

My personal favorite is that warming led to changes in tropical wind patterns which led to the subduction of warmed surface water and its replacement with cold water from the bottom. It's the first idea I ever heard on the topic and it has done nothing but gain evidentiary support.

Except that there has been no anthropogenic surface warming to cause new wind patterns....if the wind has shifted, then it is natural causes and the claimed ocean warming is natural variation....

 

[Crick]

Cause sensitivity is negative, right?

God are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

Cause sensitivity is negative, right?

God are you stupid.

You are stupid and a dupe...I would rather be me.

 

[Crick]

You have so many ridiculous beliefs - or you claim to have so many ridiculous beliefs, I don't think any one person could have come to them all - no matter their ignorance - by chance: CO2 sensitivity is negative, the oceans can't absorb radiant energy because they're so big, the oceans can't absorb IR because it doesn't penetrate deeply enough, CO2 can't be warmed because it emits photons so quickly after it absorbs photons, protons don't exist, photons cannot be emitted in the direction of higher temperatures. I really begin to think you are simply a variation on a troll. You make claims about physical processes that you know are idiotic just to get people to argue with you. That would make you someone with serious self-esteem issues.