No Radiative Greenhouse Effect. Infrared Doesn't Warm the Air

[flacaltenn]

That's because all your references ASSUME that the reader will know that limited volume TRAVERSED by the IR rays will not contribute SIGNIFICANT heating compared to the heat effect that is literally FOCUSED on the objects to be warmed. So maybe it's sloppy not to explain all that. But it's not germane to the FOCUSED heating they want to discuss.

For instance. Similar article. 1st one I found about IR focused heating. If you READ CAREFULLY -- this "omission" is completely addressed. Drop it. This proves nuttin...

Article is about analyzing advantages of IR heating for agricultural plots.

An alternative approach for infrared heater control in warming and extreme event experiments in terrestrial ecosystems

A technique that has been gaining ground in climate manipulation studies is the use of IR lamps (Aronson & McNulty 2009). Harte et al. (1995) were presumably the first to use such overhead heaters. In their field experiment, which started in 1991, Harte et al. suspended commercially available IR lamps above montane meadow plots. The lamps emitted a constant flux, which warmed vegetation and soil year-round. Later, Nijs et al. (1996) improved this technique by adding a modulator of the IR flux, which made it possible to accurately uphold a constant difference between the surface temperatures of warmed and control plots. Without such modulation, fluctuations in wind speed, which bring cooler ambient air to the warmed plots, enhance surface temperature variability together with increasing the mean. One of the benefits of using IR heaters is that this approach does not require enclosing the plants, so wind speed and light are hardly influenced. Furthermore, the warming is direct: the IR lamps heat the canopy surface without having to overcome a boundary layer resistance, which makes the technique very responsive (Nijs et al. 1996; Kimball et al. 2008), although this does imply that the air is only warmed indirectly and generally to a lesser extent than the surface. Finally, the whole canopy and the soil are warmed (Kimball 2005), which makes it a highly inclusive technique

These folks were more RIGOROUS and careful to quantify exactly what "air gets warmed"....

Sounds like they are acknowledging that it isn't IR that is heating the air but conduction from the solid surfaces that are being warmed by IR. Which solid surfaces in the atmosphere do you think are being warmed by outgoing IR passing through the atmosphere?

No.. They were ultra careful to specify that they are NOT saying the IR doesn't directly warm the air. Read it again. .......... "this does NOT imply that air is only warmed indirectly".. Meaning that IT DOES. And ..... "(does NOT imply) ..... generally to a lesser extent than the surface"..

THAT -- is more a rigorous SCIENTIFIC treatment of the situation than a fucking MARKETING document for a commercial heat lamp..

The individual gases have areas of resonance where they are affected by IR. The warming is very minuscule. Outside of a gases area(s) of resonance there is no effect of pass through IR.

It's only negligible if the radiation path geometry is limited.. As in the case of a focused beam IR heater for instance. It's NOT negligible for an IR emitter the size of a fucking planet -- in direct line of sight with a relatively thick OCEAN of gas....

Its not the beam that is focused, its the gas ability to react to the beam. A black body, such as the earth, emits broadly (3.5um to over 70um). The gases, not so much.

lets take a look at your ocean and how little is actually affected by LWIR.

View attachment 173482

Every one of the areas that are grey, in this graph, are the gases area(s) of resonance. Areas where IR will interact with the specific gas at a specific wavelength. The only gas with the mass and resonance to react within the atmosphere is water vapor.

CO2 was supposed to "enhance" the effect of water vapor but empirical experment evidence suggests otherwise.

That's a bum graph.. In order to see the SHAPE of the Earth's IR emission spectrum -- you need to plot it on a LOG scale for magnitude. Not linear like your graph. Because even 1% of that energy is significant.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sounds like they are acknowledging that it isn't IR that is heating the air but conduction from the solid surfaces that are being warmed by IR. Which solid surfaces in the atmosphere do you think are being warmed by outgoing IR passing through the atmosphere?

No.. They were ultra careful to specify that they are NOT saying the IR doesn't directly warm the air. Read it again. .......... "this does NOT imply that air is only warmed indirectly".. Meaning that IT DOES. And ..... "(does NOT imply) ..... generally to a lesser extent than the surface"..

THAT -- is more a rigorous SCIENTIFIC treatment of the situation than a fucking MARKETING document for a commercial heat lamp..

The individual gases have areas of resonance where they are affected by IR. The warming is very minuscule. Outside of a gases area(s) of resonance there is no effect of pass through IR.

It's only negligible if the radiation path geometry is limited.. As in the case of a focused beam IR heater for instance. It's NOT negligible for an IR emitter the size of a fucking planet -- in direct line of sight with a relatively thick OCEAN of gas....

Its not the beam that is focused, its the gas ability to react to the beam. A black body, such as the earth, emits broadly (3.5um to over 70um). The gases, not so much.

lets take a look at your ocean and how little is actually affected by LWIR.

View attachment 173482

Every one of the areas that are grey, in this graph, are the gases area(s) of resonance. Areas where IR will interact with the specific gas at a specific wavelength. The only gas with the mass and resonance to react within the atmosphere is water vapor.

CO2 was supposed to "enhance" the effect of water vapor but empirical experment evidence suggests otherwise.

Not the best or most accurate chart. If you get a better one there is a sufficient overlap between solar spectrum and the bands of CO2. In that chart -- it doesn't even show that CO2 absorbs primarily in 3 narrow bands.

1.8um-1.9um, 3.0um-3.2um, an 12um-16um are all represented. Only two of the bands have overlap ability to influence water vapor. The chart is sufficient.

Again, the limited area of influence and mass of the gas makes it highly unlikely to have sufficient power to affect the atmosphere and the gorilla in the room, water vapor.

The major point is, you can have energy present in the atmosphere, however without a means to access that energy and hold it, it will escape to space.

 

[flacaltenn]

No.. It's a bum graph.. Look at the title. Radiation Transmitted THRU the Atmosphere. It's NOT the total Black Body spectrum of the Earth like in the graph I supplied above.

The Earth radiation shown in solid DARK blue (your chart) at the top is ONLY what goes thru the transparent "atmos window". The BROADER CURVES (single line graphs) are the spectrum at various Earth surface temp ranges. THOSE single line plots are more like the chart I just gave you. Or THIS one below..

PLENTY of overlap with CO2 bands in the 5 to 25 um range.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sounds like they are acknowledging that it isn't IR that is heating the air but conduction from the solid surfaces that are being warmed by IR. Which solid surfaces in the atmosphere do you think are being warmed by outgoing IR passing through the atmosphere?

No.. They were ultra careful to specify that they are NOT saying the IR doesn't directly warm the air. Read it again. .......... "this does NOT imply that air is only warmed indirectly".. Meaning that IT DOES. And ..... "(does NOT imply) ..... generally to a lesser extent than the surface"..

THAT -- is more a rigorous SCIENTIFIC treatment of the situation than a fucking MARKETING document for a commercial heat lamp..

The individual gases have areas of resonance where they are affected by IR. The warming is very minuscule. Outside of a gases area(s) of resonance there is no effect of pass through IR.

It's only negligible if the radiation path geometry is limited.. As in the case of a focused beam IR heater for instance. It's NOT negligible for an IR emitter the size of a fucking planet -- in direct line of sight with a relatively thick OCEAN of gas....

Its not the beam that is focused, its the gas ability to react to the beam. A black body, such as the earth, emits broadly (3.5um to over 70um). The gases, not so much.

lets take a look at your ocean and how little is actually affected by LWIR.

View attachment 173482

Every one of the areas that are grey, in this graph, are the gases area(s) of resonance. Areas where IR will interact with the specific gas at a specific wavelength. The only gas with the mass and resonance to react within the atmosphere is water vapor.

CO2 was supposed to "enhance" the effect of water vapor but empirical experment evidence suggests otherwise.

That's a bum graph.. In order to see the SHAPE of the Earth's IR emission spectrum -- you need to plot it on a LOG scale for magnitude. Not linear like your graph. Because even 1% of that energy is significant.

Your graph has a shifted center of absorption band. I will have to look and see which is more accurate.

Your power absorption problem still exists. The atmosphere is transparent to 96.9% of all pass through energy. Thus just like the power in the receptacles in your home, the power is present but without the proper items/conditions allowing effect it passes and does not affect anything.

 

[flacaltenn]

No.. They were ultra careful to specify that they are NOT saying the IR doesn't directly warm the air. Read it again. .......... "this does NOT imply that air is only warmed indirectly".. Meaning that IT DOES. And ..... "(does NOT imply) ..... generally to a lesser extent than the surface"..

THAT -- is more a rigorous SCIENTIFIC treatment of the situation than a fucking MARKETING document for a commercial heat lamp..

The individual gases have areas of resonance where they are affected by IR. The warming is very minuscule. Outside of a gases area(s) of resonance there is no effect of pass through IR.

It's only negligible if the radiation path geometry is limited.. As in the case of a focused beam IR heater for instance. It's NOT negligible for an IR emitter the size of a fucking planet -- in direct line of sight with a relatively thick OCEAN of gas....

Its not the beam that is focused, its the gas ability to react to the beam. A black body, such as the earth, emits broadly (3.5um to over 70um). The gases, not so much.

lets take a look at your ocean and how little is actually affected by LWIR.

View attachment 173482

Every one of the areas that are grey, in this graph, are the gases area(s) of resonance. Areas where IR will interact with the specific gas at a specific wavelength. The only gas with the mass and resonance to react within the atmosphere is water vapor.

CO2 was supposed to "enhance" the effect of water vapor but empirical experment evidence suggests otherwise.

That's a bum graph.. In order to see the SHAPE of the Earth's IR emission spectrum -- you need to plot it on a LOG scale for magnitude. Not linear like your graph. Because even 1% of that energy is significant.

Your graph has a shifted center of absorption band. I will have to look and see which is more accurate.

Your power absorption problem still exists. The atmosphere is transparent to 96.9% of all pass through energy. Thus just like the power in the receptacles in your home, the power is present but without the proper items/conditions allowing effect it passes and does not affect anything.

The issue is NOT where the absorption bands are. Those are essentially the same. It's the TOP graph in your chart. The "Earth" on the right side is NOT the total spectrum of IR that the Earth surface emits. It's much broader than that. You were fooled by the TITLE of that thread. The top graph only shows what goes "unhindered" thru the total atmos into space.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The individual gases have areas of resonance where they are affected by IR. The warming is very minuscule. Outside of a gases area(s) of resonance there is no effect of pass through IR.

It's only negligible if the radiation path geometry is limited.. As in the case of a focused beam IR heater for instance. It's NOT negligible for an IR emitter the size of a fucking planet -- in direct line of sight with a relatively thick OCEAN of gas....

Its not the beam that is focused, its the gas ability to react to the beam. A black body, such as the earth, emits broadly (3.5um to over 70um). The gases, not so much.

lets take a look at your ocean and how little is actually affected by LWIR.

View attachment 173482

Every one of the areas that are grey, in this graph, are the gases area(s) of resonance. Areas where IR will interact with the specific gas at a specific wavelength. The only gas with the mass and resonance to react within the atmosphere is water vapor.

CO2 was supposed to "enhance" the effect of water vapor but empirical experment evidence suggests otherwise.

That's a bum graph.. In order to see the SHAPE of the Earth's IR emission spectrum -- you need to plot it on a LOG scale for magnitude. Not linear like your graph. Because even 1% of that energy is significant.

Your graph has a shifted center of absorption band. I will have to look and see which is more accurate.

Your power absorption problem still exists. The atmosphere is transparent to 96.9% of all pass through energy. Thus just like the power in the receptacles in your home, the power is present but without the proper items/conditions allowing effect it passes and does not affect anything.

The issue is NOT where the absorption bands are. Those are essentially the same. It's the TOP graph in your chart. The "Earth" on the right side is NOT the total spectrum of IR that the Earth surface emits. It's much broader than that. You were fooled by the TITLE of that thread. The top graph only shows what goes "unhindered" thru the total atmos into space.

I understand black body radiation. I question if it has the power some think it does. Gases in our atmosphere are very limited in reaction to specific, low power LWIR bands.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's only negligible if the radiation path geometry is limited.. As in the case of a focused beam IR heater for instance. It's NOT negligible for an IR emitter the size of a fucking planet -- in direct line of sight with a relatively thick OCEAN of gas....

Its not the beam that is focused, its the gas ability to react to the beam. A black body, such as the earth, emits broadly (3.5um to over 70um). The gases, not so much.

lets take a look at your ocean and how little is actually affected by LWIR.

View attachment 173482

Every one of the areas that are grey, in this graph, are the gases area(s) of resonance. Areas where IR will interact with the specific gas at a specific wavelength. The only gas with the mass and resonance to react within the atmosphere is water vapor.

CO2 was supposed to "enhance" the effect of water vapor but empirical experment evidence suggests otherwise.

That's a bum graph.. In order to see the SHAPE of the Earth's IR emission spectrum -- you need to plot it on a LOG scale for magnitude. Not linear like your graph. Because even 1% of that energy is significant.

Your graph has a shifted center of absorption band. I will have to look and see which is more accurate.

Your power absorption problem still exists. The atmosphere is transparent to 96.9% of all pass through energy. Thus just like the power in the receptacles in your home, the power is present but without the proper items/conditions allowing effect it passes and does not affect anything.

The issue is NOT where the absorption bands are. Those are essentially the same. It's the TOP graph in your chart. The "Earth" on the right side is NOT the total spectrum of IR that the Earth surface emits. It's much broader than that. You were fooled by the TITLE of that thread. The top graph only shows what goes "unhindered" thru the total atmos into space.

I understand black body radiation. I question if it has the power some think it does. Gases in our atmosphere are very limited in reaction to specific, low power LWIR bands.

Yeah, they are. BUT -- you're only looking for effects on relatively small total power totals. The total GW surface effect is only something like 3W/m2... The total GH effect is only (IIRC) about 20 times that..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Its not the beam that is focused, its the gas ability to react to the beam. A black body, such as the earth, emits broadly (3.5um to over 70um). The gases, not so much.

lets take a look at your ocean and how little is actually affected by LWIR.

View attachment 173482

Every one of the areas that are grey, in this graph, are the gases area(s) of resonance. Areas where IR will interact with the specific gas at a specific wavelength. The only gas with the mass and resonance to react within the atmosphere is water vapor.

CO2 was supposed to "enhance" the effect of water vapor but empirical experment evidence suggests otherwise.

That's a bum graph.. In order to see the SHAPE of the Earth's IR emission spectrum -- you need to plot it on a LOG scale for magnitude. Not linear like your graph. Because even 1% of that energy is significant.

Your graph has a shifted center of absorption band. I will have to look and see which is more accurate.

Your power absorption problem still exists. The atmosphere is transparent to 96.9% of all pass through energy. Thus just like the power in the receptacles in your home, the power is present but without the proper items/conditions allowing effect it passes and does not affect anything.

The issue is NOT where the absorption bands are. Those are essentially the same. It's the TOP graph in your chart. The "Earth" on the right side is NOT the total spectrum of IR that the Earth surface emits. It's much broader than that. You were fooled by the TITLE of that thread. The top graph only shows what goes "unhindered" thru the total atmos into space.

I understand black body radiation. I question if it has the power some think it does. Gases in our atmosphere are very limited in reaction to specific, low power LWIR bands.

Yeah, they are. BUT -- you're only looking for effects on relatively small total power totals. The total GW surface effect is only something like 3W/m2... The total GH effect is only (IIRC) about 20 times that..

That level is greatly exaggerated.. Current studies are well below a 1-1.2/doubling relationship. CO2 has been shown to not have the 'potential' that was touted just 3 years ago by the IPCC. It has now been lowered to 0.6 deg C per doubling. Only 1/2 of the LOG warming rate seen in the lab of CO2 alone.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's a bum graph.. In order to see the SHAPE of the Earth's IR emission spectrum -- you need to plot it on a LOG scale for magnitude. Not linear like your graph. Because even 1% of that energy is significant.

Your graph has a shifted center of absorption band. I will have to look and see which is more accurate.

Your power absorption problem still exists. The atmosphere is transparent to 96.9% of all pass through energy. Thus just like the power in the receptacles in your home, the power is present but without the proper items/conditions allowing effect it passes and does not affect anything.

The issue is NOT where the absorption bands are. Those are essentially the same. It's the TOP graph in your chart. The "Earth" on the right side is NOT the total spectrum of IR that the Earth surface emits. It's much broader than that. You were fooled by the TITLE of that thread. The top graph only shows what goes "unhindered" thru the total atmos into space.

I understand black body radiation. I question if it has the power some think it does. Gases in our atmosphere are very limited in reaction to specific, low power LWIR bands.

Yeah, they are. BUT -- you're only looking for effects on relatively small total power totals. The total GW surface effect is only something like 3W/m2... The total GH effect is only (IIRC) about 20 times that..

That level is greatly exaggerated.. Current studies are well below a 1-1.2/doubling relationship. CO2 has been shown to not have the 'potential' that was touted just 3 years ago by the IPCC. It has now been lowered to 0.6 deg C per doubling. Only 1/2 of the LOG warming rate seen in the lab of CO2 alone.

That's the reality of the situation. I doubt the doubling temp increase is quite that low. But it's definitely much lower than the initial dire predictions. That's not the scope of this thread tho.. We've got to get SSDD's feet back on the ground so that he ATTACKS the GW exaggerations without hurting himself constantly..

Can't get traction by denying everything about the physics of the GreenHouse. That's just madness.

 

[SSDD]

That's the reality of the situation. I doubt the doubling temp increase is quite that low. But it's definitely much lower than the initial dire predictions. That's not the scope of this thread tho.. We've got to get SSDD's feet back on the ground so that he ATTACKS the GW exaggerations without hurting himself constantly..

Can't get traction by denying everything about the physics of the GreenHouse. That's just madness.

Don't worry about me "hurting myself" Eventually science is going to come back to reality and when it does, I will be there waiting for an apology...or I will be dead and not caring.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your graph has a shifted center of absorption band. I will have to look and see which is more accurate.

Your power absorption problem still exists. The atmosphere is transparent to 96.9% of all pass through energy. Thus just like the power in the receptacles in your home, the power is present but without the proper items/conditions allowing effect it passes and does not affect anything.

The issue is NOT where the absorption bands are. Those are essentially the same. It's the TOP graph in your chart. The "Earth" on the right side is NOT the total spectrum of IR that the Earth surface emits. It's much broader than that. You were fooled by the TITLE of that thread. The top graph only shows what goes "unhindered" thru the total atmos into space.

I understand black body radiation. I question if it has the power some think it does. Gases in our atmosphere are very limited in reaction to specific, low power LWIR bands.

Yeah, they are. BUT -- you're only looking for effects on relatively small total power totals. The total GW surface effect is only something like 3W/m2... The total GH effect is only (IIRC) about 20 times that..

That level is greatly exaggerated.. Current studies are well below a 1-1.2/doubling relationship. CO2 has been shown to not have the 'potential' that was touted just 3 years ago by the IPCC. It has now been lowered to 0.6 deg C per doubling. Only 1/2 of the LOG warming rate seen in the lab of CO2 alone.

That's the reality of the situation. I doubt the doubling temp increase is quite that low. But it's definitely much lower than the initial dire predictions. That's not the scope of this thread tho.. We've got to get SSDD's feet back on the ground so that he ATTACKS the GW exaggerations without hurting himself constantly..

Can't get traction by denying everything about the physics of the GreenHouse. That's just madness.

That's the reality of the situation. I doubt the doubling temp increase is quite that low. But it's definitely much lower than the initial dire predictions. That's not the scope of this thread tho.. We've got to get SSDD's feet back on the ground so that he ATTACKS the GW exaggerations without hurting himself constantly..

Can't get traction by denying everything about the physics of the GreenHouse. That's just madness.

Don't worry about me "hurting myself" Eventually science is going to come back to reality and when it does, I will be there waiting for an apology...or I will be dead and not caring.

The truth is, both of you are right.

"net energy flow" can be described as one way because it is. The totality of it all is one way as described by the second law and observable in experment. So in that aspect SSDD is right.

"net energy flow" can also be described as the balance of input/output of differing masses. QM theory allows for energy flow from all objects above absolute zero. This however is theoretical construct to explain what we see but can not understand and has not yet been observed or proven. IN this aspect Flacaltenn and others are right..

The issue here is meanings.

In my explanations above I showed how the resonance of a gas is the only area affected by upwelling LWIR. IF the whole of the curve equals 315w/m^2 then the 'resonance' areas are only affecting 3-4 w/m^2 when we look at CO2's affected area and the rest is lost to space.. Water vapor is clearly the gorilla in the room.

I guess what we need is a well defined set of parameters to discuss this subject before we start. The so called green house affect is real but how it actually works is a big question mark as CO2 is not acting how they envisioned because it can not interact like they thought.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Old Rocks]

Air contains CO2, CH4, N2O, and water vapor. Those absorb energy at the indicated wavelengths, therefore, air is warmed by IR radiation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Air contains CO2, CH4, N2O, and water vapor. Those absorb energy at the indicated wavelengths, therefore, air is warmed by IR radiation.

Your making an assumption that is wrong.

So lets correct your incorrect statements. But first we must lay the ground work for why what i am about to tell you makes a difference in how the gases react..

First you can not state that these gases warm anything until you know the residency time of the energy it absorbs and how the emitted energy affects the other gases around it. So lets see where they derive their power.

The Left side of this chart is down-welling solar radiation. The right side is up-welling black body radiation.

The left side of this graph is high powered energy in a short wave length and the right side of this graph is very low powered energy in a very long wave length.

The reason I point this out is the power and phase of the energy affects gasses differently. In down-welling radiation the earths atmosphere is almost totally transparent to it. The only atmospheric gases that respond to it is water vapor with slight effect of O3 and N2.

The degree of warming in the atmosphere from down-welling radiation and direct warming of the gas is very small. The majority of the warming is from particulate matter in the air and the ground up through convection and conduction.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Now lets look at Up-welling radiation as it is far more complex.

Lets use Flacltenn's chart showing the up-welling band that is roughly 315w/m^2.

My next post will begin a look at individual gases, their atmospheric windows and how the phase and power is either absorbed, consumed, reflected, or re-emitted..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets start with CO2.

Of the full LWIR spectral band totaling 315w/m^2, emanating from the surface of the earth's total coverage, the bands which can be affected by CO2 is just 6.2%. That means the total power of just about 9-10w/m^2 is what CO2 can affect.

Of that 6.2% about 1.4% has a power of less than (2.3-2.6um) 0.1w/m^2 and the remaining has about 1.3w/m^2 for each 1.0 um of bandwidth.

Note: the above rough calculations are for an atmosphere of 100% CO2 and are for the up-welling bands only.

At 400ppm the amount of energy that can be absorbed by this gas dwindles to 0.6-1.3w/m^2 for its whole spectrum. Any area not marked above is opaque to LWIR energy and will not be retained in our atmosphere by this gas.

The next question to ask is how long does this energy reside in the molecules. This will define how it may consume energy, and re-emit it or warm.

CO2 has very small retention time of energy <0.002ns. CO2 is a stable molecule that has no ability to retain energy and instantaneously re-emits it without warming. Kinetic energy from collisions with other molecules is the only way it can warm.

CO2's only contribution as a GHG is the slight slowing of energy release in the affected resonance areas which allows surrounding molecules of other gases to absorb it. (This is why the IPCC said it would enhance water-vapor warming and would result in a hot spot in our atmosphere)

 

[jon_berzerk]

The mass in the room warms and the air is warmed by conduction and convection across the warmed objects surface..

Simple physics that a whole bunch of folks round here cant get a grasp on...


I had to laugh at one of them saying his radiator in the room was IR.. The conduction across the surface of the heater is what warmed the air as the IR simply affected objects at distance. Funny how this concept is so easily confused..

we use them at the hospital directly over the patient bed

to warm the patient if needed (without) warming the room

 

[Billy_Bob]

We could go into O2 as it is roughly 21% of our atmosphere and how its small area of resonance will result in about 14w/m^2 but it to is too small to drive anything and LWIR is opaque to 99% of it.

Next we'll get into water-vapor...

 

[flacaltenn]

The issue is NOT where the absorption bands are. Those are essentially the same. It's the TOP graph in your chart. The "Earth" on the right side is NOT the total spectrum of IR that the Earth surface emits. It's much broader than that. You were fooled by the TITLE of that thread. The top graph only shows what goes "unhindered" thru the total atmos into space.

I understand black body radiation. I question if it has the power some think it does. Gases in our atmosphere are very limited in reaction to specific, low power LWIR bands.

Yeah, they are. BUT -- you're only looking for effects on relatively small total power totals. The total GW surface effect is only something like 3W/m2... The total GH effect is only (IIRC) about 20 times that..

That level is greatly exaggerated.. Current studies are well below a 1-1.2/doubling relationship. CO2 has been shown to not have the 'potential' that was touted just 3 years ago by the IPCC. It has now been lowered to 0.6 deg C per doubling. Only 1/2 of the LOG warming rate seen in the lab of CO2 alone.

That's the reality of the situation. I doubt the doubling temp increase is quite that low. But it's definitely much lower than the initial dire predictions. That's not the scope of this thread tho.. We've got to get SSDD's feet back on the ground so that he ATTACKS the GW exaggerations without hurting himself constantly..

Can't get traction by denying everything about the physics of the GreenHouse. That's just madness.

That's the reality of the situation. I doubt the doubling temp increase is quite that low. But it's definitely much lower than the initial dire predictions. That's not the scope of this thread tho.. We've got to get SSDD's feet back on the ground so that he ATTACKS the GW exaggerations without hurting himself constantly..

Can't get traction by denying everything about the physics of the GreenHouse. That's just madness.

Don't worry about me "hurting myself" Eventually science is going to come back to reality and when it does, I will be there waiting for an apology...or I will be dead and not caring.

The truth is, both of you are right.

"net energy flow" can be described as one way because it is. The totality of it all is one way as described by the second law and observable in experment. So in that aspect SSDD is right.

"net energy flow" can also be described as the balance of input/output of differing masses. QM theory allows for energy flow from all objects above absolute zero. This however is theoretical construct to explain what we see but can not understand and has not yet been observed or proven. IN this aspect Flacaltenn and others are right..

The issue here is meanings.

In my explanations above I showed how the resonance of a gas is the only area affected by upwelling LWIR. IF the whole of the curve equals 315w/m^2 then the 'resonance' areas are only affecting 3-4 w/m^2 when we look at CO2's affected area and the rest is lost to space.. Water vapor is clearly the gorilla in the room.

I guess what we need is a well defined set of parameters to discuss this subject before we start. The so called green house affect is real but how it actually works is a big question mark as CO2 is not acting how they envisioned because it can not interact like they thought.

Just my 2 cents

Let me lighten your load on refereeing here. Radiative Physics describes radiative "heat flow" as the geometric SUM of the photon (EM energy) between objects. There's a forward stream and a reverse stream. It's simple a subtraction based on the GEOMETRIC line of sight fluxes between emitters.

It's that simple.. And CO2 properties are WELL known as a GH gas. The questions are about the SURFACE RESPONSE (climate sensitiivities) to changes in the IR energy interchange between the surface and the sky.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I understand black body radiation. I question if it has the power some think it does. Gases in our atmosphere are very limited in reaction to specific, low power LWIR bands.

Yeah, they are. BUT -- you're only looking for effects on relatively small total power totals. The total GW surface effect is only something like 3W/m2... The total GH effect is only (IIRC) about 20 times that..

That level is greatly exaggerated.. Current studies are well below a 1-1.2/doubling relationship. CO2 has been shown to not have the 'potential' that was touted just 3 years ago by the IPCC. It has now been lowered to 0.6 deg C per doubling. Only 1/2 of the LOG warming rate seen in the lab of CO2 alone.

That's the reality of the situation. I doubt the doubling temp increase is quite that low. But it's definitely much lower than the initial dire predictions. That's not the scope of this thread tho.. We've got to get SSDD's feet back on the ground so that he ATTACKS the GW exaggerations without hurting himself constantly..

Can't get traction by denying everything about the physics of the GreenHouse. That's just madness.

That's the reality of the situation. I doubt the doubling temp increase is quite that low. But it's definitely much lower than the initial dire predictions. That's not the scope of this thread tho.. We've got to get SSDD's feet back on the ground so that he ATTACKS the GW exaggerations without hurting himself constantly..

Can't get traction by denying everything about the physics of the GreenHouse. That's just madness.

Don't worry about me "hurting myself" Eventually science is going to come back to reality and when it does, I will be there waiting for an apology...or I will be dead and not caring.

The truth is, both of you are right.

"net energy flow" can be described as one way because it is. The totality of it all is one way as described by the second law and observable in experment. So in that aspect SSDD is right.

"net energy flow" can also be described as the balance of input/output of differing masses. QM theory allows for energy flow from all objects above absolute zero. This however is theoretical construct to explain what we see but can not understand and has not yet been observed or proven. IN this aspect Flacaltenn and others are right..

The issue here is meanings.

In my explanations above I showed how the resonance of a gas is the only area affected by upwelling LWIR. IF the whole of the curve equals 315w/m^2 then the 'resonance' areas are only affecting 3-4 w/m^2 when we look at CO2's affected area and the rest is lost to space.. Water vapor is clearly the gorilla in the room.

I guess what we need is a well defined set of parameters to discuss this subject before we start. The so called green house affect is real but how it actually works is a big question mark as CO2 is not acting how they envisioned because it can not interact like they thought.

Just my 2 cents

Let me lighten your load on refereeing here. Radiative Physics describes radiative "heat flow" as the geometric SUM of the photon (EM energy) between objects. There's a forward stream and a reverse stream. It's simple a subtraction based on the GEOMETRIC line of sight fluxes between emitters.

It's that simple.. And CO2 properties are WELL known as a GH gas. The questions are about the SURFACE RESPONSE (climate sensitiivities) to changes in the IR energy interchange between the surface and the sky.

Simplified, but yes..

The problems our modeling community is having are quite sever. They conflate the whole of the spectrum as being energy in play when they have bands that only one gas has as an emitter/receiver relationship or are opaque to. Many areas only have an emitter/receiver relationship with itself.

Another area that they have sever prolbems with are emissions in a specific band say 12-16um that are absorbed by another gas/molecule which has a long energy residency time and cools as it ascends in the atmosphere only to release that energy at a much longer wave length... IE:Water-vapor.. Which is where this whole argument is leading.. There is no hot spot as there is no missing heat... It can be accounted for in longer wave length releases.

Very much unsettled science. As to well documented science, that I question as they made a whole lot of assumptions that are unsupported by what we see today as we study individual gases and how they physically interact with each other..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets now look at water vapor..

Over 82% of the up-welling radiation is covered by Water Vapor and there is only one small area of overlap with CO2 where both gases emit and receive. Water vapor at 100% will absorb and emit about 257w/m^2 in the up-welling spectrum.

Now come the problems with modeling water vapor and understanding how it interacts with CO2 emitted energy. Thunder storms and frontal boundaries can cover as little as 2-5 miles in length and the humidity levels in the air can vary from 10% to 100% in less than 25 miles all while the grid square of modeling is 100 miles x 100 miles. The grid square in modeling can not reflect the actual energy received, emitted, reflected or consumed by water vapor and CO2. this means the 257w/m^2 potential can vary by +/- 100w/m^2 of the 130 mean in just 100 miles, multiple times bringing into question the validity of missing heat.

One item they missed the mark on is that LWIR emitted by CO2 and absorbed by water vapor does not leave the water molecule at a wave length where CO2 can again recycle it. Water vapor holds the energy, consuming some of it to warm and rise in the atmosphere, then cool before the water re-nucleates and the IR is released at a significantly longer wave length. This is the observed empirically and documented reason the hot spot does not exist. Conduction and Convection offset the influence of CO2. The mass of water vapor is sufficient to stop any influence even approaching 8,000ppm on earth.

THE INABILITY TO CREATE A SELF FEEDING LOOP KILLS THE CAGW HYPOTHESIS DEAD!

This is the reason the Paleo record never deviates from the 12 deg C range of naturally occurring and cyclical global temperatures. This is why the impact of CO2 (climate sensitivity) is now at 0.2-0.6 deg C per doubling of CO2. It continues to get nearer and nearer to zero as we learn to better model the earths atmosphere, right where earths atmosphere keeps it naturally.

SO once again SSDD is right about the GHG effect being nonexistent in its totality of output and Flacaltenn is right that it does exist but its output is near zero due to naturally occurring, complex, self correcting, systems.