Nye's Quadrant

[polarbear]

Jeeeesus this heating with "back radiation" bullshit discussion will only end till each of you make 2 saran wrap tents and put a CO2 scrubber in one to see if the one without the scrubber gets thermometer measurably warmer than the other one with the scrubber.
Instead of hard to get LiOH you can use easier to get NaOH pellets or quick lime.
But I can tell you right now that none of you will see a higher temperature in the "CO2" tent unless you go ape and sock it with waaay more CO2, to the point where a human being would suffocate.
The next thing the forum "radiation experts" can`t come to grips with is that a heat source does not necessarily comply with the StB equation unless you alter the physics of the heat source to radiate similar to the way a black body would at the same temperature.
Best example of that is a gas fired Infrared heater. Which is basically a Bunsen burner internally firing a tube which is constructed with materials that simulate a black body as best as we can.
There is no way you could heat a distant object with the same Burner & reflector if you removed the tube.
I am getting sick and tired of climate dingbats who have absolutely no clue of physics and engineering... and sadly that includes Roy Spencer spreading all this cold heating hot radiation bullshit all over the internet.
Watch and learn, (which most warmers refuse to do):

 

[IanC]

Jeeeesus this heating with "back radiation" bullshit discussion

Strawman again?

Back radiation inhibits cooling. Are you saying that the temperature of the atmosphere has no effect on the temperature of the surface?

CO2 stops the direct escape of certain bands of surface IR. Are you saying that this stored energy does not warm the atmosphere?

Or are you just saying that the mechanisms are real but the effects are small and should be ignored?

I think the effects of the atmosphere are large because of the vast amount of energy already stored there. I think the change caused by the increased amount of CO2 is trivial but the mechanism is real and cannot be totally discounted.

 

[SSDD]

Back radiation inhibits cooling. Are you saying that the temperature of the atmosphere has no effect on the temperature of the surface?

there is no back radiation...there is no inhibition of cooling as evidenced by the absence of an ever growing hot spot as a result of an ever higher atmospheric CO2 concentration...

Tell me ian...when observation proves you blatantly wrong...what sort of mind set causes you to persist in your belief?

CO2 stops the direct escape of certain bands of surface IR. Are you saying that this stored energy does not warm the atmosphere?

No it doesn't......if it did there would be a tropospheric hot spot...there isn't which is clear and undeniable proof that it simply isn't happening.

Or are you just saying that the mechanisms are real but the effects are small and should be ignored?

The mechanisms are fantasy...and the effects of fantasy mechanisms are non existent...

I think the effects of the atmosphere are large because of the vast amount of energy already stored there. I think the change caused by the increased amount of CO2 is trivial but the mechanism is real and cannot be totally discounted.

There is no energy captured by CO2...if there were, there would be a tropospheric hot spot....refer back to the series of pictures I posted regarding the exit from the paris agreement...

SSDD: You see this....if CO2 behaved as you believe, and did what you claim, there would be a tropospheric hot spot...there is no tropospheric hot spot...

Ian: But CO2 inhibits the escape of certain bands of IR into space...

SSDD: There have been a million plus radiosondes, and weather balloons, not to mention the satellite record...not a hint of a tropospheric hot spot which would be evident if CO2 impeded the escape of IR into space

Ian: But CO2 must slow the escape of certain bands of IR into space because it absorbs them.

SSDD: Look at me chief....No tropospheric hot spot...not even a small one...not even a hint of one.

Ian: Well....maybe one that we just can't find...like maybe just millimeters above the surface.

SSDD: No measurable hot spot.....anywhere

Ian: Don't f*$k with me!!

SSDD: I'm sorry Ian...but there simply is no hot spot...no matter where you look...clear and undeniable evidence that the mechanism which you believe so fervently in does not exist..it isn' there because it isn't happening...NOT REAL....

Ian: Boo Hooo Hooo...but I believed in in so hard...first the Tooth Fairy, then the Easter Bunny, then Santa Clause....and now CO2 impeding the escape of certain bands of IR from the atmosphere....will there be no end to people dashing my heart felt beliefs upon the jagged rocks of reason? Boo Hoo Hooooooooooooooooooo....

 

[IanC]

Back radiation inhibits cooling. Are you saying that the temperature of the atmosphere has no effect on the temperature of the surface?

there is no back radiation...there is no inhibition of cooling as evidenced by the absence of an ever growing hot spot as a result of an ever higher atmospheric CO2 concentration...

Tell me ian...when observation proves you blatantly wrong...what sort of mind set causes you to persist in your belief?

CO2 stops the direct escape of certain bands of surface IR. Are you saying that this stored energy does not warm the atmosphere?

No it doesn't......if it did there would be a tropospheric hot spot...there isn't which is clear and undeniable proof that it simply isn't happening.

Or are you just saying that the mechanisms are real but the effects are small and should be ignored?

The mechanisms are fantasy...and the effects of fantasy mechanisms are non existent...

I think the effects of the atmosphere are large because of the vast amount of energy already stored there. I think the change caused by the increased amount of CO2 is trivial but the mechanism is real and cannot be totally discounted.

There is no energy captured by CO2...if there were, there would be a tropospheric hot spot....refer back to the series of pictures I posted regarding the exit from the paris agreement...

SSDD: You see this....if CO2 behaved as you believe, and did what you claim, there would be a tropospheric hot spot...there is no tropospheric hot spot...

Ian: But CO2 inhibits the escape of certain bands of IR into space...

SSDD: There have been a million plus radiosondes, and weather balloons, not to mention the satellite record...not a hint of a tropospheric hot spot which would be evident if CO2 impeded the escape of IR into space

Ian: But CO2 must slow the escape of certain bands of IR into space because it absorbs them.

SSDD: Look at me chief....No tropospheric hot spot...not even a small one...not even a hint of one.

Ian: Well....maybe one that we just can't find...like maybe just millimeters above the surface.

SSDD: No measurable hot spot.....anywhere

Ian: Don't f*$k with me!!

SSDD: I'm sorry Ian...but there simply is no hot spot...no matter where you look...clear and undeniable evidence that the mechanism which you believe so fervently in does not exist..it isn' there because it isn't happening...NOT REAL....

Ian: Boo Hooo Hooo...but I believed in in so hard...first the Tooth Fairy, then the Easter Bunny, then Santa Clause....and now CO2 impeding the escape of certain bands of IR from the atmosphere....will there be no end to people dashing my heart felt beliefs upon the jagged rocks of reason? Boo Hoo Hooooooooooooooooooo....

Why don't you explain what you think the hotspot is?

To my understanding it is the consequence of increased water evaporation, not the radiative effect of CO2, except indirectly by temperature increase.

The fact that there has been no increase commensurate with model predictions means that the models are not capturing the proper physics of the situation. Eg there is no tripling of the CO2 influence, no feedback that is necessary to make catastrophic predictions.

 

[SSDD]

Why don't you explain what you think the hotspot is?

To my understanding it is the consequence of increased water evaporation, not the radiative effect of CO2, except indirectly by temperature increase.

As usual, your "understanding is half assed at best....The "trapped", "hindered", "impeded", "slowed" IR as a result of increased CO2 was supposed to cause the water vapor emission layer to ascend to a higher altitude, which would result in warmer temperatures in the atmosphere between 4 and 16km in altitude...since there is no slowing down, or trapping, or impeding, or hindering of IR from the surface by by CO2 the resulting ascension of the water vapor emission layer never happened.

The fact that there has been no increase commensurate with model predictions means that the models are not capturing the proper physics of the situation. Eg there is no tripling of the CO2 influence, no feedback that is necessary to make catastrophic predictions.

The physics that are not cooperating are the very physics that you argue so fervently in defense of...CO2 does not slow the escape of IR radiating from the surface...CO2 does not radiate energy back towards the surface...CO2 does nothing but absorb and emit and it rarely even does that because the time between collisions is about a billion times shorter than the time it takes a CO2 molecule to emit a photon (assuming photons exist)...all CO2 does is provide some slight cooling effect in the atmosphere...just as it does when you put it between two panes of glass. It hurries IR on its way to space.

 

[mamooth]

[Idiot...

Little coward, I asked you to show where the 33K greenhouse effect calculation was wrong, and why the 90K figure in your paper was correct. In response, you have another meltdown.

C over Co represents the increase in CO2....

That's nice, but the issue you're deflecting from is the hilariously stupid paper that you just told everyone was the best paper ever. That paper says the atmospheric effect is 90K. And you won't explain why that's true, or why the 33K figure is wrong.

the question was what would happen if CO2 doubled...

No it wasn't. That question hadn't been brought up at all. You're bringing it up now as an excuse to cry and run.

hansen decided the fudge factor would be 5.35 times the natural log of 2, which is 3.7 watts per square meter....and rather than call it a fudge factor, he named it forcing...sounds better...right? More marketable...sounds like someone actually did some research and could prove that with the doubling of CO2 the energy change would be 5.35 times the natural log of 2, which is 3.7 watts per square meter.

That was bizarre. You're just off in a cuckoo dimension.

Any idea where saturation might be in that fudge factor? Saturation is very important but not found within the greenhouse effect calculations? The fudge factor also removes all influences from natural variations....imagine...a hypothesis RE: the climate whose only support is a mathematical model that doesn't recognize natural variation...

And now you're raving about "saturation" and "natural variation", in the hopes that you can baffle people with buzzwords, so that they won't notice you're just making crap up.

Now, back to what you're running from. Your most amazingest paper in the world says the atmospere causes 90K of warming. Explain to us why that's correct, and why the 33K figure is wrong.

And again, here's the problem with your paper:

"DA is a method for extracting physically meaningful relationships from empirical data"

That is, it's a paper based on curve-fitting. Thing is, you can always find a curve that fits any set of a limited data points, even random noise. It's just mathturbation, and real scientists know that, so they never do it.

 

[SSDD]

Little coward, I asked you to show where the 33K greenhouse effect calculation was wrong, and why the 90K figure in your paper was correct. In response, you have another meltdown.

I gave you a link to the study...was it all that far over your head?...maybe an adult near you can help you out...personally, I have grown tired of trying to explain anything to you.

That was bizarre. You're just off in a cuckoo dimension.

True..it is bizarre and yet, it is the fudge factor in the climate models... Believe on crazy cat lady...believe on.

 

[mamooth]

[I gave you a link to the study...was it all that far over your head?

It's clearly way over yours, being you can't explain it. I've asked twice now, and you've cried and run each time.

You've been busted, oh gutless little fraud. You clearly don't have the slightest idea of what your precious paper actually said.

You didn't even read the damn thing, did you? Yes, it really is that obvious. Someone told you the paper was official cult propaganda, so you're here spreading TheGoodNews.

 

[IanC]

increased CO2 was supposed to cause the water vapor emission layer to ascend to a higher altitude

???? That is your understanding of the hotspot? Who said that? By what mechanism? Are you just putting down random words?

 

[mamooth]

I am getting sick and tired of climate dingbats who have absolutely no clue of physics and engineering...

You're not ignored because you're dazzling anyone with brilliance. You're ignored because you're baffling everyone with bullshit. All you do is ramble crap about topics that have nothing to do with the science.

 

[SSDD]

increased CO2 was supposed to cause the water vapor emission layer to ascend to a higher altitude

???? That is your understanding of the hotspot? Who said that? By what mechanism? Are you just putting down random words?

Wow ian...you really do just go about making shit up for yourself and proclaiming it as science don't you? You really have no idea what the hot spot is all about do you?...Here, let me run it by you one more time. If you don't get it this time, perhaps you might try to actually look up what climate science says rather than make it up for yourself...both are wrong, but at least one isn't simply the product of your own imagination.

According to climate science and the ipcc the mechanism that is supposed to cause the tropospheric hot spot is part of the physical mechanics of the greenhouse hypothesis and goes as follows...and since you obviously have never bothered to look this up since the explanation to you seems to be just random words, I will back track a bit and explain a bit about the atmosphere itself...maybe all you think you know about the atmosphere is just shit you made up as well..

At its most basic...the portion of the atmosphere that contains water vapor is called the troposphere. Water vapor is the only gas in the atmosphere that actually rises to the definition of a greenhouse gas because it not only absorbs IR, but stores the energy...unlike other gasses which simply absorb IR and then immediately emit it right on into space....further since water vapor is so prevalent in the troposphere, a fair amount of the energy absorbed by the other so called greenhouse gasses gets transferred to H2O molecules via collisions before the so called greenhouse gas molecules can radiate the energy on towards space.

The troposphere itself is broken down into the upper and lower troposphere by the WATER VAPOR EMISSIONS LEVEl (WVEL)...also known by some sources as the characteristic emissions level (CEL) which is located one optical depth below the top of the troposphere.

Note: if you don't know what an optical depth is, stop here and go look it up. It has to do with how opaque any particular medium is to radiation passing through it. It would take more time than I have to explain the whole concept to you and I am not sure you would listen anyway. You apparently only listen to the voice in your head that helps you make it all up for yourself.

Above the line that constitutes the water vapor emissions level, radiation within the absorption frequencies of water vapor more or less radiate directly out into space...below the water vapor emissions level, it is more likely to be absorbed and perhaps retained, perhaps passed on via collision, or perhaps radiated on up into the atmosphere.

Nevertheless, because of the property of water vapor which allows it to actually absorb and retain energy, the lower troposphere..that is the part of the troposphere below the water vapor emissions level is warmer than the upper troposphere which effectively radiates any energy within the H2O absorption frequencies right on out into space, and as a result, gets colder, the higher you go.

So once again....according to climate science, the climate models, and the ipcc, the mechanism that is supposed to cause the tropospheric hot spot goes something like this.

• An increase in surface temperature will increase evaporation in the oceans which will then increase the amount of water vapor present in the troposphere.
• This extra water vapor is added on to the water vapor that is already residing in the atmosphere which, in turn, enlarges the lower troposphere (one optical depth below the top of the troposphere). This enlargement of the lower troposphere is then supposed to push the water vapor emissions layer to a higher altitude.
• By increasing the altitude to which the water vapor emissions level, the warmer portion of the troposphere is pushed up into the part of the atmosphere which was previously the colder portion of the troposphere which effectively radiated energy within the H2O absorption band right on out into space. That part of the atmosphere now occupied by the portion of the troposphere that is below one optical depth from the top of the troposphere is warmer that it was when it was before the size of the lower troposphere increased.
• The hot spot forms at the top of the lower troposphere.
• This increased water vapor (which by the way, is supposed to increase because of the enhanced greenhouse effect that results from increased CO2) enlarges the lower troposphere which absorbs and holds more heat which causes the earth to warm...and this is in addition to the temperature increase supposedly caused by CO2 which caused the temperature to rise and cause more evaporation in the first place. (that is part of the magic)
• In addition, this increased water vapor will decrease the moist adiabatic lapse rate in the lower troposphere...this means that the temperature doesn't decrease as quickly as you increase altitude between the ground and the top of the lower troposphere...(one optical depth below the top of the troposphere)
• This decrease of the moist adiabatic lapse rate which causes the top of the lower troposphere to increase in temperature to compensate which in turn causes the tropospheric hot spot.

All of this is supposed to happen as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere which will cause warming and as a result, more evaporation from the oceans. But, since CO2 doesn't cause warming, there is no additional evaporation from the oceans, the troposphere remains the same size and no hot spot develops.

Now keep in mind that none of this, beyond the existence of the troposphere, and its division at the water vapor emissions level is real...it is all hypothetical and the basis for the greenhouse hypothesis, and the resulting AGW hypothesis due to more so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. It is all a hypothetical effect resulting from a hypothetical cause..that being that CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses somehow slow down the escape of IR from the lower atmosphere. It isn't going to happen because the magical property that climate science, and you have ascribed to CO2 are fictional....CO2 doesn't slow down the escape of IR into space..if anything, it speeds it up.

And here is the kicker...there has certainly been some warming over the past half a century or so...not as much as the manipulated record would like you to believe, but some small amount anyway...this bit of warming has not, according to the measured data caused the altitude of the water vapor emissions level to increase whatsoever.

This is a prediction of not only AGW, but of the greenhouse hypothesis itself...it is part of the physical mechanics of the greenhouse hypothesis..it predicts that if you increase the surface temperature you increase the amount of evaporation and this increased water vapor in the troposphere will raise the altitude of the water vapor emissions level and cause a hot spot...according to the greenhouse hypothesis, any surface warming will cause this...not just warming due to CO2...

Now tell me ian...in real science, how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is tossed out in favor of a hypothesis that doesn't fail in its predictions...especially a big one like this. Face it ian, the greenhouse hypothesis itself has failed and it has failed because of a gross misunderstanding and misapplication of physics....the very physics you so fervently believe in.

And here is another kicker...as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, the altitude of the water vapor emissions level has been observed to descend somewhat...precisely the opposite of what your understanding of the physics of energy transfer in the atmosphere predicted.

 

[SSDD]

I am getting sick and tired of climate dingbats who have absolutely no clue of physics and engineering...

You're not ignored because you're dazzling anyone with brilliance. You're ignored because you're baffling everyone with bullshit. All you do is ramble crap about topics that have nothing to do with the science.

Your actions show that he isn't being ignored at all...you like to pretend to ignore him in an effort to save face because you don't like it that his intellect stands so far above your own.

You are like some sort of broadcasting station telling everyone who cares to look exactly how you feel about any given topic no matter what you have to say about it. I would suggest that you do a bit of research into the nature of psychological "tells" but you are just to damned entertaining...watching you thrash about trying to pretend that actual science is not finally catching up with climate pseudoscience and that the system you have invested so much emotional currency into is collapsing before your eyes.

 

[SSDD]

[I gave you a link to the study...was it all that far over your head?

It's clearly way over yours, being you can't explain it. I've asked twice now, and you've cried and run each time.

You've been busted, oh gutless little fraud. You clearly don't have the slightest idea of what your precious paper actually said.

You didn't even read the damn thing, did you? Yes, it really is that obvious. Someone told you the paper was official cult propaganda, so you're here spreading TheGoodNews.

Here you go hairball...after looking at the paper again, I can see why you weren't able to find it yourself...one would need at least a basic grasp of math to be able to even find it. They provide a pretty good verbal explanation of how they derive 90K rather than 18-33k as climate science claims but you may need to find an adult close to you to help you with the big words and to explain some of the mathematical concepts by which they derive their statement.


A) Magnitude of the Natural Greenhouse Effect. GHE is often quantified as a difference between the actual mean global surface temperature (Ts = 287.6K) and the planet’s average gray-body (no- atmosphere) temperature (Tgb), i.e. GHE = Ts - Tgb. In the current theory, Tgb is equated with the effective emission temperature (Te) calculated straight from the S-B Law using Eq. (1):

EQUATION 1

Where So TOA TSI (W m-2) and αp is Earth’s planetary albedo (≈0.3). However, this is conceptually incorrect! Due to Hölder’s inequality between non-linear integrals (Kuptsov 2001), Te is not physically compatible with a measurable true mean temperature of an airless planet. In order to be correct, Tgb must be computed via proper spherical integration of the planetary temperature field. This implies first calculating the temperature at every point by taking the 4th root of the absorbed radiation at that point and then averaging the resulting temperature field across the planet surface, i.e.


EQUATION 2

where αgb is the Earth’s albedo without atmosphere (≈0.125), μ is the cosine of incident solar angle at any point, and cs = 13.25e-5 is a small constant ensuring that Tgb = 2.72K (the temperature of deep Space) when So = 0. Equation (2) assumes a spatially constant albedo (αgb), which is a reasonable approximation when trying to estimate an average planetary temperature. Since in accordance with Hölder’s inequality Tgb ≪ Te (Tgb =154.3K ), GHE becomes much larger than presently estimated. According to Eq. (2), our atmosphere boosts Earth’s surface temperature not by 18K—33K as currently assumed, but by 133K! This raises the question: Can a handful of trace gases which amount to less than 0.5% of atmospheric mass trap enough radiant heat to cause such a huge thermal enhancement at the surface? Thermodynamics tells us that this not possible.

The complete explanation and equations 1 and 2 can be found on page 3 of the paper HERE. I can see why you never made it that far...Getting through the title page was probably pushing your limits and looking at the "greenhouse effect" basic probably pushed you over the edge...you will no doubt require some adult supervision to get through the above so good luck to you.

 

[IanC]

I, for one, am pleased with SSDD'S new found ability to do a little research and cut&paste relevant parts. I just hope he is reading and understanding it (unlike Old Rocks who never does).

So the tropospheric hotspot is supposed to act like an El Nino but on a permanent basis not just transiently. That is why Linden's Iris Effect was attacked so ferociously, and the Braswell and Spencer paper caused an editor to be forced to retire (edit-resign) for publishing it. Excess heat is simply lost to space and homeostasis returns the system to its previous conditions.

I really think the new N&Z paper deserves its own thread

 

[SSDD]

I, for one, am pleased with SSDD'S new found ability to do a little research and cut&paste relevant parts. I just hope he is reading and understanding it (unlike Old Rocks who never does).

So the tropospheric hotspot is supposed to act like an El Nino but on a permanent basis not just transiently. That is why Linden's Iris Effect was attacked so ferociously, and the Braswell and Spencer paper caused an editor to be forced to retire (edit-resign) for publishing it. Excess heat is simply lost to space and homeostasis returns the system to its previous conditions.

I really think the new N&Z paper deserves its own thread

You go right ahead and pretend that it was me who didn't have a clue ian, but your post 109 tells the true story...you had no idea when I said essentially the exact same thing in my post 105...and my post 111 would have been entirely unnecessary had you had the first clue in the first place.

It is clear evidence that the greenhouse effect has failed as an hypothesis...and even more clear is the fact that CO2 doesn't possess the magical powers you and the rest of the warmers on this board ascribe to it...because the water vapor emissions layer has been observed to descend somewhat as CO2 levels have increased is ample reason to consider the very strong possibility that CO2 acts as a cooling agent in the atmosphere...precisely as I have been stating all along. Like it or not, your version of atmospheric physics has failed while my understanding and acceptance of the laws as they are stated marches merrily along leaving my position unchallenged by observation or measurement.

 

[mamooth]

Here you go hairball...after looking at the paper again,

Good! I got you to read the paper, at least enough to copy some words.

In order to be correct, Tgb must be computed via proper spherical integration of the planetary temperature field. This implies first calculating the temperature at every point by taking the 4th root of the absorbed radiation at that point and then averaging the resulting temperature field across the planet surface, i.e.

Bad assumption. The earth doesn't radiate to space, the top of the atmosphere does. That's what you need to average.

where αgb is the Earth’s albedo without atmosphere (≈0.125),

Apples and oranges error. If you're going to compare results with earth-with-atmosphere temps, you need to minimize differences. That means you should use earth-with-atmosphere albedo.

and cs = 13.25e-5 is a small constant ensuring that Tgb = 2.72K (the temperature of deep Space) when So = 0.

So, a fudge factor. What a surprise.

And the integral didn't look right. It wasn't a surface integral over the surface of a sphere.

Glad I could help. Next time, have them get in touch with me for peer review.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry haiball, you're SKS explanation fails every time it is tried...to bad you are unable to actually look at the observations and see that the hypothesis has failed and failed miserably.

The atmospheric thermal effect is based on actual observations, requires no fudge factor and accurately predicts the tempertuature of any rocky planet with an atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

I, for one, am pleased with SSDD'S new found ability to do a little research and cut&paste relevant parts. I just hope he is reading and understanding it (unlike Old Rocks who never does).

So the tropospheric hotspot is supposed to act like an El Nino but on a permanent basis not just transiently. That is why Linden's Iris Effect was attacked so ferociously, and the Braswell and Spencer paper caused an editor to be forced to retire (edit-resign) for publishing it. Excess heat is simply lost to space and homeostasis returns the system to its previous conditions.

I really think the new N&Z paper deserves its own thread

You go right ahead and pretend that it was me who didn't have a clue ian, but your post 109 tells the true story...you had no idea when I said essentially the exact same thing in my post 105...and my post 111 would have been entirely unnecessary had you had the first clue in the first place.

It is clear evidence that the greenhouse effect has failed as an hypothesis...and even more clear is the fact that CO2 doesn't possess the magical powers you and the rest of the warmers on this board ascribe to it...because the water vapor emissions layer has been observed to descend somewhat as CO2 levels have increased is ample reason to consider the very strong possibility that CO2 acts as a cooling agent in the atmosphere...precisely as I have been stating all along. Like it or not, your version of atmospheric physics has failed while my understanding and acceptance of the laws as they are stated marches merrily along leaving my position unchallenged by observation or measurement.

Now you're just going back into a crazy mode again.

The THP is almost entirely driven by the water cycle and the energy transported aloft and released by phase change. Any increase of surface temperature should cause an increase of temp at the cloudtop level. That surface temperature change can be caused by solar input, indirectly by CO2, or natural variability such as an El Nino event. Didn't you learn anything from your cut&paste?


The energy released by phase change during condensation and precipitation is similar to the radiation produced by water at the surface. Eg a significant fraction is in the atmospheric window band, almost half of which will return to the surface unimpeded by the main atmosphere gases or the GHGs.

How do we know this? An easy proof is an IR temperature gun. It is constrained to the atmospheric window band of radiation. All of this type of surface radiation escapes directly to space, yet the gun is reading radiation from the atmosphere. Hence it must be emanating from the atmosphere. The gun reads cool from open sky and much warmer from cloudy sky.

Cloudtops have very little water vapour above them, so the radiation previously intercepted by WV is now free to escape to space, if it is emitted upwards. CO2 is still blocking its bands, although the distance to extinction is much longer than the 10 metre figure at the surface. At a certain height, the air becomes so rarified that it becomes more probable that a CO2 specific emitted photon will escape rather than be recaptured by another CO2 molecule. According to satellite measurements, this corresponds to a height which is about -65C, if my memory is accurate. The energy needed to excite a CO2 molecule and produce a photon does not typically come from absorbing a photon. Rather it comes from molecular collision, turning kinetic energy into internal potential energy. The consequence of this is that increased amounts of CO2 should cause a decrease in temperature at this level by turning kinetic energy into escaping radiation. And this change is found to be happening but it is unclear if the rate matches the model predictions.

 

[IanC]

Sorry haiball, you're SKS explanation fails every time it is tried...to bad you are unable to actually look at the observations and see that the hypothesis has failed and failed miserably.

The atmospheric thermal effect is based on actual observations, requires no fudge factor and accurately predicts the tempertuature of any rocky planet with an atmosphere.

Arguing with the pooh flinging monkey again?

N&Z have a point that just the existence of an atmosphere will give you a range of possible surface temperatures.

Where they go wrong (in many places) is believing that their data fitting curve is the only solution, not one of many.

It is related to Pascal's Wager. Pascal was wrong because there are many different religions. N&Z are wrong because there are few data points, and different combinations of the scant data produce large changes in results.

 

[SSDD]

Now you're just going back into a crazy mode again.

The THP is almost entirely driven by the water cycle and the energy transported aloft and released by phase change.

No...the hot spot is driven entirely by the water cycle because CO2 does not do what you warmers believe it does...it provides no contribution whatsoever other than perhaps a cooling effect as evidenced by the fact that the water vapor emission level has been observed to descend somewhat while CO2 levels have increased. The hot spot would be evident if CO2 played the role you and the other wackos believe it does.

And it appears that you have now taken to doing some research...a far cry from a few posts ago when you didn't have a clue...and by the way, I didn't cut and paste anything...

How do we know this? An easy proof is an IR temperature gun. It is constrained to the atmospheric window band of radiation. All of this type of surface radiation escapes directly to space, yet the gun is reading radiation from the atmosphere. Hence it must be emanating from the atmosphere. The gun reads cool from open sky and much warmer from cloudy sky.

What exactly makes you think it is reading radiation "from" the atmosphere? The fact is that the internal thermopile is simply changing temperature based on what it is pointed at. It reads energy moving away from it as readily as it reads energy moving towards it.