Nye's Quadrant

[SSDD]

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

You think? Every bit of observational and measured evidence says exactly that and yet, you wallow in the magical pseudoscience of the greenhouse effect and powers of CO2.

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

It isn't just a matter of data fitting...the fact that all of the rocky planets with atmospheres that we are aware of sit so tightly on a curve should speak a very loud and clear message to you regarding the physics at work....it doesn't get though though, because you are so indoctrinated in your dogma that you can't see the truth when it is placed squarely in your line of sight.

The fact that they have discovered that all of our rocky planets sit so squarely on that curve is precisely where they have gone right. You like to think that the curve is only one possible solution because you can't stand to give up hope that your magical CO2 and fictional greenhouse hypothesis may still prove correct...it is a false hope and you are engaged in magical thinking by holding out that hope. There is an undeniable physical reality which places those planets so tightly on that curve and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the composition of the atmosphere, or anything like a greenhouse effect as described by climate pseudoscience.

 

[IanC]

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

You are the person who linked up to the IR gun manufacturer's article describing how they truncated the IR bands measured to only include wavelengths unaffected by atmospheric molecules (ie a similar range to the atmospheric window). Any radiation detected in this range must be being created within the atmosphere because all surface radiation in this range escapes directly to space.

Are you now disavowing this link that you plastered over many threads?

Will you claim 'fooled' by instrumentation yet again even though it is a common class of technology that is used extensively and found to be accurate by experiment? You often proclaim every measurement, every observation, every experiment supports your position. How do you reconcile this whole field of demonstrably reliable instruments with your opinion? Don't bother answering, we all know it involves smart photons, and/or smart emitters combined with a garbled version of thermodynamic laws that depend on your personal interpretation of the word definitions at the expense of the actual meaning.

 

[SSDD]

You are the person who linked up to the IR gun manufacturer's article describing how they truncated the IR bands measured to only include wavelengths unaffected by atmospheric molecules (ie a similar range to the atmospheric window). Any radiation detected in this range must be being created within the atmosphere because all surface radiation in this range escapes directly to space.[/wuote]

You really do just make it up as you go...don't you...you make up your own arguments and you make up arguments to rail against...

I said that the instrument simply measures temperature...it doesn't care which direction the energy is moving. The atmosphere is cooler so the internal thermopile loses heat...period...there is nothing else to say. Anything else is just you being, once again, fooled by instrumentation.

Your mistaken notion that energy must somehow be being radiated towards the instrument in order for it to work is just another example of how you really don't have a clue for all your high opinion of yourself.

 

[IanC]

No...the hot spot is driven entirely by the water cycle because CO2 does not do what you warmers believe it does...

Like I said, you've slipped back into crazy mode.

The hotspot is a function of the water cycle. Period. Surface warming from any cause is supposed to trigger a large and permanent increase there.

CO2 and solar are two possible causes of surface warming but they are not large enough to definitively pick out of the background noise at this time.

El Ninos are large enough. The warming of the atmosphere is caused by increased water temperature and the subsequent increased evaporation which deposits large amounts of energy into the air at cloud level.

Do these El Ninos events cause permanent warming? Difficult to say. Most of the time the answer is no, but the 1998 event certainty appears to have reset the thermostat at a higher temperature. The 2016 event has not been followed by a similarly large La Nina. Will there be another upwards thermostat adjustment? Too soon to tell.

I find it hard to believe that the relatively miniscule energy from industrialization has altered ocean currents in 150 years. I find it more believable that warming and cooling eras; RWP, dark ages, MWP, LIA and the present warming period are harmonics of each other. The ocean currents holding a memory of past conditions as they make the journey from surface to downwelling circulation and back to the surface again. Just a thought though.

SSDD- why don't you provide the evidence that the emission level has changed, and the mechanism by which CO2 has caused this change? I am always willing to learn something new. But I seldom put much credence in claims that are devoid of evidence or reasoning. Please, prove my skepticism of your statement is unfounded. I would be grateful.

 

[IanC]

You are the person who linked up to the IR gun manufacturer's article describing how they truncated the IR bands measured to only include wavelengths unaffected by atmospheric molecules (ie a similar range to the atmospheric window). Any radiation detected in this range must be being created within the atmosphere because all surface radiation in this range escapes directly to space.

You really do just make it up as you go...don't you...you make up your own arguments and you make up arguments to rail against...

I said that the instrument simply measures temperature...it doesn't care which direction the energy is moving. The atmosphere is cooler so the internal thermopile loses heat...period...there is nothing else to say. Anything else is just you being, once again, fooled by instrumentation.

Your mistaken notion that energy must somehow be being radiated towards the instrument in order for it to work is just another example of how you really don't have a clue for all your high opinion of yourself.

You are once again deflecting and ignoring the particulars of the argument. Your link to the IR gun manufacturer explains in detail how the gun works. Do you now denounce what you thought was important enough to post on multiple threads?

The gun works by analyzing the amount of radiation entering and leaving the detector, the net flow. I say both the gun and the object are radiating according to their temperatures. You say only the warmer one emits, and even that emission is throttled down by 'knowing' the temperature of opposite object even though no information is coming from it. Your position doesn't make sense and it is contrary to physical laws, the most important of which is entropy.

 

[IanC]

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

You think? Every bit of observational and measured evidence says exactly that and yet, you wallow in the magical pseudoscience of the greenhouse effect and powers of CO2.

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

It isn't just a matter of data fitting...the fact that all of the rocky planets with atmospheres that we are aware of sit so tightly on a curve should speak a very loud and clear message to you regarding the physics at work....it doesn't get though though, because you are so indoctrinated in your dogma that you can't see the truth when it is placed squarely in your line of sight.

The fact that they have discovered that all of our rocky planets sit so squarely on that curve is precisely where they have gone right. You like to think that the curve is only one possible solution because you can't stand to give up hope that your magical CO2 and fictional greenhouse hypothesis may still prove correct...it is a false hope and you are engaged in magical thinking by holding out that hope. There is an undeniable physical reality which places those planets so tightly on that curve and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the composition of the atmosphere, or anything like a greenhouse effect as described by climate pseudoscience.

A planet/atmosphere system shows it's energy input by its energy output . If they are not equal then it is either warming or cooling.

The height of an atmosphere shows its energy input. More input means more energy stored as potential energy in the gravity field and more energy returned to the surface.

If the Earth's GHGs were exchanged with the same mass of non GHGs what would happen? The 400w of surface radiation would simply escape to space, causing a deficit of about 200w. The surface would cool, quickly. The atmosphere would no longer be intercepting surface radiation and would cool. The atmosphere would no longer be receiving energy from the water cycle and would cool even more. A cooler atmosphere would mean a cooler surface, as less total atmospheric energy was available to return to the surface.

In the end, after the system achieved equilibrium again, would the Earth still fit on N&Z's graph? Why yes it would! The atmosphere would be lower, meaning the density would be higher, so the ideal gas laws would give a lower temperature.

Two different sets of conditions, two different surface temperatures, same adherence to the IGL.

The IGL gives a range of possible solutions. There is no single correct answer, you need to know more information about the conditions.

 

[polarbear]

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.

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.
I am saying for years what many other experts in spectral-analysis have also been saying for years, which is that the "increase" is so insignificant that you may discount it the same way you would discount the increase of a truck`s momentum when it gets rear ended by a fly.

 

[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.

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.
I am saying for years what many other experts in spectral-analysis have also been saying for years, which is that the "increase" is so insignificant that you may discount it the same way you would discount the increase of a truck`s momentum when it gets rear ended by a fly.

I must admit that I tend to lean in that direction as well when it comes to the recent increase of CO2.

I believe the total impact of all CO2 is more significant and needs to be taken into account. The initial bolus is the most important, decreasing quickly after that.

 

[SSDD]

The hotspot is a function of the water cycle. Period. Surface warming from any cause is supposed to trigger a large and permanent increase there.

Are you really this stupid ian...climate science and the ipcc claim that the hot spot will develop because the additional CO2 in the atmosphere would cause warming which would result in more water vapor...it didn't happen because it can't happen...the climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.

 

[SSDD]

You are once again deflecting and ignoring the particulars of the argument. Your link to the IR gun manufacturer explains in detail how the gun works. Do you now denounce what you thought was important enough to post on multiple threads?

No ian...the link to the manufacturer said what it sees and what it doesn't...it doesn't say a word about how it works and you have demonstrated over and over that you don't have the slightest idea how it works...

The gun works by analyzing the amount of radiation entering and leaving the detector, the net flow.

The gun isn't measuring net anything...it is measuring the amount and rate of change in an internal thermopile...nothing more. Anything else beyond that is a product of your terribly flawed dogmatic understanding of physics and the precise reason you are so damned easily fooled by instruments.

 

[SSDD]

If the Earth's GHGs were exchanged with the same mass of non GHGs what would happen?

You can answer that question easily enough by direct observation...without so called GHG's the earth would be a warmer place...because radiation would play no part in the movement of energy from the surface to the upper troposphere... Reference double glazed windows...if you want to slow the transfer of energy you fill the space with a gas that does not absorb and radiate IR...if you want to hustle energy on through, you fill the space with a radiative gas like CO2....

It amazes me that you don't seem to be able to apply this straight forward observation in any real way....your dogma simply blocks all common sense and rationality before they can penetrate your brain.

The rest of your post is just more mental model bullshit that you can't even begin to prove and which is proven patently false by the every double glazed window on earth.

 

[IanC]

You can answer that question easily enough by direct observation...without so called GHG's the earth would be a warmer place...because radiation would play no part in the movement of energy from the surface to the upper troposphere..

Incorrect. Without GHGs the atmospheric window would widen to the whole IR spectrum and all radiation produced by the surface would escape at the speed of light.

 

[IanC]

Reference double glazed windows...if you want to slow the transfer of energy you fill the space with a gas that does not absorb and radiate IR...if you want to hustle energy on through, you fill the space with a radiative gas like CO2..

CO2 has less thermal conductivity than air, N2, O2 or water vapour. Only Argon has lower conductivity.

Why do you harp on incorrect statements? Do you 'figure something out by yourself' and then think I don't need to check to see if it's right, I'll just say it a few dozen times on the message board.

 

[SSDD]

Incorrect. Without GHGs the atmospheric window would widen to the whole IR spectrum and all radiation produced by the surface would escape at the speed of light.

Tell me ian..how does it feel to be as wrong as the hairball? How long might it be before you wake up to the fact that your dogma has handicapped you to the point that you can't see truth when it is directly in front of you?

HEAT DISTRIBUTION IN THE TROPOSPHERE

clip:
The temperature of the earth's surface will have a significant influence on the surface air temperature due to the conduction process. The bulk of heat energy transferred in the troposphere is done by convection. Convection does not only mean thunderstorm clouds but means any mixing of air.

Introduction to the Atmosphere: Background Material

clip:

• The sun's heat that warms the earth's surface is transported upwards largely by convection and is mixed by updrafts and downdrafts.

https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...netsFS2016/160422_exop2016_chapter4_part2.pdf

clip:
4.4.3 Tropospheric Convection

Convection is the energy transport by gas flows and it is a dominant energy transport process in the troposphere. Convection will occur if the following conditions are fulfilled

• – a gas parcel, which is slightly hotter, and therefore slightly less dense and lighter than its surroundings will start to rise,
  
  
• – the ambient pressure decreases and the parcel expands, and cools adiabatically (heat transfer to the surroundings can be neglected),
  
  
• – if the parcel is, after some upwards motion and adiabatic expansion (and cooling), still hotter and less dense than the surroundings then it will continue to rise in a convective flow.
  

Convection - AMS Glossary

clip: In the atmosphere, convection is the dominant vertical transport process in convective boundary layers,


Convective heat transfer - Wikipedia

Convective heat transfer, often referred to simply as convection, is the transfer of heat from one place to another by the movement of fluids. Convection is usually the dominant form of heat transfer in liquids and gases.

 

[SSDD]

Reference double glazed windows...if you want to slow the transfer of energy you fill the space with a gas that does not absorb and radiate IR...if you want to hustle energy on through, you fill the space with a radiative gas like CO2..

CO2 has less thermal conductivity than air, N2, O2 or water vapour. Only Argon has lower conductivity.

Why do you harp on incorrect statements? Do you 'figure something out by yourself' and then think I don't need to check to see if it's right, I'll just say it a few dozen times on the message board.

Well at least you are partially right...at very cold temperatures, CO2 has less thermal conductivity than N2, O2, or H2O vapor. For example... at 200K the respective thermal conductivity of CO2, N2, O2, H2O, and Ar in milliwatts per meter kelvin are: 9.6, 18.7, 18.4, 0, 12.4. Raise the temperature to 300K and the respective thermal conductivity in the same order are 25.1, 26.3, 26.0, 18.7. 17.9

So as you can see, at tropospheric temperatures, all the so called greenhouse gasses have a greater thermal conductivity quotient than argon...again, if CO2 had less thermal conductivity at warmer temperatures, they would be filling double glazed windows with CO2 instead of argon. Once again...your dogma completely blinds you to the truth.

Simple observation should clue you in....why do you think they use argon if CO2 would work better at slowing the movement of heat? After all CO2 is a good bit cheaper than argon.

Open your eyes to the truth...the earth would be a warmer place if there were no so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere... For all your pretense, I am afraid that it is you who is terribly confused...you seemingly don't have the slightest idea and the dogma you spew is wrong far more often than it is correct. Post modern science strikes again...models, and apparently simply what you believe over observation and measurement.

 

[IanC]

Reference double glazed windows...if you want to slow the transfer of energy you fill the space with a gas that does not absorb and radiate IR...if you want to hustle energy on through, you fill the space with a radiative gas like CO2..

CO2 has less thermal conductivity than air, N2, O2 or water vapour. Only Argon has lower conductivity.

Why do you harp on incorrect statements? Do you 'figure something out by yourself' and then think I don't need to check to see if it's right, I'll just say it a few dozen times on the message board.

Well at least you are partially right...at very cold temperatures, CO2 has less thermal conductivity than N2, O2, or H2O vapor. For example... at 200K the respective thermal conductivity of CO2, N2, O2, H2O, and Ar in milliwatts per meter kelvin are: 9.6, 18.7, 18.4, 0, 12.4. Raise the temperature to 300K and the respective thermal conductivity in the same order are 25.1, 26.3, 26.0, 18.7. 17.9

So as you can see, at tropospheric temperatures, all the so called greenhouse gasses have a greater thermal conductivity quotient than argon...again, if CO2 had less thermal conductivity at warmer temperatures, they would be filling double glazed windows with CO2 instead of argon. Once again...your dogma completely blinds you to the truth.

Simple observation should clue you in....why do you think they use argon if CO2 would work better at slowing the movement of heat? After all CO2 is a good bit cheaper than argon.

Open your eyes to the truth...the earth would be a warmer place if there were no so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere... For all your pretense, I am afraid that it is you who is terribly confused...you seemingly don't have the slightest idea and the dogma you spew is wrong far more often than it is correct. Post modern science strikes again...models, and apparently simply what you believe over observation and measurement.

Hahahaha. Now you are rising to the level of Old Rocks' dishonesty!

And had the nerve to call me 'partially right'. Hahahaha. I admit that I only looked at the numbers for 300K, 17C, ~60F.

What would I have seen if I looked at the 200K numbers? That CO2 had switched positions with Argon and now had the lower thermal conductivity!!!!!

So SSDD'S amazing 'proof' is shattered. Will he admit he was wrong? No. Will he repeat his misdirection in the future? Probably.

 

[SSDD]

So SSDD'S amazing 'proof' is shattered. Will he admit he was wrong? No. Will he repeat his misdirection in the future? Probably.

What is shattered...CO2 is able to absorb and emit IR where N2 and O2 are not.. CO2 provides some small cooling effect in the atmosphere due to the fact that it can absorb and emit radiation while N2 and O2 can not...and at normal temperatures, CO2 still has considerably more thermal conductivity than water vapor and you claimed otherwise.

My argument stands unchallenged.

 

[IanC]

So SSDD'S amazing 'proof' is shattered. Will he admit he was wrong? No. Will he repeat his misdirection in the future? Probably.

What is shattered...CO2 is able to absorb and emit IR where N2 and O2 are not.. CO2 provides some small cooling effect in the atmosphere due to the fact that it can absorb and emit radiation while N2 and O2 can not...and at normal temperatures, CO2 still has considerably more thermal conductivity than water vapor and you claimed otherwise.

My argument stands unchallenged.

Why do you keep arguing when you know you are wrong?

Why haven't you checked your figures?

 

[SSDD]

The fact remains that the earth would be a warmer place were there no so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. What small bit of radiation that actually happens in the troposphere would still move energy along faster than convection alone.

 

[IanC]

The fact remains that the earth would be a warmer place were there no so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. What small bit of radiation that actually happens in the troposphere would still move energy along faster than convection alone.

You keep making that naked statement but refuse to argue its merits.

Without GHGs all the surface IR radiation would simply escape to space. Instead of just the narrowed range of 8-16 microns.

On the other side of the coin, without GHGs the atmosphere would only be receiving energy by conduction from the surface. None of the surface radiation would be imparted to the atmosphere.

So we would appear to have a cooler surface and a cooler atmosphere because of increased radiation loss due to lack of GHGs.

Yet you claim the opposite. Where is the energy coming from to support your claim?