OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?

[Billy_Bob]

Radiation does not warm the air.

GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?

As those GHG's in the atmosphere, other than water, have rigid bonds, they do not resonate and expel their energy very quickly. The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.

An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction. Deserts and the poles are excellent empirical proof of this.

There are only three results now possible.

1) The energy is being absorbed by water and released above cloud boundary where renucliation is occurring. Or,

2) The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body. Then conduction and convection warm the atmosphere. Or,

3) That energy is being released to space.

As there is no hot spot, its not option 1

As near ground temperatures and temperatures at altitude are equal in gradient, Since the gradient near surface is not steeper than at altitude,this is not happening. Its not option 2

Satellites record a correlated gradient of energy in vs energy out. Option three it is!

The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.

How short? Where does it go next?

An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction.

Venus manages to hold energy with little or no water.

The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body.

Radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface?

Had you understood my post, you would have discerned the answers.. The energy in the LWIR bands escapes to space.

Had you understood my post, you would have discerned the answers..

If your post made sense, I wouldn't have had to ask the questions to discern your meaning.

The energy in the LWIR bands escapes to space.

How quickly?

An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction.

No comment on Venus?

The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body.

You just said it escapes to space, did you mean to say it can go in either direction?

I gave three options and empirical observations that show two were not plausible by empirically observed facts ( no hot spot and no increase of lWIR at cloud top). The observations also show the 4/1 gradient release is occurring in the earths atmosphere and because it is observed, no heat is being retained beyond the MASS retention of the atmosphere.

IE: Not warming the ground and not warming the atmosphere. So where is it going? As the 4/1 gradient is intact it is being lost to space.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?

As those GHG's in the atmosphere, other than water, have rigid bonds, they do not resonate and expel their energy very quickly. The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.

An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction. Deserts and the poles are excellent empirical proof of this.

There are only three results now possible.

1) The energy is being absorbed by water and released above cloud boundary where renucliation is occurring. Or,

2) The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body. Then conduction and convection warm the atmosphere. Or,

3) That energy is being released to space.

As there is no hot spot, its not option 1

As near ground temperatures and temperatures at altitude are equal in gradient, Since the gradient near surface is not steeper than at altitude,this is not happening. Its not option 2

Satellites record a correlated gradient of energy in vs energy out. Option three it is!

The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.

How short? Where does it go next?

An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction.

Venus manages to hold energy with little or no water.

The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body.

Radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface?

Had you understood my post, you would have discerned the answers.. The energy in the LWIR bands escapes to space.

Had you understood my post, you would have discerned the answers..

If your post made sense, I wouldn't have had to ask the questions to discern your meaning.

The energy in the LWIR bands escapes to space.

How quickly?

An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction.

No comment on Venus?

The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body.

You just said it escapes to space, did you mean to say it can go in either direction?

I gave three options and empirical observations that show two were not plausible by empirically observed facts ( no hot spot and no increase of lWIR at cloud top). The observations also show the 4/1 gradient release is occurring in the earths atmosphere and because it is observed, no heat is being retained beyond the MASS retention of the atmosphere.

IE: Not warming the ground and not warming the atmosphere. So where is it going? As the 4/1 gradient is intact it is being lost to space.

Nice mumbo jumbo.

​

IE: Not warming the ground and not warming the atmosphere​

You just said it was.
​

As those GHG's in the atmosphere, other than water, have rigid bonds, they do not resonate and expel their energy very quickly.​

Expel it where?
​

The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short​

How short?​

​

The energy is being absorbed by water and released above cloud boundary ​

What about the energy absorbed by O2 and N2?
​

The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body. ​

Is that allowed?
​

As there is no hot spot, its not option 1​

That doesn't constitute proof.
​

As near ground temperatures and temperatures at altitude are equal in gradient, Since the gradient near surface is not steeper than at altitude,this is not happening. Its not option 2​

Wow! Mumbo jumbo is not proof that GHG photons can't travel toward the ground.
​

An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction.​

Why are you ignoring Venus......again?​

 

[SSDD]

Radiation does not warm the air.

GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?

They absorb the radiation and in some few instances, they actually radiate it on, most of the time...999,999 million out of a billion, they lose the energy via collisions with other molecules via conduction...usually O2 or N2. If they radiate it, it moves on to the upper atmosphere at a much faster clip than via conduction...Energy movement in the troposphere is dominated by conduction..radiation is barely a bit player...which makes the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect idiocy on its face...

.999,999 million out of a billion, they lose the energy via collisions with other molecules via conduction...usually O2 or N2.

If they randomly lose energy to air (mostly O2 and N2,) then the air gains energy. Since that gain is random, that means the air heats up. So radiation does warm the air.

So you are going to try to make radiation out of conduction...do you understand the difference between radiation and conduction? I'm not going to explain it to you, but suffice it to say that if you don't know that difference, you really are behind the curve...here is a clue though...if energy movement in the troposphere is overwhelmingly dominated by conduction, then the idea of climate being controlled by a radiative greenhouse effect is just plain stupid.

 

[SSDD]

GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?

As those GHG's in the atmosphere, other than water, have rigid bonds, they do not resonate and expel their energy very quickly. The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.

An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction. Deserts and the poles are excellent empirical proof of this.

There are only three results now possible.

1) The energy is being absorbed by water and released above cloud boundary where renucliation is occurring. Or,

2) The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body. Then conduction and convection warm the atmosphere. Or,

3) That energy is being released to space.

As there is no hot spot, its not option 1

As near ground temperatures and temperatures at altitude are equal in gradient, Since the gradient near surface is not steeper than at altitude,this is not happening. Its not option 2

Satellites record a correlated gradient of energy in vs energy out. Option three it is!

The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.

How short? Where does it go next?

An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction.

Venus manages to hold energy with little or no water.

The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body.

Radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface?

Had you understood my post, you would have discerned the answers.. The energy in the LWIR bands escapes to space.

I suppose at some point he his point to try to argue that conduction and radiation are the same thing.

Nope.
Not even a little.

Alas...he did exactly what I predicted...he is trying to make radiation out of conduction...air is warmed by conduction..he is claiming that it is due to radiation...in his brain radiation and conduction are the same thing...and it would appear, they are the same in your brain as well.

 

[SSDD]

Radiation does not warm the air.

GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?

They absorb the radiation and in some few instances, they actually radiate it on, most of the time...999,999 million out of a billion, they lose the energy via collisions with other molecules via conduction...usually O2 or N2. If they radiate it, it moves on to the upper atmosphere at a much faster clip than via conduction...Energy movement in the troposphere is dominated by conduction..radiation is barely a bit player...which makes the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect idiocy on its face...

most of the time...999,999 million out of a billion, they lose the energy via collisions with other molecules via conduction..

Warming other molecules with energy that would have otherwise instantly escaped into space.
Sounds like that greenhouse effect is keeping the atmosphere warm.

You are talking about conduction but ascribing the climate to a radiative greenhouse effect...sounds like you really don't grasp the problem with that relationship.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As those GHG's in the atmosphere, other than water, have rigid bonds, they do not resonate and expel their energy very quickly. The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.

An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction. Deserts and the poles are excellent empirical proof of this.

There are only three results now possible.

1) The energy is being absorbed by water and released above cloud boundary where renucliation is occurring. Or,

2) The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body. Then conduction and convection warm the atmosphere. Or,

3) That energy is being released to space.

As there is no hot spot, its not option 1

As near ground temperatures and temperatures at altitude are equal in gradient, Since the gradient near surface is not steeper than at altitude,this is not happening. Its not option 2

Satellites record a correlated gradient of energy in vs energy out. Option three it is!

The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere.

How short? Where does it go next?

An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction.

Venus manages to hold energy with little or no water.

The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body.

Radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface?

Had you understood my post, you would have discerned the answers.. The energy in the LWIR bands escapes to space.

I suppose at some point he his point to try to argue that conduction and radiation are the same thing.

Nope.
Not even a little.

Alas...he did exactly what I predicted...he is trying to make radiation out of conduction...air is warmed by conduction..he is claiming that it is due to radiation...in his brain radiation and conduction are the same thing...and it would appear, they are the same in your brain as well.

Alas. You're wrong, again. Just as I predicted.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Radiation does not warm the air.

GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?

They absorb the radiation and in some few instances, they actually radiate it on, most of the time...999,999 million out of a billion, they lose the energy via collisions with other molecules via conduction...usually O2 or N2. If they radiate it, it moves on to the upper atmosphere at a much faster clip than via conduction...Energy movement in the troposphere is dominated by conduction..radiation is barely a bit player...which makes the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect idiocy on its face...

most of the time...999,999 million out of a billion, they lose the energy via collisions with other molecules via conduction..

Warming other molecules with energy that would have otherwise instantly escaped into space.
Sounds like that greenhouse effect is keeping the atmosphere warm.

You are talking about conduction but ascribing the climate to a radiative greenhouse effect...sounds like you really don't grasp the problem with that relationship.

You are talking about conduction but ascribing the climate to a radiative greenhouse effect

IR escaping into space in the absence of GHGs is conduction?

Tell me more!!!

 

[Wuwei]

So you are going to try to make radiation out of conduction...do you understand the difference between radiation and conduction?

No to the first statement. That is a strawman. Yes to the second statement.

These are my statements further broken down.

1. Near earth, thermal radiation is absorbed by GHGs at their resonant frequencies.
2. The GHGs randomly quickly lose that vibratory energy to air (mostly O2 and N2.)
3. The transfer of vibratory energy to air through that kinetic process is called conduction.
4. Thereby the air gains kinetic energy.
5. That energy gain is randomly spread throughout the air near earth.
6. That random gain of kinetic energy means the air heats up.
7. Therefore, through this several step process, radiation does lead to a warming of the air.

Please tell me at which step you disagree with the physics.

The various steps have various names. But in no way is that an attempt "to make radiation out of conduction."

 

[SSDD]

Poor try...there is no radiative greenhouse effect.. there is an atmospheric thermal effect driven by gravity and conduction...radiation is at best, a bit player in the process through the troposphere....

All you have is bullshit upon bullshit, upon bullshit...do point out the part in any definition of the radiative greenhouse effect as promoted by climate science where conduction is acknowledged as the major pathway for energy to reach the upper atmosphere...and while you are at it, point out the major role of conduction in any of the GCM's...

I can hardly wait to hear what bullshit answer you have next rather than providing evidence to support your claim. You are laughable..I will hand you that.

 

[Wuwei]

Poor try...there is no radiative greenhouse effect.. there is an atmospheric thermal effect driven by gravity and conduction...radiation is at best, a bit player in the process through the troposphere....

All you have is bullshit upon bullshit, upon bullshit...do point out the part in any definition of the radiative greenhouse effect as promoted by climate science where conduction is acknowledged as the major pathway for energy to reach the upper atmosphere...and while you are at it, point out the major role of conduction in any of the GCM's...

I can hardly wait to hear what bullshit answer you have next rather than providing evidence to support your claim. You are laughable..I will hand you that.

More insults. Is that all you got at this point. Which of the following steps do you think is bullshit and why?

1. Near earth, thermal radiation is absorbed by GHGs at their resonant frequencies.
2. The GHGs randomly quickly lose that vibratory energy to air (mostly O2 and N2.)
3. The transfer of vibratory energy to air through that kinetic process is called conduction.
4. Thereby the air gains kinetic energy.
5. That energy gain is randomly spread throughout the air near earth.
6. That random gain of kinetic energy means the air heats up.
7. Therefore, through this several step process, radiation does lead to a warming of the air.
   

 

[SSDD]

More insults. Is that all you got at this point. Which of the following steps do you think is bullshit and why?

So you can't provide a single explanation of the radiative greenhouse effect that states that conduction is the primary, and overwhelmingly dominant means of energy transport through the troposphere. Can you even find one that gives honorable mention to conduction? Didn't think so. But as always, it is fun to watch you thrash about trying to defend the indefensible. There is no radiative greenhouse effect.

 

[Wuwei]

So you can't provide a single explanation of the radiative greenhouse effect that states that conduction is the primary, and overwhelmingly dominant means of energy transport through the troposphere. Can you even find one that gives honorable mention to conduction? Didn't think so. But as always, it is fun to watch you thrash about trying to defend the indefensible. There is no radiative greenhouse effect.

I provided a physics explanation of how GHGs cause the atmosphere to heat. Conduction is mentioned in step 3. You can't deny the 7 points I made, so you come back with your usual dogma with no physics.

 

[Crick]

First, the dominant means of energy transport through the troposphere is not conduction. It is FORCED CONVECTION.

Second, the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect are obviously radiative and wouldn't involve a discussion of conduction [written as WuWei was posting his note above]. A discussion of heat transfer in the atmosphere would certainly include all modes: radiation, conduction, convection and forced convection.

Third, YOU are the one who demonstrates the fallacy of your own arguments by failing to answer questions. Not surprising given every one of your major positions stand in violation of basic and fundamental physical laws.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First, the dominant means of energy transport through the troposphere is not conduction. It is FORCED CONVECTION.

Second, the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect are obviously radiative and wouldn't involve a discussion of conduction [written as WuWei was posting his note above]. A discussion of heat transfer in the atmosphere would certainly include all modes: radiation, conduction, convection and forced convection.

Third, YOU are the one who demonstrates the fallacy of your own arguments by failing to answer questions. Not surprising given every one of your major positions stand in violation of basic and fundamental physical laws.

He's actually getting dumber with his epicycles.

 

[Wuwei]

He's actually getting dumber with his epicycles.

Yes, and more frantic with his "logic". It seems the true science he faces and his dogmatic anti-science stance are at odds in his brain and it is boiling over or short circuiting. So the outcome is pure dumb.

 

[SSDD]

I provided a physics explanation of how GHGs cause the atmosphere to heat. Conduction is mentioned in step 3. You can't deny the 7 points I made, so you come back with your usual dogma with no physics.

You provided me your unique version of how a radiative greenhouse effect works...That isn't what I asked for unless of course, your version is that being promoted by mainstream science...is it? Didn't think so.

I asked you for a description of the greenhouse effect as described by cliamte science which acknowledges that radiation movement in the troposphere is mainly accomplished by conduction....and as crick said, convection via air current moving those molecules that are so busy conducting energy around...

You can't because no such acknowledgement has ever been made by mainstream climate science...both climate science and climate models assume that radiation rules energy movement from the troposphere to the edge of space...which is why climate models fail. Were they to acknowledge that energy movement in the troposphere is dominated overwhelmingly by conduction..and why that is the case, and then reflect those facts in the climate models..which of course would reduce CO2 to its actual level of importance (which is zero or less) then said models would certainly be more accurate.

Of course that would necessitate a public acknowledgement that they have been wrong in assuming that the quaint 19th century science was wrong and that there is, in fact, no radiative greenhouse effect. Don't see that happening anytime soon... Science has a long history of being wrong until the facts became so blatantly obvious that even kindergarteners could see their error before they were wiling to admit that they were wrong. Who knows how far our potential knowledge has been set back by such behavior?

 

[SSDD]

Second, the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect are obviously radiative and wouldn't involve a discussion of conduction [written as WuWei was posting his note above]. A discussion of heat transfer in the atmosphere would certainly include all modes: radiation, conduction, convection and forced convection.

As I have said...the notion of a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere so completely dominated by conduction is just plain stupid...the smoking guns of a radiative greenhouse effect are conspicuously missing...

[

Third, YOU are the one who demonstrates the fallacy of your own arguments by failing to answer questions. Not surprising given every one of your major positions stand in violation of basic and fundamental physical laws.

Which physical law would that be skidmark? That one which says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm? That one which you claim is in error?

 

[Crick]

Still having trouble with quotes I see.

Measurements of greenhouse re-radiation have been made from the surface (ie, at the bottom of the troposphere looking up). I just posted links to an article about a study and that study. Let's see if they're still in my clipboard.

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect

and

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO₂ from 2000 to 2010

There you go.

And, again, the dominant mode of heat transfer in the troposphere is NOT conduction, it is forced convection; ie, the movement of air masses

 

[Wuwei]

I asked you for a description of the greenhouse effect as described by cliamte science which acknowledges that radiation movement in the troposphere is mainly accomplished by conduction

What climate scientists publish may be your concern, but I was answering your post 228 where you said:

Radiation does not warm the air.

I am saying radiation does warm the air. I gave you seven points in the process where step 3 acknowledges conduction. If you disagree with any of the seven points, what is it. If you agree with all, then the conclusion is that radiation causes the air to warm near earth.

 

[SSDD]

Still having trouble with quotes I see.

Measurements of greenhouse re-radiation have been made from the surface (ie, at the bottom of the troposphere looking up). I just posted links to an article about a study and that study. Let's see if they're still in my clipboard.

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect

and

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO₂ from 2000 to 2010

There you go.

And, skidmark, if you bother to look, you will note that there is no mention of what sort of instrumentation was used...if you dig deeper, you will find that the measurements, if they are of a discrete frequency of radiation, were made with instruments cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...once more...you are being fooled by instrumentation..all that is being measured is energy moving from the warmer sky to the cooler instrument.

And, again, the dominant mode of heat transfer in the troposphere is NOT conduction, it is forced convection; ie, the movement of air masses

Sorry crick...not true...the air molecules being moved around on air currents are still conducting energy....what you are claiming is that if you heat a pot of water and then pick up the pot of water and take it to another room, the main mode of heat transfer is you picking up the water and carrying it to another room. Air currents are merely moving around the energy transfer work horses as they go about conducting energy.