OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 absorbs all the surface radiation in the 14-16 micron band, and doesn't release it until the air about 220K, or -53C. More radiation is absorbed than emitted in the CO2 band. That difference in radiation energy must be accounted for.

CO2 does not warm except by conduction in our atmosphere. So it MUST collide in order to gain kinetic energy and warm. This means it must have another molecule that can hold energy and warm in order for it to warm.

IF you remove water vapor from the atmosphere, cooling is more rapid with higher concentrations of CO2 as we have observed in earths desert regions. Warming is also quicker, of the solids, which then heats the atmosphere above it quickly by conduction. Observed evidence shows that the air is not warming until it interacts with the warmed solids of earths surface. This is well document fact.

SO the question then becomes, can convection and air movement transfer the energy necessary to keep a "hot spot" from forming. That answer is a resounding YES, from all empirical observations to date.

When you consider that an Anvil cloud formation of 20,000 feet (top to bottom) can churn its top to bottom in a matter of about one minuet. It clearly demonstrates that there is sufficient churn in earths atmosphere at any given time to keep a mid to upper tropospheric hot spot from ever forming. Wind speeds within the cloud formation can reach 200-250 mph.

We know from observations that water vapor can hold energy for upwards of 6-9 seconds before it cools enough to be released at a longer wave length and outside of CO2's ability to slow. All of the current GCM's do not account for this shift in energy output. This is precisely where your "missing energy" is and it is not missing. Water vapor is an interesting thing to study, energy residency time is key to this issue.

All your graphing proves is the major regions of energy release are outside of CO2's ability to affect it.

You wont even discuss the OBSERVATIONS and why they are and where the energy has moved...

Your so set on "consensus science" you will not look beyond your blinders. I cant fix Stupid.. Enjoy ignorance...

Yeah and none of them even want to consider how many watts from the sun the CO2 prevents from getting to the surface. According to the warmers that does not matter because you can make up for a power loss with back radiating a tiny fraction of what`s left over and a portion of the total # of watts the CO2 absorbed from the ground black body radiation. The cheat is to use the entire # of watts instead of the integral portion from 14 to 16 microns. My guess is that these "scientists" do that because none of them have a clue how to get the integral of a plotted function....and call all those who do know "science deniers".
Like for example Heinz Hug:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]. For the 15 µm band our result was:
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

"If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2."

This can be wholly attributed to water vapor and land use changes. It can also be easily swamped by water vapor/conduction/convection and expelled to space.

Nice find.. I'm going to have to read this one closely. Very clearly defines why there is no hot spot in our troposphere. I hadn't seen this one before.

ETA: I just put the numbers to the experiment I explained above (here) when we held it at 40% humidity and he is right on the money..... Thank you.. I just listed it on my attributions page now.

 

[IanC]

Here is a graph from 1970, zoomed in on the CO2 band. To be honest I haven't checked the provenance of Conrath1970. It comes from a time before the CAGW scare, yet the primitive satellite data and the atmospheric radiative modeling are practically indistinguishable from recent results.

The range between 13-10 microns is in the Atmospheric Window where radiation escapes freely, so this snapshot is from the tropics with a surface temperature in the mid 20's Celcius, or about 295 Kelvins.

CO2 absorbs all the surface radiation in the 14-16 micron band, and doesn't release it until the air about 220K, or -53C. More radiation is absorbed than emitted in the CO2 band. That difference in radiation energy must be accounted for.

Water is responsible for the missing radiation in the band from 18 microns upward. It is no coincidence that the H2O absorbed radiation is released at a height that corresponds to the freezing point of water, where water precipitates and returns to the surface. Again more surface energy is absorbed by H2O than is emitted at a higher, cooler level. That difference in energy must be accounted for.

I say the missing energy is stored in the atmosphere, warming it. The warmer atmosphere warms the surface, causing more radiation in the Atmospheric Window, which can escape to space and cause cooling.

Without CO2 in the air, the Atmospheric Window would be wider. More radiation would escape freely, and less energy would be stored in the atmosphere. Both the surface and the air would be cooler.

SSDD makes many claims but never backs them up with explanations. He says conduction and convection are more efficient at moving energy around than is radiation. That is true, but he refuses to acknowledge that radiation is the ONLY way to shed energy to space.

The above graph shows a deficit of energy being shed in the GHG bands. If he has some alternate way of getting rid of the solar energy coming in then he should point it out.

Hahaha so why don`t you use that graph and figure out how ridiculously small the watts per steradian for the center of that band ~ 675 cm^-1 is?
The entire sphere would be 4pi times that number and only 1/2 of that (1/2 the 4pi*r^2) gets radiated down!
Try heating something with a heat (radiation) source that radiates a "grand" total of 0.042 watts and I don`t care how close you move it to whatever you want to heat. That`s less power that the IR LED in a computer mouse.
Wow according to you my mouse pad should be a lot warmer where the mouse is parked.

The blackbody curve for 295K would give a reading of about 13 irradiance units for the CO2 band. The bottom of the trough is 5 irradiance units, but increases as you move to the wings. Roughly half of the radiation is missing, compared to the amount that would escapes if CO2 was not there.

Solar insolation is 340w/m2. 100w is reflected, 240w is absorbed. That 240w is eventually converted into IR which escapes into space.

The CO2 band is roughly 10 percent of the total IR range. If you restrict the amount of radiation moving through the CO2 band then you must increase other bands to make up for the loss. The only way for this to happen is to increase the temperature of the surface and atmosphere.


As to your question. You have reframed our topic at hand into a discussion of how feeble the warming would be from the escaping terrestrial radiation. Of course it is practically useless! Who said differently?

 

[IanC]

CO2 absorbs all the surface radiation in the 14-16 micron band, and doesn't release it until the air about 220K, or -53C. More radiation is absorbed than emitted in the CO2 band. That difference in radiation energy must be accounted for.

CO2 does not warm except by conduction in our atmosphere. So it MUST collide in order to gain kinetic energy and warm. This means it must have another molecule that can hold energy and warm in order for it to warm.

IF you remove water vapor from the atmosphere, cooling is more rapid with higher concentrations of CO2 as we have observed in earths desert regions. Warming is also quicker, of the solids, which then heats the atmosphere above it quickly by conduction. Observed evidence shows that the air is not warming until it interacts with the warmed solids of earths surface. This is well document fact.

SO the question then becomes, can convection and air movement transfer the energy necessary to keep a "hot spot" from forming. That answer is a resounding YES, from all empirical observations to date.

When you consider that an Anvil cloud formation of 20,000 feet (top to bottom) can churn its top to bottom in a matter of about one minuet. It clearly demonstrates that there is sufficient churn in earths atmosphere at any given time to keep a mid to upper tropospheric hot spot from ever forming. Wind speeds within the cloud formation can reach 200-250 mph.

We know from observations that water vapor can hold energy for upwards of 6-9 seconds before it cools enough to be released at a longer wave length and outside of CO2's ability to slow. All of the current GCM's do not account for this shift in energy output. This is precisely where your "missing energy" is and it is not missing. Water vapor is an interesting thing to study, energy residency time is key to this issue.

All your graphing proves is the major regions of energy release are outside of CO2's ability to affect it.

You wont even discuss the OBSERVATIONS and why they are and where the energy has moved...

Your so set on "consensus science" you will not look beyond your blinders. I cant fix Stupid.. Enjoy ignorance...

Yeah and none of them even want to consider how many watts from the sun the CO2 prevents from getting to the surface. According to the warmers that does not matter because you can make up for a power loss with back radiating a tiny fraction of what`s left over and a portion of the total # of watts the CO2 absorbed from the ground black body radiation. The cheat is to use the entire # of watts instead of the integral portion from 14 to 16 microns. My guess is that these "scientists" do that because none of them have a clue how to get the integral of a plotted function....and call all those who do know "science deniers".
Like for example Heinz Hug:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]. For the 15 µm band our result was:
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

What percentage of the Sun's output is in the CO2 band? A pittance. Much, much less than one percent of the total. I doubt that even one watt out of the 340 reaching the Earth is in that band. Besides, it is already accounted for in the amount of solar insolation absorbed by the atmosphere. 340 in, 100 reflected, 80 absorbed by the atmosphere, 160 absorbed by the surface.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD makes many claims but never backs them up with explanations. He says conduction and convection are more efficient at moving energy around than is radiation. That is true, but he refuses to acknowledge that radiation is the ONLY way to shed energy to space.

Sorry ian..it is you who makes the claims without backing them up...you are assuming that absorption and emission, equals warming...no one is arguing the fact that CO2 absorbs IR...it's is proven...now show me a single measurement that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...your assumption isn't good enough and there is no data which establishes that that link...

 

[frigidweirdo]

I found this quote:

"As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming. "

The biggest worry is that the oceans will die from too much CO2 in too short a time for life to adapt to it. This will then probably mean CO2 will get released into the atmosphere at an alarming rate and essential make life uninhabitable for us. Cockroaches will be fine though.

 

[polarbear]

CO2 absorbs all the surface radiation in the 14-16 micron band, and doesn't release it until the air about 220K, or -53C. More radiation is absorbed than emitted in the CO2 band. That difference in radiation energy must be accounted for.

CO2 does not warm except by conduction in our atmosphere. So it MUST collide in order to gain kinetic energy and warm. This means it must have another molecule that can hold energy and warm in order for it to warm.

IF you remove water vapor from the atmosphere, cooling is more rapid with higher concentrations of CO2 as we have observed in earths desert regions. Warming is also quicker, of the solids, which then heats the atmosphere above it quickly by conduction. Observed evidence shows that the air is not warming until it interacts with the warmed solids of earths surface. This is well document fact.

SO the question then becomes, can convection and air movement transfer the energy necessary to keep a "hot spot" from forming. That answer is a resounding YES, from all empirical observations to date.

When you consider that an Anvil cloud formation of 20,000 feet (top to bottom) can churn its top to bottom in a matter of about one minuet. It clearly demonstrates that there is sufficient churn in earths atmosphere at any given time to keep a mid to upper tropospheric hot spot from ever forming. Wind speeds within the cloud formation can reach 200-250 mph.

We know from observations that water vapor can hold energy for upwards of 6-9 seconds before it cools enough to be released at a longer wave length and outside of CO2's ability to slow. All of the current GCM's do not account for this shift in energy output. This is precisely where your "missing energy" is and it is not missing. Water vapor is an interesting thing to study, energy residency time is key to this issue.

All your graphing proves is the major regions of energy release are outside of CO2's ability to affect it.

You wont even discuss the OBSERVATIONS and why they are and where the energy has moved...

Your so set on "consensus science" you will not look beyond your blinders. I cant fix Stupid.. Enjoy ignorance...

Yeah and none of them even want to consider how many watts from the sun the CO2 prevents from getting to the surface. According to the warmers that does not matter because you can make up for a power loss with back radiating a tiny fraction of what`s left over and a portion of the total # of watts the CO2 absorbed from the ground black body radiation. The cheat is to use the entire # of watts instead of the integral portion from 14 to 16 microns. My guess is that these "scientists" do that because none of them have a clue how to get the integral of a plotted function....and call all those who do know "science deniers".
Like for example Heinz Hug:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]. For the 15 µm band our result was:
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

What percentage of the Sun's output is in the CO2 band? A pittance. Much, much less than one percent of the total. I doubt that even one watt out of the 340 reaching the Earth is in that band. Besides, it is already accounted for in the amount of solar insolation absorbed by the atmosphere. 340 in, 100 reflected, 80 absorbed by the atmosphere, 160 absorbed by the surface.

You doubt that ? Oh really?
I don`t know how you got that idea. Maybe because all you are looking at are these useless Wikipedia graphs that deal with solar radiation and are scaled so that the peak value fits into the graph. Consequently the far IR region has to be shrunk to a point where it looks like it`s "nothing".
The only way to show that accurately is to plot the radiance on the Y axis as the log value of radiance over wavelength...and people who make statements like you just did have no clue how to get the integral off a graph like that.

Check it out what you got on the Y axis for what is between the 2 black bars...You call that "nothing" but try and lecture me how much 0.05 watts/m^2 are "heating" the planet...like how much that "heats" 30 million cubic kilometers of ice, ocean water or land mass.
Get serious !
Btw the integrated value for that IR region what the sun emits is 1.84 KILOWATTS per sr and m^2.
Good thing the earth`s orbit is what it is else just the IR region you consider minuscule would fry it to a crisp.
It turns out the CO2 in the air prevents way more IR in that band from heating the surface as your over hyped "back radiation" which in fact is only ~5/100 th of a watt/m^2

 

[IanC]

Check it out what you got on the Y axis for what is between the 2 black bars...You call that "nothing" but try and lecture me how much 0.05 watts/m^2 are "heating" the planet...like how much that "heats" 30 million cubic kilometers of ice, ocean water or land mass.
Get serious !
Btw the integrated value for that IR region what the sun emits is 1.84 KILOWATTS per sr and m^2.
Good thing the earth`s orbit is what it...

Reality check. The y axis is logarithmic. In the visible spectrum the Sun is radiating at almost 10^8 Watts, in the Earth IR range it is radiating at only 10^4 Watts. Four orders of magnitude difference. 10,000 times as much energy in visible light compared to IR.

The solar insolation reaching the Earth is attenuated by distance but still keeps the same proportional qualities for wavelengths.

The maximum zenith amount is 1360 Watts, therefore the amount of solar IR reaching the Earth is less than 1360 divided by ten thousand. Something like a tenth of a watt.

Compared to the solar 80 Watts absorbed by the atmosphere I think we can safely consider the tenth of a watt of solar produced IR as negligible.

BTW, thanks for the graph.

 

[IanC]

..You call that "nothing" but try and lecture me how much 0.05 watts/m^2 are "heating" the planet...like how much that "heats" 30 million cubic kilometers of ice, ocean water or land mass.

I disagree with your claim that the effect of CO2 is 0.05 Watts. It is obviously ridiculous.

It is pointless to restate my position yet again so I will just leave it at that.

 

[IanC]

SSDD makes many claims but never backs them up with explanations. He says conduction and convection are more efficient at moving energy around than is radiation. That is true, but he refuses to acknowledge that radiation is the ONLY way to shed energy to space.

Sorry ian..it is you who makes the claims without backing them up...you are assuming that absorption and emission, equals warming...no one is arguing the fact that CO2 absorbs IR...it's is proven...now show me a single measurement that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...your assumption isn't good enough and there is no data which establishes that that link...

Your assumption that the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 is equal to the amount of energy emitted to space by CO2 is demonstrably false. We have all seen the satellite measurements of outgoing radiation many times.

In fact, you imply that CO2 actually emits more radiation than it absorbs, which cools the planet. You have given no evidence to support this claim, and indeed there is no evidence. The evidence is all in the other direction.

The surface sends more 15 micron radiation into the atmosphere than leaves the top of the atmosphere. A measured fact.

That energy must still be in the atmosphere until it can find a way out.

So far you have given no explanation as to where it goes. Will you now?

The obvious solution is that the missing energy is transferred to the atmosphere by molecular collision, warming the air.

Warmer air allows the solar input to warm the surface to a higher temperature. Higher surface temperature produces more radiation. This continues until the amount of energy escaping to space equals the amount of solar input and equilibrium is restored.

There are many possible surface temperatures that can be present at equilibrium. It depends on how easily radiation can escape, and the amount of energy stored in the surface and atmosphere.

GHGs retard radiation loss and cause energy storage, increasing the temperature of both the surface and the air.

Conduction and convection move energy around within the system to allow maximum radiation loss but the limiting factor is radiation loss to space.

Your explanation, if you choose to give one, must address the pathways of radiation loss to space.

 

[SSDD]

Your assumption that the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 is equal to the amount of energy emitted to space by CO2 is demonstrably false. We have all seen the satellite measurements of outgoing radiation many times.

We both know, ian, that nearly all the IR absorbed by CO2 is lost to other molecules via collision...almost no energy actually gets radiated by CO2...you conveniently forget that glaring truth whenever you fantasize about a radiative greenhouse effect...there is none.

And so called GHG's retard nothing with the exception of water vapor...your hypothesis is bullshit and as I figured..you can't provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...have you ever stopped to wonder why you can't provide such information since it is so fundamental to the greenhouse hypothesis? Ever?

 

[IanC]

We both know, ian, that nearly all the IR absorbed by CO2 is lost to other molecules via collision...almost no energy actually gets radiated by CO2...you conveniently forget that glaring truth whenever you fantasize about a radiative greenhouse effect...there is none

You say the IR energy absorbed by CO2 is passed along to other air molecules. I agree.

That energy warms the air. It doesn't just disappear, it has to go somewhere. The atmosphere only radiates via GHGs. Those GHGs absorb more energy than they emit because it is cooler at emission height than it is at the surface.

If you want to bring the water cycle into the discussion, that is a pseudo surface which radiates in more wavelengths but also emits in all directions, so half is directed towards the surface. It is less efficient than water or ice at the surface because it is cooler.

Again, it is not the movement of energy that counts. It is the amount of energy that escapes to space.

 

[SSDD]

We both know, ian, that nearly all the IR absorbed by CO2 is lost to other molecules via collision...almost no energy actually gets radiated by CO2...you conveniently forget that glaring truth whenever you fantasize about a radiative greenhouse effect...there is none

You say the IR energy absorbed by CO2 is passed along to other air molecules. I agree.

That energy warms the air. It doesn't just disappear, it has to go somewhere. The atmosphere only radiates via GHGs. Those GHGs absorb more energy than they emit because it is cooler at emission height than it is at the surface.

If you want to bring the water cycle into the discussion, that is a pseudo surface which radiates in more wavelengths but also emits in all directions, so half is directed towards the surface. It is less efficient than water or ice at the surface because it is cooler.

Again, it is not the movement of energy that counts. It is the amount of energy that escapes to space.

Nothing radiates toward the warmer ground ian....if you believe it does then show me a measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature measuring a discrete wavelength coming from the cooler sky....and make it clear sky since incoming radiation from the sun can easily warm clouds to temperatures warmer than the surface.

And by the way...GHG's emit all that they absorb....none of them are capable of storing anything....again....you are living in a magical mystery fantasy world....it is all magic all the time with you..

 

[IanC]

And by the way...GHG's emit all that they absorb....none of them are capable of storing anything....again....you are living in a magical mystery fantasy world....it is all magic all the time with you..

Why don't you try to keep your story straight?

First you say the radiation energy absorbed gets transferred to other molecules by collision. Now you are saying they emit all that they absorb.

Which one is it?

 

[SSDD]

And by the way...GHG's emit all that they absorb....none of them are capable of storing anything....again....you are living in a magical mystery fantasy world....it is all magic all the time with you..

Why don't you try to keep your story straight?

First you say the radiation energy absorbed gets transferred to other molecules by collision. Now you are saying they emit all that they absorb.

Which one is it?

It is both ian...you know you must be losing because you find that you must resort to dishonesty...either the energy is lost via collision, or in extremely rare instances, it is emitted....in either case, none is stored within the atmosphere by any molecule other than water vapor..and that is lost as soon as the vapor either changes phases either to ice or back to liquid...Face the truth Ian...CO2 doesn't do jack...climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.

 

[IanC]

It is both ian...you know you must be losing because you find that you must resort to dishonesty...either the energy is lost via collision, or in extremely rare instances, it is emitted..

Hahahaha, anytime I get you to actually say something I am winning.

You said the energy radiated from the surface is absorbed by GHGs and passed along to other air molecules by collision. Stored in the atmosphere. I agree, at least for the wavelengths that are reactive with GHGs.

The big question is where does that energy go?

Would you like to tell us where YOU think it goes? And how it gets there?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thank you for your help. I have been waffling as of late.

Have you ever seen one single lab experiment linking temperature to changes in CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm?

 

[SSDD]

You said the energy radiated from the surface is absorbed by GHGs and passed along to other air molecules by collision. Stored in the atmosphere. I agree, at least for the wavelengths that are reactive with GHGs.

Are you an idiot? Conduction is not storage...it is a less efficient way of moving energy through the atmosphere..but not storage...if there were more CO2, then more energy could be radiated out of the atmosphere rather than taking the slow boat out via conduction to the upper atmosphere.

The big question is where does that energy go?

Go find it...but you won't find it being "stored" in the atmosphere as evidenced by the glaring lack of a tropospheric hot spot...ask mr magic..maybe he can help you since you so obviously believe in magic.

Would you like to tell us where YOU think it goes? And how it gets there?

No...knowing where it doesn't go is more important...it leads to science beginning to look in the right places rather than the wrong ones...

 

[Billy_Bob]

You said the energy radiated from the surface is absorbed by GHGs and passed along to other air molecules by collision. Stored in the atmosphere. I agree, at least for the wavelengths that are reactive with GHGs.

Are you an idiot? Conduction is not storage...it is a less efficient way of moving energy through the atmosphere..but not storage...if there were more CO2, then more energy could be radiated out of the atmosphere rather than taking the slow boat out via conduction to the upper atmosphere.

The big question is where does that energy go?

Go find it...but you won't find it being "stored" in the atmosphere as evidenced by the glaring lack of a tropospheric hot spot...ask mr magic..maybe he can help you since you so obviously believe in magic.

Would you like to tell us where YOU think it goes? And how it gets there?

No...knowing where it doesn't go is more important...it leads to science beginning to look in the right places rather than the wrong ones...

I have shown Ian multiple times that water vapor holds energy upwards of 9 seconds. During this residency time the water vapor temperature decreases by 20 deg. emitting energy at a much longer wave length... but alas he dosent care..

 

[polarbear]

..You call that "nothing" but try and lecture me how much 0.05 watts/m^2 are "heating" the planet...like how much that "heats" 30 million cubic kilometers of ice, ocean water or land mass.

I disagree with your claim that the effect of CO2 is 0.05 Watts. It is obviously ridiculous.

It is pointless to restate my position yet again so I will just leave it at that.

Ridiculous? Write a letter to Dr.Heinz Hug at the Max Planck institute and debate your point with him.
Maybe you did a better analysis with a cellphone app from Google play than he did with a state of the art spectrophotometer. All you do is regurgitate the internet crap StB milk maid math version that has been published by an idiot consensus which has no need for any instrumentation that actually measures and integrates how much energy over ppm CO2 is absorbed....and keep using the entire amount under the 300 K curve instead of the portion which the CO2 actually absorbs:

 

[IanC]

I have shown Ian multiple times that water vapor holds energy upwards of 9 seconds. During this residency time the water vapor temperature decreases by 20 deg. emitting energy at a much longer wave length... but alas he dosent care

It's a waste of time responding to you but...

Where is the link showing residency time of more than 9 seconds for a photon that excites a water vapour molecule? What wavelength was it?

You say that a lower energy wavelengths is reemited. That can only happen if the molecule loses the energy in multiple steps, with several photons produced that add up to the same energy as the original photon that excited the molecule. Of course molecular collisions can disrupt the absorption/emission but then we are talking about a totally different process altogether.

Temperature is only a valid concept for large conglomerations of particles. The wet Atmospheric lapse rate is less than 10C per kilometre. So you are claiming that all water vapour molecules are rising at a minimum of two kilometres per 9 seconds. What's that work out to? 500 mph? I don't think even thunderstorms produce that speed of updraught.

I think you are full of shit, as usual.