Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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 next time you waffle all you need to do is ask yourself how the earth entered and left a glacial cycle with CO2 levels at or above 7,000ppm..Thank you for your help. I have been waffling as of late.
Exactly ! That`s the whole point of using infrared heaters in large buildings and you don`t want to waste most of the power to heat the airCan you show me any actual measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere?
Go to a couple of sites where pushing a climate agenda is not the mission and look at some actual science...go to, for example, a few technical sites where they are talking about how infrared heaters work...literally millions of hours of observation, measurement, and industrial application have shown that infrared radiation can not, and does not warm the air...and if IR does not warm the air, what does that do to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis being pushed by climate science?
Infrared radiation warms objects...those objects can then warm the air via conduction...but infrared radiation?...no...it does not warm the air. There is no data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere because there is no coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
Exactly ! That`s the whole point of using infrared heaters in large buildings and you don`t want to waste most of the power to heat the airCan you show me any actual measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere?
Go to a couple of sites where pushing a climate agenda is not the mission and look at some actual science...go to, for example, a few technical sites where they are talking about how infrared heaters work...literally millions of hours of observation, measurement, and industrial application have shown that infrared radiation can not, and does not warm the air...and if IR does not warm the air, what does that do to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis being pushed by climate science?
Infrared radiation warms objects...those objects can then warm the air via conduction...but infrared radiation?...no...it does not warm the air. There is no data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere because there is no coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
Exactly ! That`s the whole point of using infrared heaters in large buildings and you don`t want to waste most of the power to heat the airCan you show me any actual measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere?
Go to a couple of sites where pushing a climate agenda is not the mission and look at some actual science...go to, for example, a few technical sites where they are talking about how infrared heaters work...literally millions of hours of observation, measurement, and industrial application have shown that infrared radiation can not, and does not warm the air...and if IR does not warm the air, what does that do to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis being pushed by climate science?
Infrared radiation warms objects...those objects can then warm the air via conduction...but infrared radiation?...no...it does not warm the air. There is no data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere because there is no coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
Ever stood on a ski slope on a sunny day...air temperatures close to or below freezing..surrounded by snow and ice and still comfortable in your shirt sleeves? Radiation warming your body but not the air...the whole belief that CO2 can somehow warm the atmosphere is pure magical thinking...millions of hours of observation, measurement, industrial and residential application prove that IR doesn't warm the air and yet they believe...not based on scientific evidence, but on political ideology.
Exactly ! That`s the whole point of using infrared heaters in large buildings and you don`t want to waste most of the power to heat the airCan you show me any actual measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere?
Go to a couple of sites where pushing a climate agenda is not the mission and look at some actual science...go to, for example, a few technical sites where they are talking about how infrared heaters work...literally millions of hours of observation, measurement, and industrial application have shown that infrared radiation can not, and does not warm the air...and if IR does not warm the air, what does that do to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis being pushed by climate science?
Infrared radiation warms objects...those objects can then warm the air via conduction...but infrared radiation?...no...it does not warm the air. There is no data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere because there is no coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
Ever stood on a ski slope on a sunny day...air temperatures close to or below freezing..surrounded by snow and ice and still comfortable in your shirt sleeves? Radiation warming your body but not the air...the whole belief that CO2 can somehow warm the atmosphere is pure magical thinking...millions of hours of observation, measurement, industrial and residential application prove that IR doesn't warm the air and yet they believe...not based on scientific evidence, but on political ideology.
Hahahaha. The shallowness of your thinking never ceases to amaze me!
You take an out-of-context, or unrepresentative example, and generalize it across the board.
Sure, someone might be comfortable at 0C on a calm and sunny day receiving direct and indirect sunshine. The same person would be pretty unhappy at 10C on a cloudy, windy day.
Central heating became popular because of economy of scale and ease of use. Forced air is quick but inefficient because hot air leaks out. Hot water radiant is slower but more efficient. Both use a convection system to move heat from a central source to a distant location.
There has lately been a movement away from Central heating because wall or ceiling mounted electrical radiant panels have become more efficient and effective than old style electric baseboards at floor level on outside walls. Presumably the gap between the price of fossil fuels and electricity is now low enough to make it economically viable. At least until 'free' renewable energy jacks up the price up here as it already has in other parts of the world.
Yes, radiation is a poor and inefficient way of warming the air. It is also a very poor and inefficient way of cooling the air. The small amount of energy absorbed from the surface is still larger than the amount radiated to space from the cooler heights up in the atmosphere.
The Earth only cools by radiation loss to space. Conduction and convection are mediated by mass. There is no mass in space therefore no heat loss by conduction or convection. It does not matter that conduction and convection are efficient at moving energy from one area of mass to another if it can't escape.
Most of the radiation lost by the Earth system is by wavelengths that pass through the atmosphere as if it wasn't there, it is transmitted rather than absorbed or reflected. That happens from the surface, and secondarily at the cloudtops where condensation releases latent heat via liquid or solid water precipitation. The clouds radiate in all directions so only roughly half escapes to space.
Anytime energy deviates from directly escaping from the surface to space there is less energy loss. The difference is stored in the atmosphere. That stored energy increases the temperature of the air, which then increases the temperature of the surface, which then increases the amount of directly escaping radiation until it matches the solar energy input.
There is no way around it. Still don't believe it? Fine, then explain why there is missing radiation from the top of the atmosphere in exactly the same wavelengths that GHGs are known to absorb. Don't believe that the energy is being stored in the atmosphere and returned to the surface? Fine, then explain how the surface is radiating at a higher output than the solar input.
I personally don't think CO2 is the control knob of the climate system but I certainly think it is one of the factors. Data proves it, science explains the mechanism. I disagree with the consensus climate science claims for the feedbacks because the data disagrees and the science doesn't come close to being able to explain the mechanics of the water cycle and clouds.
I didn't read all of this...but it all has to do with the ocean's ability to absorb it. And temperature affects it's ability to do that.
Hopefully that was more clear than 18 paragraphs.
That is one of the best explanations that I have seen concerning what is happening at the TOA.Here is a graph from 1970, zoomed in on the CO2 band......
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 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.
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?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.
You wont even discuss the OBSERVATIONS and why they are and where the energy has moved...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.
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".You wont even discuss the OBSERVATIONS and why they are and where the energy has moved...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.
Your so set on "consensus science" you will not look beyond your blinders. I cant fix Stupid.. Enjoy ignorance...