Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
"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."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...
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.
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.
Last edited: