Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[IanC]

Yes. So how does it work?

well then post that experiment that shows how warm CO2 gets when it absorbs IR. Got that?

Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.

This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs and is that before it transfers the IR to the O and N molecules? How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons.

They don't? Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule? SSDD posted that in the other thread.

so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.

How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

Clarify what you mean by "how high".

They don't?

No. CO2 stops IR that would otherwise instantly escape an atmosphere lacking any GHG.

Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule?

By collision.

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.
are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in? Now that's magic.

A single molecule doesn't have a temperature. Only large groups of molecules do. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions.

 

[jc456]

well then post that experiment that shows how warm CO2 gets when it absorbs IR. Got that?

Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.

This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs and is that before it transfers the IR to the O and N molecules? How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons.

They don't? Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule? SSDD posted that in the other thread.

so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.

How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

Clarify what you mean by "how high".

They don't?

No. CO2 stops IR that would otherwise instantly escape an atmosphere lacking any GHG.

Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule?

By collision.

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.
are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in? Now that's magic.

A single molecule doesn't have a temperature. Only large groups of molecules do. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions.

so do you have the temperature of 10PPM of CO2 then? D'OH

How about 100, 200 or even 400PPM?

 

[IanC]

Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.

This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs and is that before it transfers the IR to the O and N molecules? How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons.

They don't? Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule? SSDD posted that in the other thread.

so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.

How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

Clarify what you mean by "how high".

They don't?

No. CO2 stops IR that would otherwise instantly escape an atmosphere lacking any GHG.

Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule?

By collision.

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.
are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in? Now that's magic.

are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in?

No.
It is warmer than it was before.
Do you feel every single molecule in a given volume of atmosphere has the exact same energy level?

Again, talking single molecule temperatures is silly.

why? people keep saying when we add them it gets warmer. I want to know how warm.

than it was before? before meaning what exactly?

I know you are too stupid to understand this because I have explained it before.

There are two basic types of energy an air molecule can have. Potential and kinetic. Height and speed. A high but slow moving molecule can have the same amount of stored energy as a low but fast moving one.

Vibrations or electron jumps are a form of potential energy. They can 'drop' down to ground state by emission or pass the energy into a different form through molecular collision. Until that energy is converted into kinetic speed there is no change in temperature (average kinetic speed).

I don't think it can get much simpler than this. If you can't understand then you might as well give up and stop asking the question.

 

[IanC]

Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.

This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs and is that before it transfers the IR to the O and N molecules? How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons.

They don't? Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule? SSDD posted that in the other thread.

so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.

How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

Clarify what you mean by "how high".

They don't?

No. CO2 stops IR that would otherwise instantly escape an atmosphere lacking any GHG.

Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule?

By collision.

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.
are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in? Now that's magic.

A single molecule doesn't have a temperature. Only large groups of molecules do. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions.

so do you have the temperature of 10PPM of CO2 then? D'OH

How about 100, 200 or even 400PPM?

What colour is 100? What flavour is loud?

Dolt!

 

[jc456]

so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs and is that before it transfers the IR to the O and N molecules? How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons.

They don't? Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule? SSDD posted that in the other thread.

so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.

How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

Clarify what you mean by "how high".

They don't?

No. CO2 stops IR that would otherwise instantly escape an atmosphere lacking any GHG.

Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule?

By collision.

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.
are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in? Now that's magic.

are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in?

No.
It is warmer than it was before.
Do you feel every single molecule in a given volume of atmosphere has the exact same energy level?

Again, talking single molecule temperatures is silly.

why? people keep saying when we add them it gets warmer. I want to know how warm.

than it was before? before meaning what exactly?

I know you are too stupid to understand this because I have explained it before.

There are two basic types of energy an air molecule can have. Potential and kinetic. Height and speed. A high but slow moving molecule can have the same amount of stored energy as a low but fast moving one.

Vibrations or electron jumps are a form of potential energy. They can 'drop' down to ground state by emission or pass the energy into a different form through molecular collision. Until that energy is converted into kinetic speed there is no change in temperature (average kinetic speed).

I don't think it can get much simpler than this. If you can't understand then you might as well give up and stop asking the question.

so you have no readings, right? yes or no!!

 

[jc456]

so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs and is that before it transfers the IR to the O and N molecules? How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons.

They don't? Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule? SSDD posted that in the other thread.

so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.

How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

Clarify what you mean by "how high".

They don't?

No. CO2 stops IR that would otherwise instantly escape an atmosphere lacking any GHG.

Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule?

By collision.

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.
are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in? Now that's magic.

A single molecule doesn't have a temperature. Only large groups of molecules do. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions.

so do you have the temperature of 10PPM of CO2 then? D'OH

How about 100, 200 or even 400PPM?

What colour is 100? What flavour is loud?

Dolt!

blah, blah, blah and still you got nothing. nothing at all to prove your failed claims of back radiation or anything related to warming the planet by adding CO2. There is but one heat source the Sun, period end of story and you can fking insult me until your pink skirt wears out.

 

[IanC]

so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.

How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

Clarify what you mean by "how high".

They don't?

No. CO2 stops IR that would otherwise instantly escape an atmosphere lacking any GHG.

Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule?

By collision.

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.
are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in? Now that's magic.

are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in?

No.
It is warmer than it was before.
Do you feel every single molecule in a given volume of atmosphere has the exact same energy level?

Again, talking single molecule temperatures is silly.

why? people keep saying when we add them it gets warmer. I want to know how warm.

than it was before? before meaning what exactly?

I know you are too stupid to understand this because I have explained it before.

There are two basic types of energy an air molecule can have. Potential and kinetic. Height and speed. A high but slow moving molecule can have the same amount of stored energy as a low but fast moving one.

Vibrations or electron jumps are a form of potential energy. They can 'drop' down to ground state by emission or pass the energy into a different form through molecular collision. Until that energy is converted into kinetic speed there is no change in temperature (average kinetic speed).

I don't think it can get much simpler than this. If you can't understand then you might as well give up and stop asking the question.

so you have no readings, right? yes or no!!

Tea readings? Poetry readings?

No and no.

Calculations based on the known properties of CO2, etc. Yes

 

[jc456]

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.
are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in? Now that's magic.

are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in?

No.
It is warmer than it was before.
Do you feel every single molecule in a given volume of atmosphere has the exact same energy level?

Again, talking single molecule temperatures is silly.

why? people keep saying when we add them it gets warmer. I want to know how warm.

than it was before? before meaning what exactly?

I know you are too stupid to understand this because I have explained it before.

There are two basic types of energy an air molecule can have. Potential and kinetic. Height and speed. A high but slow moving molecule can have the same amount of stored energy as a low but fast moving one.

Vibrations or electron jumps are a form of potential energy. They can 'drop' down to ground state by emission or pass the energy into a different form through molecular collision. Until that energy is converted into kinetic speed there is no change in temperature (average kinetic speed).

I don't think it can get much simpler than this. If you can't understand then you might as well give up and stop asking the question.

so you have no readings, right? yes or no!!

Tea readings? Poetry readings?

No and no.

Calculations based on the known properties of CO2, etc. Yes

and never tested. wow, that ain't science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.

How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

Clarify what you mean by "how high".

They don't?

No. CO2 stops IR that would otherwise instantly escape an atmosphere lacking any GHG.

Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule?

By collision.

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.
are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in? Now that's magic.

A single molecule doesn't have a temperature. Only large groups of molecules do. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions.

so do you have the temperature of 10PPM of CO2 then? D'OH

How about 100, 200 or even 400PPM?

What colour is 100? What flavour is loud?

Dolt!

blah, blah, blah and still you got nothing. nothing at all to prove your failed claims of back radiation or anything related to warming the planet by adding CO2. There is but one heat source the Sun, period end of story and you can fking insult me until your pink skirt wears out.

nothing at all to prove your failed claims of back radiation

No back radiation from the cooler atmosphere of Earth toward the warmer surface just like no radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun to and through the hotter corona of the Sun. LOL!

 

[jc456]

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.
are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in? Now that's magic.

A single molecule doesn't have a temperature. Only large groups of molecules do. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions.

so do you have the temperature of 10PPM of CO2 then? D'OH

How about 100, 200 or even 400PPM?

What colour is 100? What flavour is loud?

Dolt!

blah, blah, blah and still you got nothing. nothing at all to prove your failed claims of back radiation or anything related to warming the planet by adding CO2. There is but one heat source the Sun, period end of story and you can fking insult me until your pink skirt wears out.

nothing at all to prove your failed claims of back radiation

No back radiation from the cooler atmosphere of Earth toward the warmer surface just like no radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun to and through the hotter corona of the Sun. LOL!

exactly!!!!

 

[IanC]

are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in?

No.
It is warmer than it was before.
Do you feel every single molecule in a given volume of atmosphere has the exact same energy level?

Again, talking single molecule temperatures is silly.

why? people keep saying when we add them it gets warmer. I want to know how warm.

than it was before? before meaning what exactly?

I know you are too stupid to understand this because I have explained it before.

There are two basic types of energy an air molecule can have. Potential and kinetic. Height and speed. A high but slow moving molecule can have the same amount of stored energy as a low but fast moving one.

Vibrations or electron jumps are a form of potential energy. They can 'drop' down to ground state by emission or pass the energy into a different form through molecular collision. Until that energy is converted into kinetic speed there is no change in temperature (average kinetic speed).

I don't think it can get much simpler than this. If you can't understand then you might as well give up and stop asking the question.

so you have no readings, right? yes or no!!

Tea readings? Poetry readings?

No and no.

Calculations based on the known properties of CO2, etc. Yes

and never tested. wow, that ain't science.

I agree that more experiments should be done using realistic changes in CO2 concentration.

That said, we know the basic principles by the tens of thousands of simple single variable experiments that have been done. Which are confirmed by millions of machine test results every day under a quality control protocol.

 

[SSDD]

so how warm is the CO2 after it absorbs

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.

How high does that molecule of CO2 hold that supposed IR?

Clarify what you mean by "how high".

They don't?

No. CO2 stops IR that would otherwise instantly escape an atmosphere lacking any GHG.

Doesn't the CO2 transfer to the O and N molecule?

By collision.

Asking the temperature of a single molecule is silly.
It is warmer than it was before.
are you saying the molecule gets warmer than the environment its in? Now that's magic.

A single molecule doesn't have a temperature. Only large groups of molecules do. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions.

so do you have the temperature of 10PPM of CO2 then? D'OH

How about 100, 200 or even 400PPM?

What colour is 100? What flavour is loud?

Dolt!

blah, blah, blah and still you got nothing. nothing at all to prove your failed claims of back radiation or anything related to warming the planet by adding CO2. There is but one heat source the Sun, period end of story and you can fking insult me until your pink skirt wears out.

Interesting to note the number of papers that have been published over the past year giving the sun credit for driving the climate...the AGW crazy train...and the bullshit greenhouse effect are on their way out....making room for actual science..

 

[SSDD]

why? people keep saying when we add them it gets warmer. I want to know how warm.

than it was before? before meaning what exactly?

I know you are too stupid to understand this because I have explained it before.

There are two basic types of energy an air molecule can have. Potential and kinetic. Height and speed. A high but slow moving molecule can have the same amount of stored energy as a low but fast moving one.

Vibrations or electron jumps are a form of potential energy. They can 'drop' down to ground state by emission or pass the energy into a different form through molecular collision. Until that energy is converted into kinetic speed there is no change in temperature (average kinetic speed).

I don't think it can get much simpler than this. If you can't understand then you might as well give up and stop asking the question.

so you have no readings, right? yes or no!!

Tea readings? Poetry readings?

No and no.

Calculations based on the known properties of CO2, etc. Yes

and never tested. wow, that ain't science.

I agree that more experiments should be done using realistic changes in CO2 concentration.

That said, we know the basic principles by the tens of thousands of simple single variable experiments that have been done. Which are confirmed by millions of machine test results every day under a quality control protocol.

I believe they have been done...and the results get put where all the science that is inconvenient to AGW goes....the fact is that the climate doesn't care what the atmosphere is made of or how much of any particular gas is present...all it cares about is how heavy the atmosphere is...nothing else matters and as science moves along...all us skeptics are going to be well vindicated and you warmers and luke warmers are going to have to go stand in the corner with the folks who scoffed hand washing and thought bleeding was a good idea

 

[Crick]

So compression develops energy forever. I cannot tell you how easy that would make the world. We need no fuel. We need no energy sources. We'll just grab a few scuba tanks and power the planet. Of course that also means the temperature of the Earth should be several billion degrees, but this is a trivial issue, isn't it.

As for experiments that refute the greenhouse effect, why don't you show us some of them?

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's a blanket. And?

And how does the blanket stop it from cooling off faster?

It's a physical blanket! So?

Yes. So how does it work?

Wrong.

If the atmosphere was pure CO2 it would radiate its heat away 3 times faster than oxygen. A CO2 molecule does not heat up when struck by photons thus it will not "hold" heat.

If the atmosphere was pure CO2 it would radiate its heat away 3 times faster than oxygen.

If O2 is transparent to IR and CO2 absorbs and reradiates IR, why would it radiate heat away faster?

A CO2 molecule does not heat up when struck by photons thus it will not "hold" heat.

An electron moves to a higher orbit. Why doesn't that heat the CO2?

CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.

The level of energy retained due to excitement (vibration) caused by the movement. I thought you knew basic physics.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And how does the blanket stop it from cooling off faster?

It's a physical blanket! So?

Yes. So how does it work?

Wrong.

If the atmosphere was pure CO2 it would radiate its heat away 3 times faster than oxygen. A CO2 molecule does not heat up when struck by photons thus it will not "hold" heat.

If the atmosphere was pure CO2 it would radiate its heat away 3 times faster than oxygen.

If O2 is transparent to IR and CO2 absorbs and reradiates IR, why would it radiate heat away faster?

A CO2 molecule does not heat up when struck by photons thus it will not "hold" heat.

An electron moves to a higher orbit. Why doesn't that heat the CO2?

CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.

The level of energy retained due to excitement (vibration) caused by the movement. I thought you knew basic physics.....

CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.

Unstable molecules behave differently? Tell me more.

So when then CO2 re-emits, some photons travel toward the surface.
Sounds like that radiates heat away more slowly.
Sounds like the greenhouse effect.

 

[IanC]

So compression develops energy forever. I cannot tell you how easy that would make the world. We need no fuel. We need no energy sources. We'll just grab a few scuba tanks and power the planet. Of course that also means the temperature of the Earth should be several billion degrees, but this is a trivial issue, isn't it.

As for experiments that refute the greenhouse effect, why don't you show us some of them?

You are looking at things backward. Gravity is trying to compress the atmosphere. Without input from the Sun and surface it would collapse.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So compression develops energy forever. I cannot tell you how easy that would make the world. We need no fuel. We need no energy sources. We'll just grab a few scuba tanks and power the planet. Of course that also means the temperature of the Earth should be several billion degrees, but this is a trivial issue, isn't it.

As for experiments that refute the greenhouse effect, why don't you show us some of them?

As for experiments that refute the greenhouse effect, why don't you show us some of them?

There is the one that shows the cooler surface of the Sun can't emit toward the corona....oops, that's another SSDD fail.

 

[RollingThunder]

One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.

The IPCC, in its very first report, hypothesized that a loop of energy would occur if CO2 levels continued to rise. This energy loop would have to manifest itself in our lower troposphere as that is where water vapor resides and where the heat would be self feeding due to CO2 concentration. The IPCC also theorized that water vapor would act as a force multiplier and at some point a tipping point would be reached where we could not return and out of control warming would occur.

The IPCC hypothesis has many problems to deal with. The first is the fact that global CO2 levels have been in excess of 7,000ppm for millions of years while earths temperatures have never deviated from its 12 deg C range. This leads to the obvious question, why? Why didn't these levels of CO2 reach a tipping point and the earths temp runaway? The answer is simple, WATER in its various forms.

Water acts as a negative forcing in direct conflict to the IPCC hypothesis. Recent papers have shown that the base LOG forcing of CO2 is being blunted by water in our atmosphere. Where we should have seen 2 deg C in warming, due to CO2 alone, we have seen less than 0.6 deg C.

When we look at the lower troposphere and how the energy exchange actually works we find out why the 'hot spot' does not exist.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrT...age2.php/RK=0/RS=03uXvVL3gYvPTk27VSt_4qP.W9c-
This graph above shows where the hot spot should have manifested itself. Between the ground and cloud top. CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface. But its not occurring how they imagined it. They imagined that the energy would be absorbed by the surface and then re-emited to the water and CO2 in the atmosphere, which would again force it back towards the surface Creating a endless loop of sustaining heat.

The problem comes when water/water vapor absorbs the energy. Unlike CO2 which almost instantaneously re-emits its energy without energy loss, water absorbs the energy and heats itself using some of the energy. Water holds its energy significantly longer than CO2 and the water cools as it rises. The water emits its energy in a much longer wavelength (12-36um) that CO2 is helpless to absorb and is then lost to space.

The AGW energy loop is smashed to bits in the first 150 feet above the ground.

More on how this works tomorrow....

Total bullshit and denier cult insanity.

In the real world....

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot
PhysOrg
May 14, 2015
Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof. Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

As well as confirming the tropospheric hotspot, the researchers also found a 10% increase in winds over the Southern Ocean. The character of this increase suggests it may be the result of ozone depletion.

"I am very interested in these wind speed increases and whether they may have also played some role in slowing down the warming at the surface of the ocean," said Prof Sherwood.

"However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen."

More information: Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenised radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUK v2) , Environmental Research Letters , iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007
Journal reference: Environmental Research Letters
Provided by: University of New South Wales

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's a physical blanket! So?

Yes. So how does it work?

Wrong.

If the atmosphere was pure CO2 it would radiate its heat away 3 times faster than oxygen. A CO2 molecule does not heat up when struck by photons thus it will not "hold" heat.

If the atmosphere was pure CO2 it would radiate its heat away 3 times faster than oxygen.

If O2 is transparent to IR and CO2 absorbs and reradiates IR, why would it radiate heat away faster?

A CO2 molecule does not heat up when struck by photons thus it will not "hold" heat.

An electron moves to a higher orbit. Why doesn't that heat the CO2?

CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.

The level of energy retained due to excitement (vibration) caused by the movement. I thought you knew basic physics.....

CO2 is a stable molecule. It therefore immediately re-emits photons.

Unstable molecules behave differently? Tell me more.

So when then CO2 re-emits, some photons travel toward the surface.
Sounds like that radiates heat away more slowly.
Sounds like the greenhouse effect.

So does water, oxygen, and everything else in our atmosphere.. But they radiate much shorter (warmer) wavelengths and bands.