Correlation between temperature and CO2

[mamooth]

You know hairball, when you resort to lying about another persons post you are losing your ass big time. Maybe you should stop lying about what people are saying. Just a thought.

So, do you agree with Billy's claim that the stratosphere is transparent to IR?

Do you agree with Billy's claim that sonar is being used to map the ice sheets?

Do you agree with Billy's claim that every ice-measuring satellite in the world is out of calibration, and that the ice is really growing fast?

Maybe you shouldn't have come to Billy's rescue, because that opened you up to questions about how stupid you were willing to get in service of your cult.

So how stupid are you willing to get? Is there any level of stupidity you won't embrace out of fanatical loyalty to your Stalinist cult?

 

[mamooth]

Where did I say it was 100% ozone? Are you makin shit up again?

You implied it, beign that you think no other gas in the stratosphere needs to be accounted for.

I wonder if you can tell me how that gas is supposed to warm up from LWIR when it is unaffected by its passage..? Is it magic?

O3 _is_ a greenhouse gas, so it does warm up. As do all the other greenhouse gases in the stratosphere.

 

[IanC]

CO2 absorbs ALL the surface 15 micron IR within the first 10 metres,

So your saying that the other 99.996% of the atmosphere near surface doesn't matter and has no effect? That's one wild ass assumption that has no basis in fact.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. CO2 is the only strong absorber of 15 micron IR.

If there was no CO2 then the 15 micron band would be added the range of wavelengths commonly referred to as the atmospheric window. The reason it is called that is because radiation in that range escapes directly to space without interacting with the atmosphere.

If CO2 did not absorb 15 micron IR, then the surface would cool in two ways. No 15 micron IR would be returning to the surface because it leaves at the speed of light. And more importantly, the energy captured and passed along to the atmosphere would no longer be there, which would cool the atmosphere, which in turn would cool the surface because of increased conduction caused by the larger temperature difference between surface and atmosphere.

It's all rather simple. I don't know why you are having such a hard time comprehending it.

 

[westwall]

You know hairball, when you resort to lying about another persons post you are losing your ass big time. Maybe you should stop lying about what people are saying. Just a thought.

So, do you agree with Billy's claim that the stratosphere is transparent to IR?

Do you agree with Billy's claim that sonar is being used to map the ice sheets?

Do you agree with Billy's claim that every ice-measuring satellite in the world is out of calibration, and that the ice is really growing fast?

Maybe you shouldn't have come to Billy's rescue, because that opened you up to questions about how stupid you were willing to get in service of your cult.

So how stupid are you willing to get? Is there any level of stupidity you won't embrace out of fanatical loyalty to your Stalinist cult?

Why do you lie about what people say?

 

[IanC]

The blue area is the atmospheric window. Without CO2 it would widen to the right to roughly 16 microns. More energy would directly escape, the surface would cool.

This is a graph of the atmospheric window, and the difference between 1970 and 2006. The y axis is somewhat changed because it gives the implied temperature of the radiating origin rather than the actual amount of radiation.

Notice that the CO2 band at 667 is mostly missing but the small piece at 700 shows a decrease in brightness, corresponding to a lower temperature higher up in the atmosphere. Most of the atmospheric window is slightly higher, indicating that the surface temperature increased slightly over the 36 years.

 

[IanC]

You know hairball, when you resort to lying about another persons post you are losing your ass big time. Maybe you should stop lying about what people are saying. Just a thought.

So, do you agree with Billy's claim that the stratosphere is transparent to IR?

Do you agree with Billy's claim that sonar is being used to map the ice sheets?

Do you agree with Billy's claim that every ice-measuring satellite in the world is out of calibration, and that the ice is really growing fast?

Maybe you shouldn't have come to Billy's rescue, because that opened you up to questions about how stupid you were willing to get in service of your cult.

So how stupid are you willing to get? Is there any level of stupidity you won't embrace out of fanatical loyalty to your Stalinist cult?

Why do you lie about what people say?

It amuses him. I am assuming you are talking about the poo flinging monkey because I can't see his quote. I have him on ignore for obvious reasons.

 

[mamooth]

It amuses him. I am assuming you are talking about the poo flinging monkey because I can't see his quote. I have him on ignore for obvious reasons.

None of the deniers here even pretends they're capable of an honest discussion with me. They all just power-pout at me now.

Ian, he's admitted that the temperature adjustments make the warming look smaller. But even after admitting that his conspiracy theory is kind of stupid, does that deter him from pushing it anyways? No. He has faith that it must be correct, so he keeps trying to pound his square conspiracy peg into the round hole of reality. Needless to say, that makes reality scream.

 

[IanC]

Where did you get this voodoo science bull shit from?

The stratosphere contains ozone, which is totally transparent to any transmissions in the 12um to 60um wave lengths..

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. Billy thinks the stratosphere is 100% ozone.

Where did I say it was 100% ozone? Are you makin shit up again?

I wonder if you can tell me how that gas is supposed to warm up from LWIR when it is unaffected by its passage..? Is it magic?

You do realize ozone is a GHG, right? It does absorb incoming UV but it is also reactive with IR at wavenumber 1040. Triple bonds usually do because they can 'vibrate'.

 

[SSDD]

None of the deniers here even pretends they're capable of an honest discussion with me. They all just power-pout at me now.

Being a bald faced liar, of course it isn't possible to have an honest discussion with you...our side is honest, but you will say anything if you think you can get away with it....like your claim that the greenhouse hypothesis claimed that there would be an increase in outgoing long wave radiation...you are a liar and an honest discussion is not possible with a liar.

 

[Crick]

Your comment here indicates you've never made use of any sort of system approach to problem solving. Two planets, one warmer than the other. Which is radiating more energy? You could use SB here since you claim to be an expert in its use.

 

[SSDD]

Your comment here indicates you've never made use of any sort of system approach to problem solving. Two planets, one warmer than the other. Which is radiating more energy? You could use SB here since you claim to be an expert in its use.

Another one who hasn't read the literature, despite your repeated claims that you have. If you had, you would have found claim after claim after claim of reduced outgoing LW as a result of increased so called greenhouse gasses.

I didn't make the claims...your wack job pseudoscientists did...and alas, they were wrong which falsifies their hypothesis.

Guess you didn't read the literature I provided...not surprising..I guess reading isn't your best thing....but here, I will post it again.

Here: from Arctic Alpine Ecosystems and People in a Changing Environment

Clip: The greenhouse energy trapping effect in the tropospere is accompanied by less outgoing long wave radiation to the lower stratosphere

Here: from Nonlinear Climate Dynamics By Henk A. Dijkstra

He is discussing climate models...

Clip: When the temperature increase, y(T) decreases, mimicking the reduced outgoing longewave radiation due to the presence of greenhouse gasses and clouds.

Here..ACT-RPR-ESS-2013-IAC-ClimateEngineeringWhichRoleForSpace.pdf

This is pulled from a crazy discussion of geoengineering in an attempt to alter the effects of the greenhouse effect and increased CO2.

Clip:
Solar radiation management (SRM) techniques, by at- tempting to directly influence the solar radiation balance of the Earth system. This second approach includes compensating the
reduced outgoing, long-wave radiation due to higher levels of greenhouse gases by either increas- ing the amount of generally short-wave radiation that is reflected back into space or by directly reducing the total amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s atmosphere.

Here: https://epic.awi.de/33874/1/BzPM_0669_2013.pdf

In a review of how CO2 is the control knob for Earth's climate.

Clip: As a result of the reduced outgoing long-wave radiation, the Earth’s temperature is higher than that of a black body with the same size and energy supply but no greenhouse gases, at thermal equilibrium (Planck function). The natural greenhouse effect raises the ac- tual average surface temperature on Earth from -18◦C to roughly +15◦C (Pierrehumbert, 2011).


Here from the European Space Policy

Institutehttp://www.hvonstorch.de/klima/pdf/ESPI_Report_41.pdf

From another discussion of possible geoengineering projects:

Clip: 3.2 Basic Physics of Climate Engineering

Climate engineering concepts can be put into two broad categories: (1) those approaches trying to reduce the CO2 content in the at- mosphere by actively removing it, and thus increasing the level of outgoing, long-wave radiation leading to overall cooling;

Little wonder you guys don't have a clue...you don't read the literature..hell, you don't even know what the claimed greenhouse effect is..or what it is supposed to do...you just regurgitate what you are told to regurgitate whether it meshes with the actual claims and statements made in the literature or not...you are just a parrot...nothing more...do you want a cracker?

 

[SSDD]

No, that's absolutely not the case. The science says LW at the top of the atmosphere should be going up as temperature increases, just like your graphs said.

You poor f'ing idiot.....have you ever been right about anything? The whole greenhouse effect is about reducing the amount of energy escaping the system. Sorry hairball, but once again, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Here, let me provide some of the pseudoscience for you.

Here: from Arctic Alpine Ecosystems and People in a Changing Environment Its a book....I'm sure you never read one, but they are out there if you ever do.

The greenhouse energy trapping effect in the tropospere is accompanied by less outgoing long wave radiation to the lower stratosphere

Now perhaps you might like to explain how there could be less radiation reaching the stratosphere but more radiation reaching the top of the atmosphere...does it get magically multiplied in some manner?

Here: from Nonlinear Climate Dynamics By Henk A. Dijkstra

He is discussing climate models....

When the temperature increase, y(T) decreases, mimicking the reduced outgoing longewave radiation due to the presence of greenhouse gasses and clouds.

Here..ACT-RPR-ESS-2013-IAC-ClimateEngineeringWhichRoleForSpace.pdf

This is pulled from a crazy discussion of geoengineering in an attempt to alter the effects of the greenhouse effect and increased CO2.

Solar radiation management (SRM) techniques, by at- tempting to directly influence the solar radiation balance of the Earth system. This second approach includes compensating the

reduced outgoing, long-wave radiation due to higher levels of greenhouse gases by either increas- ing the amount of generally short-wave radiation that is reflected back into space or by directly reducing the total amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s atmosphere.

Here: https://epic.awi.de/33874/1/BzPM_0669_2013.pdf
In a review of how CO2 is the control knob for Earth's climate.

As a r

esult of the reduced outgoing long-wave radiation, the Earth’s temperature is higher than that of a black body with the same size and energy supply but no greenhouse gases, at thermal equilibrium (Planck function). The natural greenhouse effect raises the ac- tual average surface temperature on Earth from -18◦C to roughly +15◦C (Pierrehumbert, 2011).

Here from the European Space Policy

Institutehttp://www.hvonstorch.de/klima/pdf/ESPI_Report_41.pdf

From another discussion of possible geoengineering projects:

3.2 Basic Physics of Climate Engineering

Climate engineering concepts can be put into two broad categories: (1) those approaches trying to reduce the CO2 content in the at- mosphere by actively removing it, and thus increasing the level of outgoing, long-wave radiation leading to overall cooling;

Here they are talking about trying to increase the level of outgoing long wave to try and cool the earth...you would think a space agency would already know that the level of outgoing LW is already on the increase...

And I could go on and on since practically every in depth article on the greenhouse effect states that increased so called greenhouse gasses will reduce the amount of outgoing long wave at the top of the atmosphere. You really don't have a clue do you? Of course, that is what you have been taught...when your hypothesis fails, simply say that the failed prediction was actually a successful prediction.

And it's there. Only the most desperately dishonest cult liars still try to pretend otherwise. Stop it with the data faking, will you? It's not fooling anyone.

Right...a hot spot that can not be measured by thermometer, but only by increased wind. The greenhouse effect didn't predict a windy spot...it predicted a hot spot..and any hot spot can be measured by thermometer. Just one more patently ridiculous attempt to save a dead hypothesis. More than a million thermometers sent through that region state categorically that the temperature has not increased...

And that's been measured over and over.

Sorry hairball...I know you wish it were true..but it just isn't.

Except when it doesn't. And one exception disproves the kook loser theory.

Sorry hairball, but there isn't a case where it doesn't...but it is good to know that at least you recognize that failure of a hypothesis results in its falsification..so you should, if you weren't a complete idiot recognize that the fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can't even get close to the temperatures of the other planets in the solar system..and doesn't work here either without an ad hoc fudge factor falsifies it completely.

The conclusion? Your mentors -- Stalin, Goebbels, and Alinksy -- have trained you well, little commie.

Sorry hairball...but the observed evidence proves you wrong...and what do you do..you claim to be right...or claim that the failed predictions were never made...or claim that they hypothesis claims something other than what it predicts will happen...just as the above socialists taught you.


And the fact that you would think that I learned anything from socialists is just one more piece of evidence proving that you don't have a clue about anything. Imagine, calling a staunch conservative like me a radical liberal trained by socialists...you really are a f'ing idiot.

 

[IanC]

SSDD- you are purposely ignoring the context of those statements.

When one pathway of energy loss is reduced, the system warms up to push more energy out of the unaffected pathways. The energy required to raise the temperature comes from energy not lost to space while the system moves back to equilibrium.

An analogy for this is a bucket with several holes in it. When you start filling it with a hose the water level will rise until as much water is leaving by the holes as entering by the hose. Equilibrium.

If you plug one of the holes then the water level will rise until the increased pressure from the weight of the extra water forces more water out of the remaining holes and a new equilibrium water level will be established.

At the new equilibrium level the water loss still matches the water input, even though we initially reduced the water loss by plugging one of the holes.

CO2 plugs one of the holes for energy loss. The resultant temperature increase forces more energy through the remaining holes. Equilibrium is reinstated. The energy required to raise the temperature is equal to the amount not lost to space while the system moved towards the new equilibrium.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD- you are purposely ignoring the context of those statements.
\.

I am only pointing out what the failed greenhouse hypothesis predicted...since there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science, the rest is moot.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 absorbs ALL the surface 15 micron IR within the first 10 metres,

So your saying that the other 99.996% of the atmosphere near surface doesn't matter and has no effect? That's one wild ass assumption that has no basis in fact.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. CO2 is the only strong absorber of 15 micron IR.

If there was no CO2 then the 15 micron band would be added the range of wavelengths commonly referred to as the atmospheric window. The reason it is called that is because radiation in that range escapes directly to space without interacting with the atmosphere.

If CO2 did not absorb 15 micron IR, then the surface would cool in two ways. No 15 micron IR would be returning to the surface because it leaves at the speed of light. And more importantly, the energy captured and passed along to the atmosphere would no longer be there, which would cool the atmosphere, which in turn would cool the surface because of increased conduction caused by the larger temperature difference between surface and atmosphere.

It's all rather simple. I don't know why you are having such a hard time comprehending it.

Pulling a Michael Mann and ignoring water-vapor near surface is like ignoring 17 of the 18 tree proxies that tells you the one your favoring is wrong but you publish it anyway because it fits your preconceived conclusion.

 

[Billy_Bob]

SSDD- you are purposely ignoring the context of those statements.

When one pathway of energy loss is reduced, the system warms up to push more energy out of the unaffected pathways. The energy required to raise the temperature comes from energy not lost to space while the system moves back to equilibrium.

An analogy for this is a bucket with several holes in it. When you start filling it with a hose the water level will rise until as much water is leaving by the holes as entering by the hose. Equilibrium.

If you plug one of the holes then the water level will rise until the increased pressure from the weight of the extra water forces more water out of the remaining holes and a new equilibrium water level will be established.

At the new equilibrium level the water loss still matches the water input, even though we initially reduced the water loss by plugging one of the holes.

CO2 plugs one of the holes for energy loss. The resultant temperature increase forces more energy through the remaining holes. Equilibrium is reinstated. The energy required to raise the temperature is equal to the amount not lost to space while the system moved towards the new equilibrium.

Yet you ignore the empirical evidence that shows its not occurring and continue to believe.. No "Hot spot" has shown up which would have to occur if your hypothesis were true.

Water vapor does indeed absorb 12um-90um very well. At TOT it becomes LWIR after renunciation of the water to its liquid state. Tell me again how your differentiating this from CO2 emitted LWIR?

 

[mamooth]

You poor f'ing idiot.....have you ever been right about anything?

Ooh, italic font now. That must mean you're right. Oh wait, no, it doesn't. Bizarre font use just means the writer is losing it.

The whole greenhouse effect is about reducing the amount of energy escaping the system. Sorry hairball, but once again, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Here, let me provide some of the pseudoscience for you.

No, dumbass. Energy has to come back to equilibrium eventually, or the earth heats up to infinity.

Longwave IR going out drops in the GHG emission bands.

Longwave IR going out increases in the other bands, because the earth's temperature went up.

So, I'm glad we've settled that. You don't understand how the greenhouse effect works. On to your next failure ...

Right...a hot spot that can not be measured by thermometer, but only by increased wind. The greenhouse effect didn't predict a windy spot...it predicted a hot spot..and any hot spot can be measured by thermometer. Just one more patently ridiculous attempt to save a dead hypothesis. More than a million thermometers sent through that region state categorically that the temperature has not increased...

Once you go into your "All the science that contradicts me is fraudulent" hysterics, I carve another notch in my cultist-spanking stick.

And the fact that you would think that I learned anything from socialists is just one more piece of evidence proving that you don't have a clue about anything. Imagine, calling a staunch conservative like me a radical liberal trained by socialists...you really are a f'ing idiot.

Modern hardcore conservatives are commies. They've gone so far right, they've come back around on the left.

 

[IanC]

CO2 absorbs ALL the surface 15 micron IR within the first 10 metres,

So your saying that the other 99.996% of the atmosphere near surface doesn't matter and has no effect? That's one wild ass assumption that has no basis in fact.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. CO2 is the only strong absorber of 15 micron IR.

If there was no CO2 then the 15 micron band would be added the range of wavelengths commonly referred to as the atmospheric window. The reason it is called that is because radiation in that range escapes directly to space without interacting with the atmosphere.

If CO2 did not absorb 15 micron IR, then the surface would cool in two ways. No 15 micron IR would be returning to the surface because it leaves at the speed of light. And more importantly, the energy captured and passed along to the atmosphere would no longer be there, which would cool the atmosphere, which in turn would cool the surface because of increased conduction caused by the larger temperature difference between surface and atmosphere.

It's all rather simple. I don't know why you are having such a hard time comprehending it.

Pulling a Michael Mann and ignoring water-vapor near surface is like ignoring 17 of the 18 tree proxies that tells you the one your favoring is wrong but you publish it anyway because it fits your preconceived conclusion.

I talk about CO2 because it is a simple and obvious case at 15 microns. I don't talk about the two other wavelengths of CO2 vibrations because they don't interact in a portion of the spectrum where there is a lot of irradiance by Sun or surface.

I am not talking about water vapour because it reacts at many wavelengths. It also has more complexities added because of latent heat of phase change and convection caused by it's lower molecular weight.

The simple example of CO2 is not made redundant by the complex case of H2O. They affect different wavelengths.

 

[IanC]

SSDD- you are purposely ignoring the context of those statements.

When one pathway of energy loss is reduced, the system warms up to push more energy out of the unaffected pathways. The energy required to raise the temperature comes from energy not lost to space while the system moves back to equilibrium.

An analogy for this is a bucket with several holes in it. When you start filling it with a hose the water level will rise until as much water is leaving by the holes as entering by the hose. Equilibrium.

If you plug one of the holes then the water level will rise until the increased pressure from the weight of the extra water forces more water out of the remaining holes and a new equilibrium water level will be established.

At the new equilibrium level the water loss still matches the water input, even though we initially reduced the water loss by plugging one of the holes.

CO2 plugs one of the holes for energy loss. The resultant temperature increase forces more energy through the remaining holes. Equilibrium is reinstated. The energy required to raise the temperature is equal to the amount not lost to space while the system moved towards the new equilibrium.

Yet you ignore the empirical evidence that shows its not occurring and continue to believe.. No "Hot spot" has shown up which would have to occur if your hypothesis were true.

Water vapor does indeed absorb 12um-90um very well. At TOT it becomes LWIR after renunciation of the water to its liquid state. Tell me again how your differentiating this from CO2 emitted LWIR?

The Hotspot is caused by CO2? Since when, what is the mechanism?

Water vapour has specific wavelengths it favours, just like any other molecule. It has peaks at 1.5, 2, 2.75, a big one at 6, and everything past 20.

Anything less than 100% absorbance means some transmission, or perhaps just scattering.

Looking at this graph, I don't understand why methane is considered a strong GHG.

 

[Billy_Bob]

SSDD- you are purposely ignoring the context of those statements.

When one pathway of energy loss is reduced, the system warms up to push more energy out of the unaffected pathways. The energy required to raise the temperature comes from energy not lost to space while the system moves back to equilibrium.

An analogy for this is a bucket with several holes in it. When you start filling it with a hose the water level will rise until as much water is leaving by the holes as entering by the hose. Equilibrium.

If you plug one of the holes then the water level will rise until the increased pressure from the weight of the extra water forces more water out of the remaining holes and a new equilibrium water level will be established.

At the new equilibrium level the water loss still matches the water input, even though we initially reduced the water loss by plugging one of the holes.

CO2 plugs one of the holes for energy loss. The resultant temperature increase forces more energy through the remaining holes. Equilibrium is reinstated. The energy required to raise the temperature is equal to the amount not lost to space while the system moved towards the new equilibrium.

Yet you ignore the empirical evidence that shows its not occurring and continue to believe.. No "Hot spot" has shown up which would have to occur if your hypothesis were true.

Water vapor does indeed absorb 12um-90um very well. At TOT it becomes LWIR after renunciation of the water to its liquid state. Tell me again how your differentiating this from CO2 emitted LWIR?

The Hotspot is caused by CO2? Since when, what is the mechanism?

Water vapour has specific wavelengths it favours, just like any other molecule. It has peaks at 1.5, 2, 2.75, a big one at 6, and everything past 20.

Anything less than 100% absorbance means some transmission, or perhaps just scattering.

Looking at this graph, I don't understand why methane is considered a strong GHG.

Ian;

CO2 as a molecule can not hold heat. Its molecular structure will not allow it to hold anything and it immediately re-emits any photon that it receives. CO2 requires another atom with which to collide or receive the energy from.

Now lets look closely at the spectrum graph;

CO2 does in-fact absorb anything in this band that hits it but it also emits it immediately. Water vapor also absorbs in this band and having roughly a 400,000-600,000 % chance of the radiated energy hitting it rather than another CO2 molecule, there simply isn't enough CO2 to create an energy loop. Water vapor, conduction, and convection simply lays any potential energy slowing, waste. IE; no atmospheric hot spot.

IN a desert, where water vapor is 5-10% or less on average, the temps soar in day time (nothing in the atmosphere to block or redirect incoming energy) and at night it cools rapidly to near freezing in just a few hours (again due to the lack of water vapor mass). CO2 levels do nothing to hold in heat because they are incapable of it. Without water vapor, CO2 is incapable of anything.

This is a double edged sword as where there is water vapor it is the water vapor which is capable of holding or slowing heat release. The water vapor is unimpeded by CO2 through conduction and convection in the air column. The shear mass of the air column lays waste to what little effect CO2 might cause. While CO2 can not hold energy or heat, water vapor can and it can hold it for long periods of time. (this is why there should be a hot spot if there is an energy loop-'positive feedback'). The fact that no hot spot is present indicates that no loop is present. There is NO POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP. It simply does not exist.

Convection and conduction are removing the heat unimpeded by CO2. A Total AWG hypothesis failure.

Empirical evidence shows us that CO2 ALONE should have caused 0.8 deg C in the last 180 years. Yet we haven't seen but 0.6 deg C (in unadjusted data sets) and all of that rise can be attributed to clouds and albedo change. None of it can be attributed to CO2. The IPCC models say we should have seen over 3.2 deg C rise and we have not.

Putting it simply, Water vapor is shown a negative forcing (by empirically observed evidence) not a positive one as the AGW hypothesis proposes. Water is shown a dampening effect on CO2. And not one GCM has it right to date, they all fail without exception.