Correlation between temperature and CO2

[jc456]

For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

They give the same information although mine is model output for the globe at 15C and his is for a specific area at about 22 or 23C.

If you look at the notches at various wavelengths you will see very similar patterns, although the range of wavelengths is smaller in his graphs. They were looking for information on radiation that escapes directly to space and that is why they did not capture the whole CO2 band.

If you cut a section out of the Planck curve and rotate it into a straight horizontal line it looks like SSDD'S graph.

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

Dude, you're so much more superior to me, but I know the difference between models and observation. Your intellect and that you can't grasp. Funny

I clearly identified my graph as model input. You clearly can't read with comprehension.

I know that, SSDD posted actual. And you tell him he's full of shit posting models. Dude, you can call me stupid all day long, but I'd never ever argue model vs observed to make a point like you just did. It's why I called bs

 

[jc456]

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

Dude, you're so much more superior to me, but I know the difference between models and observation. Your intellect and that you can't grasp. Funny

I clearly identified my graph as model input. You clearly can't read with comprehension.

More childish insults. What is it you libs think you will gain by doing that? You all do it and it makes you look like pompous arrogant schmucks.

Hahahaha. This is a specific case, not a generalization. jc456 is stupid. Not willfully ignorant but actually incapable of grasping concepts.

You may think it cruel of me to say that but at a certain point it becomes ridiculous to expect anything from him in the way of intelligent conversation.

Anytime you want to, you can post up the atmospheric hotspot that proves your claim CO2 heats up. Five years I've been waiting .

 

[jc456]

For those of you who didn't like the modtran graph here is a graph of measured data. Same shape, although it is for a higher temperature.

Graphs with irradiance on the y axis look like this. Graphs with brightness temperature on the y axis look like SSDD'S graph.

They both present similar information but visually they look different.

Some graphs use wavenumbers on the x axis, some use wavelength. The nomenclature looks different but they are describing the same thing.

So why does it state theoretical in the graph?

 

[SSDD]

For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

They give the same information although mine is model output for the globe at 15C and his is for a specific area at about 22 or 23C.

If you look at the notches at various wavelengths you will see very similar patterns, although the range of wavelengths is smaller in his graphs. They were looking for information on radiation that escapes directly to space and that is why they did not capture the whole CO2 band.

If you cut a section out of the Planck curve and rotate it into a straight horizontal line it looks like SSDD'S graph.

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

When you can't win, insult the others intelligence. Classic liberal job.

Nope. I just honestly believe jc456 is stupid.

And I have come to honestly believe that you are stupid...arrogant and stupid....a terrible combination.

 

[SSDD]

I clearly identified my graph as model input. You clearly can't read with comprehension.

Well, you did make it clear that you don't understand even the basics...congratulations.

 

[SSDD]

Some graphs use wavenumbers on the x axis, some use wavelength. The nomenclature looks different but they are describing the same thing.

Once again ian...that graph isn't an observation from the top of the atmosphere...which is what started this whole thing in the first place...your claim that there was less outgoing LW in the CO2 absorption band....the black lines in the two graphs I provided..one taken in 1970 and the other taken in 2006 show beyond any doubt that there is not less outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere...your hypothesis fails yet again...and why? because your hypothesis is based on magic and there is no magic...all the real data...all the observations...everything real supports my position regardless of how much you believe in models.

 

[IanC]

For those of you who didn't like the modtran graph here is a graph of measured data. Same shape, although it is for a higher temperature.

Graphs with irradiance on the y axis look like this. Graphs with brightness temperature on the y axis look like SSDD'S graph.

They both present similar information but visually they look different.

Some graphs use wavenumbers on the x axis, some use wavelength. The nomenclature looks different but they are describing the same thing.

So why does it state theoretical in the graph?

Like I said, you are as dumb as a rock.

Go back and read the caption for the graph again. Then try to extract the meaning of the words.

 

[IanC]

Some graphs use wavenumbers on the x axis, some use wavelength. The nomenclature looks different but they are describing the same thing.

Once again ian...that graph isn't an observation from the top of the atmosphere...which is what started this whole thing in the first place...your claim that there was less outgoing LW in the CO2 absorption band....the black lines in the two graphs I provided..one taken in 1970 and the other taken in 2006 show beyond any doubt that there is not less outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere...your hypothesis fails yet again...and why? because your hypothesis is based on magic and there is no magic...all the real data...all the observations...everything real supports my position regardless of how much you believe in models.

You think the makers of the graph we're lying when they said it was measured data from near Guam, April 27, 1970? Why?

To be honest I haven't checked the provenance of the source. It came from before the AGW fearmongering, so I assume it to be clear of obvious bias and therefore the best depiction of the data possible with 1970's technology.

Why is this graph flawed but your graph acceptable? They are both from the same time frame, both with measured and theoretical data sets, the only difference is that yours is scaled on brightness temperature and mine is on irradiance.

 

[SSDD]

You think the makers of the graph we're lying when they said it was measured data from near Guam, April 27, 1970? Why?

It really doesn't matter, you are still comparing observation to model...what matters is comparing the observation from 1970 to the observation from 2006...and seeing that there is no difference in outgoing LW...once again...your hypothesis has failed...the data prove it..you can compare models to observation till the cows come home and it won't mean jack...other than that the models are wrong...comparing observation to observation is the only real check and the observations made 36 years apart are identical...no change...no reduced outgoing IR in the pertinent bands...failure for your hypothesis.

 

[IanC]

For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

They give the same information although mine is model output for the globe at 15C and his is for a specific area at about 22 or 23C.

If you look at the notches at various wavelengths you will see very similar patterns, although the range of wavelengths is smaller in his graphs. They were looking for information on radiation that escapes directly to space and that is why they did not capture the whole CO2 band.

If you cut a section out of the Planck curve and rotate it into a straight horizontal line it looks like SSDD'S graph.

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

Dude, you're so much more superior to me, but I know the difference between models and observation. Your intellect and that you can't grasp. Funny

I clearly identified my graph as model input. You clearly can't read with comprehension.

I know that, SSDD posted actual. And you tell him he's full of shit posting models. Dude, you can call me stupid all day long, but I'd never ever argue model vs observed to make a point like you just did. It's why I called bs

Just out of curiosity, what point are you talking about?

You chimed in when I was explaining how irradiance and brightness temperature graphs are basically showing the same thing. I thought some people might be confused because they look different.

Surely that's not what you're pissed about. What are you pissed at? Be specific.

 

[jc456]

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

Dude, you're so much more superior to me, but I know the difference between models and observation. Your intellect and that you can't grasp. Funny

I clearly identified my graph as model input. You clearly can't read with comprehension.

I know that, SSDD posted actual. And you tell him he's full of shit posting models. Dude, you can call me stupid all day long, but I'd never ever argue model vs observed to make a point like you just did. It's why I called bs

Just out of curiosity, what point are you talking about?

You chimed in when I was explaining how irradiance and brightness temperature graphs are basically showing the same thing. I thought some people might be confused because they look different.

Surely that's not what you're pissed about. What are you pissed at? Be specific.

You must have me confused with someone else bubba!

 

[IanC]

You think the makers of the graph we're lying when they said it was measured data from near Guam, April 27, 1970? Why?

It really doesn't matter, you are still comparing observation to model...what matters is comparing the observation from 1970 to the observation from 2006...and seeing that there is no difference in outgoing LW...once again...your hypothesis has failed...the data prove it..you can compare models to observation till the cows come home and it won't mean jack...other than that the models are wrong...comparing observation to observation is the only real check and the observations made 36 years apart are identical...no change...no reduced outgoing IR in the pertinent bands...failure for your hypothesis.

The 2006 graph looks to me like it is showing a fat 1/2 degree of extra brightness over the 1970 graph.

My explanation of the effect of CO2 says that the 15 micron IR from the surface is captured in a smaller volume of air when CO2 is increased. That increases the temperature of the lowest level of the atmosphere. When that air is warmer, the temperature differential with the surface is smaller, which reduces conduction. The reduced energy loss at the surface is a change of conditions that leads to a higher equilibrium temperature when the Sun adds energy.

This new, and warmer, temperature adds extra energy to the IR bands that escape freely to space (edit- the extra energy going through the atmospheric window replaces the energy that stopped being lost by conduction).The same bands that comprise most of your graphs's range, also called the atmospheric window.

Your graphs supported my case so I didn't criticize them. Probably the most important piece of information missing is the actual water temperature on the two days being compared. It appears that they were very close, about 1/2C warmer in 2006. Was this just a coincidence?

The same problem affects the CO2 brightness. Was the temperature at the radiating height equal on both of the measured days? For that matter, what was the radiating height on either day? Did the increased CO2 raise the height? Probably. Did the increase in height change the temperature? A much trickier question. We assume the adiabatic lapse rate continues to cool in the troposphere but it goes squirrelly higher than that. An increase in the emission height of CO2 could bring it to a cooler, warmer or equal temperature.

But we always know the emission height of the surface. Hahahaha

 

[IanC]

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

Dude, you're so much more superior to me, but I know the difference between models and observation. Your intellect and that you can't grasp. Funny

I clearly identified my graph as model input. You clearly can't read with comprehension.

I know that, SSDD posted actual. And you tell him he's full of shit posting models. Dude, you can call me stupid all day long, but I'd never ever argue model vs observed to make a point like you just did. It's why I called bs

Just out of curiosity, what point are you talking about?

You chimed in when I was explaining how irradiance and brightness temperature graphs are basically showing the same thing. I thought some people might be confused because they look different.

Surely that's not what you're pissed about. What are you pissed at? Be specific.

You must have me confused with someone else bubba!

As you wish. I knew it was foolish to respond to a dolt.

 

[IanC]

Interesting diagram. Steady adiabatic decline in temperature for the troposphere. Then a steady temp for the first part of the stratosphere, followed by an increase.

I don't know where CO2 radiation starts escaping. Up to 10 kms it would be decreasing radiation, the next 10 kms would be steady, and then it would be increasing up to 50 kms.

 

[Chuz Life]

You have been repeatedly shown the radiation profile reaching a satellite from the atmosphere. Some bands radiate at the full power of surface temperature, showing they escape directly. The CO2 15 micron band radiates at a power that corresponds to about minus 60C, far up in height and considerably less than surface temperature.

Well, at least you are partly right. Those profiles have come up in conversation, but your belief in models is so strong, that even when you see the evidence that they are wrong, you are unable to accept the fact. As I have said before, it is pointless to go over this with you because you can't accept anything that doesn't jibe with your beliefs, but what the hell, someone may get something out of this even if you can't.

Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions.

If AGW theory were correct, and the physics that you so fervently believe in were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. What you believe simply isn't happening.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents the prediction based on the physics you so fervently believe in and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.

Now copy and print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (ACTUAL MEASURED DATA) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Again, IF WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS HAPPENING WITH ENERGY IN THE ATMOSPHERE WERE ACTUALLY HAPPENING then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less in 2006 than it was in 1970....it isn't. As the blue lines (difference between actual observation, and the model prediction) on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2. The higher figures on the blue line indicate that the actual measurement is considerably higher than the model predicts.

The fact is that what you claim is happening simply is not happening because what you believe is happening is magic and as the graphs from 1970 to 2006 clearly indicate, there is no magic in the real world. There is no reduction of outgoing LW IR in the CO2 bands. There is some measured difference in the H2O bands but then water vapor can actually capture and hold on to IR whereas CO2 simply absorbs it and either loses it to a collision with another molecule or emits it on to cooler pastures.

You are wrong ian...your understanding of the physics is wrong and what you believe is happening in the atmosphere is demonstrably not happening.

I know you want to sidetrack over to water but we should clear up CO2 first. Do you agree that more 15 micron radiation goes in at the bottom than comes out at the top? If you disagree then what is your evidence?

CO2 is perfectly clear to anyone not so blinded by their belief in magic that they can't see it when it is posted right before their eyes. CO2 does nothing but absorb and then lose the energy to cooler areas of the atmosphere. That is all it does. It doesn't even slow the escape of IR to space by a nanosecond.

And as to what I "believe"...it doesn't matter..and more importantly, it doesn't matter what you believe either... The graphs above clearly show that all of the additional atmospheric CO2 increase between 1970 and 2006 has had exactly zero effect on the outgoing LW in the CO2 absorption bands. The models predicted a difference but none was measured. Chalk up yet another predictive failure for your hypothesis.

Once again Ian, in real science, how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is scrapped and work begins on a hypothesis that more closely resembles the real observable world?

First off, I want to thank SSDD for a great American Thinker article!

Articles: The AGW Smoking Gun

This is exactly the right attitude to have towards peer reviewed papers. Look at the data and form your own conclusions. If they disagree with the official conclusion then that is a good area to investigate.

Well done SSDD. Everyone should spend the two minutes to read the
article.

Good stuff in that article.

Thanks for bringing more attention to it.

 

[keepitreal]

Oye vay...
God controls climate

How unfortunate, that so many people,
don't recognize bible prophecy unfolding!

 

[SSDD]

The 2006 graph looks to me like it is showing a fat 1/2 degree of extra brightness over the 1970 graph.

But it isn't showing the first bit of difference in actual outgoing LW...you are caught up on the wrong measurement due to your belief in magic...you are grasping for straws in your desperation to be right....you aren't.

 

[SSDD]

Interesting diagram. Steady adiabatic decline in temperature for the troposphere. Then a steady temp for the first part of the stratosphere, followed by an increase.

I don't know where CO2 radiation starts escaping. Up to 10 kms it would be decreasing radiation, the next 10 kms would be steady, and then it would be increasing up to 50 kms.

At the ground level...what you are seeing is the result of pressure....not CO2 capturing energy.Your hypothesis has failed and failed and failed and yet you believe..and why?...because you believe in magic.

 

[IanC]

The 2006 graph looks to me like it is showing a fat 1/2 degree of extra brightness over the 1970 graph.

But it isn't showing the first bit of difference in actual outgoing LW...you are caught up on the wrong measurement due to your belief in magic...you are grasping for straws in your desperation to be right....you aren't.

????

What are you trying to say? And how are your graphs supporting your claim?

 

[SSDD]

The 2006 graph looks to me like it is showing a fat 1/2 degree of extra brightness over the 1970 graph.

But it isn't showing the first bit of difference in actual outgoing LW...you are caught up on the wrong measurement due to your belief in magic...you are grasping for straws in your desperation to be right....you aren't.

????

What are you trying to say? And how are your graphs supporting your claim?

I already told you ian...print the graph from 1970 and the graph from 2006...the black lines are identical...not comparing observation to models...comparing observation to observation.