Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[SSDD]

There obviously is a radiative greenhouse effect. Your statement is framed as- does increased CO2 cause MORE warming.

The only way CO2 could cause warming is if so much of it were put into the atmosphere that it significantly changed the mass of the atmosphere causing greater pressure.

That is a trickier question. Not very much additional warming. Why?

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...IR does not warm the air....

The effect is long since totally saturated. The first few parts per million made a huge impact. Now less and less. Doubling the amount of CO2 hardly changes the mean free path, hardly raises the emission height. But it does make a small difference, and it is in the direction of warming.

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...and the saturation is zero because IR does not warm the air. the first few parts per million have the same effect as the last few parts per million...zero. But if you like, feel free to show me actual measurements that show how much how much heating or cooling is derived from raising or lowering the concentration of CO2 over a body of water. Bring it out of the realm of models and demonstrate it in the real world because as of this date, no actual real world measurement or experiment demonstrate a radiative greenhouse effect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There obviously is a radiative greenhouse effect. Your statement is framed as- does increased CO2 cause MORE warming.

The only way CO2 could cause warming is if so much of it were put into the atmosphere that it significantly changed the mass of the atmosphere causing greater pressure.

That is a trickier question. Not very much additional warming. Why?

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...IR does not warm the air....

The effect is long since totally saturated. The first few parts per million made a huge impact. Now less and less. Doubling the amount of CO2 hardly changes the mean free path, hardly raises the emission height. But it does make a small difference, and it is in the direction of warming.

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...and the saturation is zero because IR does not warm the air. the first few parts per million have the same effect as the last few parts per million...zero. But if you like, feel free to show me actual measurements that show how much how much heating or cooling is derived from raising or lowering the concentration of CO2 over a body of water. Bring it out of the realm of models and demonstrate it in the real world because as of this date, no actual real world measurement or experiment demonstrate a radiative greenhouse effect.

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...IR does not warm the air....

Of course not, absorbing IR and conducting energy to O2 and N2 doesn't count, because smart photons.

 

[SSDD]

There obviously is a radiative greenhouse effect. Your statement is framed as- does increased CO2 cause MORE warming.

The only way CO2 could cause warming is if so much of it were put into the atmosphere that it significantly changed the mass of the atmosphere causing greater pressure.

That is a trickier question. Not very much additional warming. Why?

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...IR does not warm the air....

The effect is long since totally saturated. The first few parts per million made a huge impact. Now less and less. Doubling the amount of CO2 hardly changes the mean free path, hardly raises the emission height. But it does make a small difference, and it is in the direction of warming.

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...and the saturation is zero because IR does not warm the air. the first few parts per million have the same effect as the last few parts per million...zero. But if you like, feel free to show me actual measurements that show how much how much heating or cooling is derived from raising or lowering the concentration of CO2 over a body of water. Bring it out of the realm of models and demonstrate it in the real world because as of this date, no actual real world measurement or experiment demonstrate a radiative greenhouse effect.

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...IR does not warm the air....

Of course not, absorbing IR and conducting energy to O2 and N2 doesn't count, because smart photons.

As I have said.....conduction, convection, and pressure rule energy movement in the lower atmosphere...the so called radiative greenhouse effect in the lower atmosphere is simply not real...and none of you wakos can show the first measured evidence of it.

Lets see some measurements of the warming or cooling of a body of water resulting from changes in the CO2 concentration in the air above it. Easy enough to set up and test..and would provide conclusive evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...and yet..not the first measurement of any sort demonstrating such an effect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There obviously is a radiative greenhouse effect. Your statement is framed as- does increased CO2 cause MORE warming.

The only way CO2 could cause warming is if so much of it were put into the atmosphere that it significantly changed the mass of the atmosphere causing greater pressure.

That is a trickier question. Not very much additional warming. Why?

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...IR does not warm the air....

The effect is long since totally saturated. The first few parts per million made a huge impact. Now less and less. Doubling the amount of CO2 hardly changes the mean free path, hardly raises the emission height. But it does make a small difference, and it is in the direction of warming.

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...and the saturation is zero because IR does not warm the air. the first few parts per million have the same effect as the last few parts per million...zero. But if you like, feel free to show me actual measurements that show how much how much heating or cooling is derived from raising or lowering the concentration of CO2 over a body of water. Bring it out of the realm of models and demonstrate it in the real world because as of this date, no actual real world measurement or experiment demonstrate a radiative greenhouse effect.

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...IR does not warm the air....

Of course not, absorbing IR and conducting energy to O2 and N2 doesn't count, because smart photons.

As I have said.....conduction, convection, and pressure rule energy movement in the lower atmosphere...the so called radiative greenhouse effect in the lower atmosphere is simply not real...and none of you wakos can show the first measured evidence of it.

Lets see some measurements of the warming or cooling of a body of water resulting from changes in the CO2 concentration in the air above it. Easy enough to set up and test..and would provide conclusive evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...and yet..not the first measurement of any sort demonstrating such an effect.

the so called radiative greenhouse effect in the lower atmosphere is simply not real.

Because CO2 and water vapor don't absorb IR. What?

 

[IanC]

As I have said.....conduction, convection, and pressure rule energy movement in the lower atmosphere...the so called radiative greenhouse effect in the lower atmosphere is simply not real...and none of you wakos can show the first measured evidence of it.

How much energy is lost to space by conduction? Zero.

How much energy is lost to space by convection? Zero.

How much energy is lost to space by radiation? All of it.

I think you may have your priorities mixed up.

 

[IanC]

Without GHGs all the IR emitted from the surface would simply escape to space. The surface would cool dramatically.

Without GHGs the atmosphere would stop absorbing radiation energy from the surface. The atmosphere would cool dramatically.

There would still be some energy storage in the atmosphere, but all transfers back and forth with the surface would be by conduction.

The energy budget for the terrestrial system would still balance. Solar input = IR output.

The only difference would be the temperatures at the different points along the path that the energy takes as it enters and exits the system.


On a related topic, the N&Z and Holmes equations would still give the right answer for the surface temperature, even though the non-GHG temperature is much cooler. The surface pressure would be the same but the density would be greater because the atmosphere has less stored energy.

 

[Wuwei]

The effect is long since totally saturated. The first few parts per million made a huge impact. Now less and less. Doubling the amount of CO2 hardly changes the mean free path, hardly raises the emission height. But it does make a small difference, and it is in the direction of warming.

Are you sure doubling the amount of CO2 hardly changes the mean free path? This site,
Mean Free Path, Molecular Collisions
Defines the mean free path. The estimated formula is,

Note that if the molecular density (nV) doubles, the MFP drops in half. In any cross-section calculation the probability of collision is proportional to the density of targets along the path.

 

[SSDD]

How much energy is lost to space by conduction? Zero.

Are you able to read? The radiative greenhouse effect is all about the troposphere...and I clearly stated that I was talking about the troposphere.

I believe you are confused about what we are talking about...and most of the radiation that is emitted to space is either energy emitted via radiation by so called greenhouse gasses from the troposphere, or energy that is moved into the upper atmosphere by water vapor. Energy actually emitted by CO2 molecules in the troposphere goes on to space...not towards the ground...remember..energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm.

 

[SSDD]

Without GHGs all the IR emitted from the surface would simply escape to space. The surface would cool dramatically.

Without GHGs the atmosphere would stop absorbing radiation energy from the surface. The atmosphere would cool dramatically.

Without water vapor...if you removed water vapor, then all the energy emitted from the surface would still radiate right on out to space. it may pass through a CO2 molecule but would pass right through and emit on towards cooler pastures.

 

[IanC]

I believe you are confused about what we are talking about...and most of the radiation that is emitted to space is either energy emitted via radiation by so called greenhouse gasses from the troposphere, or energy that is moved into the upper atmosphere by water vapor.

There is no "or".

Moving energy around from one place to another does not cause the terrestrial system to cool. Only radiation loss to space causes cooling.

Moving your cash from one pocket to another doesn't make you poorer.

 

[IanC]

Without GHGs all the IR emitted from the surface would simply escape to space. The surface would cool dramatically.

Without GHGs the atmosphere would stop absorbing radiation energy from the surface. The atmosphere would cool dramatically.

Without water vapor...if you removed water vapor, then all the energy emitted from the surface would still radiate right on out to space. it may pass through a CO2 molecule but would pass right through and emit on towards cooler pastures.

According to your bizarre version of physics, then yes radiation from the CO2 molecule would only be allowed to radiate to space. But you are forgetting the other part of your theory. The CO2 molecule would cause the surface to radiate less.

Either both the surface and the CO2 radiate freely, or they both are throttled down. Either way you get the same answer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I believe you are confused about what we are talking about...and most of the radiation that is emitted to space is either energy emitted via radiation by so called greenhouse gasses from the troposphere, or energy that is moved into the upper atmosphere by water vapor.

There is no "or".

Moving energy around from one place to another does not cause the terrestrial system to cool. Only radiation loss to space causes cooling.

Moving your cash from one pocket to another doesn't make you poorer.

Moving your cash from one pocket to another doesn't make you poorer.

In his case, it would.

 

[IanC]

I believe you are confused about what we are talking about...and most of the radiation that is emitted to space is either energy emitted via radiation by so called greenhouse gasses from the troposphere, or energy that is moved into the upper atmosphere by water vapor.

There is no "or".

Moving energy around from one place to another does not cause the terrestrial system to cool. Only radiation loss to space causes cooling.

Moving your cash from one pocket to another doesn't make you poorer.

Moving your cash from one pocket to another doesn't make you poorer.

In his case, it would.

Hahahaha. Apparently he would only be able to move enough cash to make the pockets even.

 

[Wuwei]

Hahahaha. Apparently he would only be able to move enough cash to make the pockets even.

If he had cold cash in one pocket, all warmer cash would move to that pocket.

 

[SSDD]

I believe you are confused about what we are talking about...and most of the radiation that is emitted to space is either energy emitted via radiation by so called greenhouse gasses from the troposphere, or energy that is moved into the upper atmosphere by water vapor.

There is no "or".

Moving energy around from one place to another does not cause the terrestrial system to cool. Only radiation loss to space causes cooling.

Moving your cash from one pocket to another doesn't make you poorer.

Geez ian...are you really as stupid as wuwei and toddster? What do you suppose happens to that energy once it is transported via water vapor to the upper atmosphere? Do you really need to have it drawn out for you in crayon? Really?

 

[SSDD]

According to your bizarre version of physics, then yes radiation from the CO2 molecule would only be allowed to radiate to space. But you are forgetting the other part of your theory. The CO2 molecule would cause the surface to radiate less.

Not at all ian...energy passing through hardly notices the CO2 molecule...it passes through like it wasn't even there.

Either both the surface and the CO2 radiate freely, or they both are throttled down. Either way you get the same answer.

It's nice that you have a hobby....believing in magic and all ian, but do you have any actual observations or measurements to back up your bullshit beliefs? How about showing the measurements that show how much warming or cooling happens in a body of water when the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the air above it are raised or lowered in increments of 0.0001 ppm?

Got anything like that? You know...actual evidence that what you claim is happening is actually happening? Because observation says that you are full of it.

 

[IanC]

I believe you are confused about what we are talking about...and most of the radiation that is emitted to space is either energy emitted via radiation by so called greenhouse gasses from the troposphere, or energy that is moved into the upper atmosphere by water vapor.

There is no "or".

Moving energy around from one place to another does not cause the terrestrial system to cool. Only radiation loss to space causes cooling.

Moving your cash from one pocket to another doesn't make you poorer.

Geez ian...are you really as stupid as wuwei and toddster? What do you suppose happens to that energy once it is transported via water vapor to the upper atmosphere? Do you really need to have it drawn out for you in crayon? Really?

Yes, I need you to put it down in words.

How does the energy escape to space?

We have already established that radiative gases absorb a greater amount of energy than they eventually release closer to the TOA. That means there is extra energy that needs to find a way out. Energy can only leave by being radiated.

I say the energy backs up to the surface, allowing the Sun to warm it up to a higher temperature in the daytime, which pushes more radiation through the Atmospheric Window.

So far, you haven't supplied an alternate route. Will you this time? Very doubtful because there isn't one.

 

[IanC]

Not at all ian...energy passing through hardly notices the CO2 molecule...it passes through like it wasn't even there.

You are correct that radiation in the Atmospheric Window bands escapes freely to space, almost as if the air was not there. But our topic is the bands where GHGs do absorb radiation. And then what happens to that absorbed energy.

 

[SSDD]

Not at all ian...energy passing through hardly notices the CO2 molecule...it passes through like it wasn't even there.

You are correct that radiation in the Atmospheric Window bands escapes freely to space, almost as if the air was not there. But our topic is the bands where GHGs do absorb radiation. And then what happens to that absorbed energy.

Makes no difference...any energy that makes it through a so called greenhouse gas molecule in the form of IR is still moving freely into space...energy can not move spontaneously anywhere other than towards a cooler area.

IR does not warm the air...the air is warmed via conduction..therefore, the greenhouse effect, and all that you attribute to it is nothing more than model based fantasy.

And by the way...energy does not move back towards the earth via conduction either. Energy, in all its forms can only move towards a more disorganized state...never in the other direction...unless, of course, you are providing work to make movement towards a more organized state happen. No back radiation, no back convection, no back conduction..

 

[SSDD]

Yes, I need you to put it down in words.

How does the energy escape to space?

So you really do need to have things drawn out for you in crayon? When that energy is transported to the upper atmosphere via ice crystals, it then radiates into space...radiation only plays a real part in the movement of energy out of the system in the upper atmosphere...convection rules in the troposphere...therefore...no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science....and no magic as you so fervently believe.

That means there is extra energy that needs to find a way out. Energy can only leave by being radiated.

There is no extra energy ian...if you are unaware of where it comes from, chalk it up to lack of knowledge of how energy moves through the system...it certainly isn't magic energy somehow intertwined with CO2.

I say the energy backs up to the surface, allowing the Sun to warm it up to a higher temperature in the daytime, which pushes more radiation through the Atmospheric Window.

you say all sorts of stuff...but can't seen to provide any actual evidence of any of it...you believe that energy moves back to the surface from the cooler atmosphere, but can't seem to show any measurement of it with an instrument at ambient temperature...you believe that CO2 impedes energy from moving out to space, but can't seem to find a tropospheric hot spot...and finally, you believe that IR warms the atmosphere...but, alas it doesn't.