Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[IanC]

Long wave IR, which as you know is what is returned to the surface from CO2 interference, is incapable of warming the oceans. That is KNOWN. So come up with a different mechanism to generate your heating.

Why the strawman?

You are a smart and educated man. Is it possible that you honestly don't understand my position after the hundreds of times that I have said that only the Sun heats the Earth surface? In dozens of ways?

Entropy (decay, increasing disorder) would be a lot easier for people to understand if we had a common word for the opposite (building up, increasing order). That is what makes life forms so amazing, they defy entropy at least for a short time.

Thermodynamics can be broken down into two types of processes. Passive, where every particle is trying to shed energy, every system is trying to shed heat in the most efficient way. And active, where an outside power source is adding energy and reversing entropy. There is of course a fuzzy boundary between the two. Is it new energy or just a redistribution of energy.

Ultimately, the Sun is our only power source (nuclear power on earth is just a remnant of a different star). Because the Earth is a spinning sphere it warms up roughly half the time and cools half the time. The surface is always passively trying to shed heat but it is only obvious to us when the Sun is not actively heating it. The surface is actually expelling more energy during the daylight heating phase, with a lag of course due to thermal inertia.

CO2 only effects the passive shedding of energy. It DOES NOT actively heat the surface, it reduces the surface passive cooling. There is no creation of extra energy, there is only a change in the distribution that leads to an accumulation energy in the atmosphere near the surface. This energy has just been 'borrowed' from space by not expelling it. Once equilibrium is again reached, the solar input matches terrestrial output again. The Earth's surface can have a wide range of average temperatures, and every one of them can be at equilibrium, it just depends on the conditions.

I think the total influence of CO2 from zero ppm to 400 ppm is probably about 8C. Extra CO2 has rapidly diminishing effect, but it still has an affect.

HOW does the CO2 have an effect? I agree that when dealing with an exoatmosphere, CO2 would have an effect, but in our atmosphere I have seen no evidence that it does.

Sorry, I don't get your point. Space doesn't care whether it goes without the temporarily retarded energy. It makes no difference.

The mean free path for 15 micron radiation is two metres. We take surface temperature readings at 1.5 metres. Much of the surface radiated 15 micron has already been absorbed by that point. All of it by 10 metres. All of that surface energy has been immediately absorbed and converted to other forms of atmospheric energy. It then bounces around until much farther up where it finally starts escaping but from a cooler temperature. Absorption is not controlled by temperature but emission is. The difference between the amount that goes in at the bottom, and comes out at the top is the amount of energy that accumulates until it finds a new path out of the system.

Adding more CO2 shortens the mean free path. Which puts that energy into a smaller volume of air. And while the energy does find a different pathway out, there must be some change of temperature, or something, because the energy wasn't taking that path before.

My point is that in the complete absence of water vapor CO2 does indeed exert some power to warm. But in a dense water vapor atmosphere, such as ours, it doesn't. Whatever impact it could have was lost in the far more powerful water vapor signal. This belief that CO2 is the "control knob" is silly based on the observed scientific record.

You keep saying CO2 doesn't matter, at all.

I have no problem with admitting it is a small effect. I have said so myself on many occasions. I have also scoffed at the idea that CO2 is the control knob for climate.

Water is a much bigger player. With more mechanisms, and much great uncertainties. So what? How does that negate the effect of CO2?

Surface temperature is controlled by a myriad of factors and the interaction between them. Why do you think a simple and straight forward influence like CO2 should be removed? Shouldn't we be looking for more factors and interactions, rather than ignore one of the ones we know and understand to a fair degree?

 

[IanC]

You believe Ian, and belief is faith, not science.

What a dolt you are!

How do you make the the jump from believing to faith?

Science is observing reality and proposing a reason for what you see.

Then you make more and different observations and see if they agree with your reasoning. Typically you refine your reasoning and keep getting closer to the truth.

CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR. Proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Molecular collision redistributes energy in a gas. Also proven. More 15 IR goes into the bottom of the atmosphere than comes out the top, by measurement. Where does the missing energy go, if not to warm the atmosphere?

I believe this simple mechanism because it is supported by observation and measurement. There are more factors, both found and unfound that can affect the details but not the direction of the underlying principle.

If you want me to disbelieve this rational explanation of how CO2 affects the atmosphere, then start knocking out the underpinnings. Calling me names is not scientific. Give me an actual reason, backed up by evidence.

 

[IanC]

His description of the mechanism of AGW is not the same as that claimed by climate science but is just as unobservable and untestable as that promoted by climate science

I believe the parts of AGW that have enough rationality and evidence to convince me. I am agnostic where the evidence is insufficient one way or the other, and I am highly skeptical when the evidence seems counter to the conclusion.

 

[westwall]

Long wave IR, which as you know is what is returned to the surface from CO2 interference, is incapable of warming the oceans. That is KNOWN. So come up with a different mechanism to generate your heating.

Why the strawman?

You are a smart and educated man. Is it possible that you honestly don't understand my position after the hundreds of times that I have said that only the Sun heats the Earth surface? In dozens of ways?

Entropy (decay, increasing disorder) would be a lot easier for people to understand if we had a common word for the opposite (building up, increasing order). That is what makes life forms so amazing, they defy entropy at least for a short time.

Thermodynamics can be broken down into two types of processes. Passive, where every particle is trying to shed energy, every system is trying to shed heat in the most efficient way. And active, where an outside power source is adding energy and reversing entropy. There is of course a fuzzy boundary between the two. Is it new energy or just a redistribution of energy.

Ultimately, the Sun is our only power source (nuclear power on earth is just a remnant of a different star). Because the Earth is a spinning sphere it warms up roughly half the time and cools half the time. The surface is always passively trying to shed heat but it is only obvious to us when the Sun is not actively heating it. The surface is actually expelling more energy during the daylight heating phase, with a lag of course due to thermal inertia.

CO2 only effects the passive shedding of energy. It DOES NOT actively heat the surface, it reduces the surface passive cooling. There is no creation of extra energy, there is only a change in the distribution that leads to an accumulation energy in the atmosphere near the surface. This energy has just been 'borrowed' from space by not expelling it. Once equilibrium is again reached, the solar input matches terrestrial output again. The Earth's surface can have a wide range of average temperatures, and every one of them can be at equilibrium, it just depends on the conditions.

I think the total influence of CO2 from zero ppm to 400 ppm is probably about 8C. Extra CO2 has rapidly diminishing effect, but it still has an affect.

HOW does the CO2 have an effect? I agree that when dealing with an exoatmosphere, CO2 would have an effect, but in our atmosphere I have seen no evidence that it does.

Sorry, I don't get your point. Space doesn't care whether it goes without the temporarily retarded energy. It makes no difference.

The mean free path for 15 micron radiation is two metres. We take surface temperature readings at 1.5 metres. Much of the surface radiated 15 micron has already been absorbed by that point. All of it by 10 metres. All of that surface energy has been immediately absorbed and converted to other forms of atmospheric energy. It then bounces around until much farther up where it finally starts escaping but from a cooler temperature. Absorption is not controlled by temperature but emission is. The difference between the amount that goes in at the bottom, and comes out at the top is the amount of energy that accumulates until it finds a new path out of the system.

Adding more CO2 shortens the mean free path. Which puts that energy into a smaller volume of air. And while the energy does find a different pathway out, there must be some change of temperature, or something, because the energy wasn't taking that path before.

My point is that in the complete absence of water vapor CO2 does indeed exert some power to warm. But in a dense water vapor atmosphere, such as ours, it doesn't. Whatever impact it could have was lost in the far more powerful water vapor signal. This belief that CO2 is the "control knob" is silly based on the observed scientific record.

You keep saying CO2 doesn't matter, at all.

I have no problem with admitting it is a small effect. I have said so myself on many occasions. I have also scoffed at the idea that CO2 is the control knob for climate.

Water is a much bigger player. With more mechanisms, and much great uncertainties. So what? How does that negate the effect of CO2?

Surface temperature is controlled by a myriad of factors and the interaction between them. Why do you think a simple and straight forward influence like CO2 should be removed? Shouldn't we be looking for more factors and interactions, rather than ignore one of the ones we know and understand to a fair degree?

Because we know that the oceans are the heat engines of the world and that long wave IR can't affect oceanic heat in the slightest. That's why.

 

[IanC]

Why the strawman?

You are a smart and educated man. Is it possible that you honestly don't understand my position after the hundreds of times that I have said that only the Sun heats the Earth surface? In dozens of ways?

Entropy (decay, increasing disorder) would be a lot easier for people to understand if we had a common word for the opposite (building up, increasing order). That is what makes life forms so amazing, they defy entropy at least for a short time.

Thermodynamics can be broken down into two types of processes. Passive, where every particle is trying to shed energy, every system is trying to shed heat in the most efficient way. And active, where an outside power source is adding energy and reversing entropy. There is of course a fuzzy boundary between the two. Is it new energy or just a redistribution of energy.

Ultimately, the Sun is our only power source (nuclear power on earth is just a remnant of a different star). Because the Earth is a spinning sphere it warms up roughly half the time and cools half the time. The surface is always passively trying to shed heat but it is only obvious to us when the Sun is not actively heating it. The surface is actually expelling more energy during the daylight heating phase, with a lag of course due to thermal inertia.

CO2 only effects the passive shedding of energy. It DOES NOT actively heat the surface, it reduces the surface passive cooling. There is no creation of extra energy, there is only a change in the distribution that leads to an accumulation energy in the atmosphere near the surface. This energy has just been 'borrowed' from space by not expelling it. Once equilibrium is again reached, the solar input matches terrestrial output again. The Earth's surface can have a wide range of average temperatures, and every one of them can be at equilibrium, it just depends on the conditions.

I think the total influence of CO2 from zero ppm to 400 ppm is probably about 8C. Extra CO2 has rapidly diminishing effect, but it still has an affect.

HOW does the CO2 have an effect? I agree that when dealing with an exoatmosphere, CO2 would have an effect, but in our atmosphere I have seen no evidence that it does.

Sorry, I don't get your point. Space doesn't care whether it goes without the temporarily retarded energy. It makes no difference.

The mean free path for 15 micron radiation is two metres. We take surface temperature readings at 1.5 metres. Much of the surface radiated 15 micron has already been absorbed by that point. All of it by 10 metres. All of that surface energy has been immediately absorbed and converted to other forms of atmospheric energy. It then bounces around until much farther up where it finally starts escaping but from a cooler temperature. Absorption is not controlled by temperature but emission is. The difference between the amount that goes in at the bottom, and comes out at the top is the amount of energy that accumulates until it finds a new path out of the system.

Adding more CO2 shortens the mean free path. Which puts that energy into a smaller volume of air. And while the energy does find a different pathway out, there must be some change of temperature, or something, because the energy wasn't taking that path before.

My point is that in the complete absence of water vapor CO2 does indeed exert some power to warm. But in a dense water vapor atmosphere, such as ours, it doesn't. Whatever impact it could have was lost in the far more powerful water vapor signal. This belief that CO2 is the "control knob" is silly based on the observed scientific record.

You keep saying CO2 doesn't matter, at all.

I have no problem with admitting it is a small effect. I have said so myself on many occasions. I have also scoffed at the idea that CO2 is the control knob for climate.

Water is a much bigger player. With more mechanisms, and much great uncertainties. So what? How does that negate the effect of CO2?

Surface temperature is controlled by a myriad of factors and the interaction between them. Why do you think a simple and straight forward influence like CO2 should be removed? Shouldn't we be looking for more factors and interactions, rather than ignore one of the ones we know and understand to a fair degree?

Because we know that the oceans are the heat engines of the world and that long wave IR can't affect oceanic heat in the slightest. That's why.

What a load of self serving drivel.

Liquid water is both a good absorber and emitter of IR. Any incoming IR is absorbed to extinction within the first few centimetres.(edit. Millimetres, most of it in less than that)

Luckily water is not such a good absorber of visible and UV light. If it was, the top skin of the ocean would just boil off during daytime. As it is, much of the energy is transmitted deeper, and it is all absorbed sooner or later. The atmosphere works differently. Any surface radiation not absorbed close to the surface gets more and more likely to be lost to space.

 

[Billy_Bob]

HOW does the CO2 have an effect? I agree that when dealing with an exoatmosphere, CO2 would have an effect, but in our atmosphere I have seen no evidence that it does.

Sorry, I don't get your point. Space doesn't care whether it goes without the temporarily retarded energy. It makes no difference.

The mean free path for 15 micron radiation is two metres. We take surface temperature readings at 1.5 metres. Much of the surface radiated 15 micron has already been absorbed by that point. All of it by 10 metres. All of that surface energy has been immediately absorbed and converted to other forms of atmospheric energy. It then bounces around until much farther up where it finally starts escaping but from a cooler temperature. Absorption is not controlled by temperature but emission is. The difference between the amount that goes in at the bottom, and comes out at the top is the amount of energy that accumulates until it finds a new path out of the system.

Adding more CO2 shortens the mean free path. Which puts that energy into a smaller volume of air. And while the energy does find a different pathway out, there must be some change of temperature, or something, because the energy wasn't taking that path before.

My point is that in the complete absence of water vapor CO2 does indeed exert some power to warm. But in a dense water vapor atmosphere, such as ours, it doesn't. Whatever impact it could have was lost in the far more powerful water vapor signal. This belief that CO2 is the "control knob" is silly based on the observed scientific record.

You keep saying CO2 doesn't matter, at all.

I have no problem with admitting it is a small effect. I have said so myself on many occasions. I have also scoffed at the idea that CO2 is the control knob for climate.

Water is a much bigger player. With more mechanisms, and much great uncertainties. So what? How does that negate the effect of CO2?

Surface temperature is controlled by a myriad of factors and the interaction between them. Why do you think a simple and straight forward influence like CO2 should be removed? Shouldn't we be looking for more factors and interactions, rather than ignore one of the ones we know and understand to a fair degree?

Because we know that the oceans are the heat engines of the world and that long wave IR can't affect oceanic heat in the slightest. That's why.

What a load of self serving drivel.

Liquid water is both a good absorber and emitter of IR. Any incoming IR is absorbed to extinction within the first few centimetres.(edit. Millimetres, most of it in less than that)

Luckily water is not such a good absorber of visible and UV light. If it was, the top skin of the ocean would just boil off during daytime. As it is, much of the energy is transmitted deeper, and it is all absorbed sooner or later. The atmosphere works differently. Any surface radiation not absorbed close to the surface gets more and more likely to be lost to space.

Wrong:

This is a provable fallacy. IR in the 12-20um bands can not go beyond the skin layer (10 microns) of the water. It results in skin tension evaporation, which cools much more than the energy from LWIR can infuse.

12. Light

 

[westwall]

HOW does the CO2 have an effect? I agree that when dealing with an exoatmosphere, CO2 would have an effect, but in our atmosphere I have seen no evidence that it does.

Sorry, I don't get your point. Space doesn't care whether it goes without the temporarily retarded energy. It makes no difference.

The mean free path for 15 micron radiation is two metres. We take surface temperature readings at 1.5 metres. Much of the surface radiated 15 micron has already been absorbed by that point. All of it by 10 metres. All of that surface energy has been immediately absorbed and converted to other forms of atmospheric energy. It then bounces around until much farther up where it finally starts escaping but from a cooler temperature. Absorption is not controlled by temperature but emission is. The difference between the amount that goes in at the bottom, and comes out at the top is the amount of energy that accumulates until it finds a new path out of the system.

Adding more CO2 shortens the mean free path. Which puts that energy into a smaller volume of air. And while the energy does find a different pathway out, there must be some change of temperature, or something, because the energy wasn't taking that path before.

My point is that in the complete absence of water vapor CO2 does indeed exert some power to warm. But in a dense water vapor atmosphere, such as ours, it doesn't. Whatever impact it could have was lost in the far more powerful water vapor signal. This belief that CO2 is the "control knob" is silly based on the observed scientific record.

You keep saying CO2 doesn't matter, at all.

I have no problem with admitting it is a small effect. I have said so myself on many occasions. I have also scoffed at the idea that CO2 is the control knob for climate.

Water is a much bigger player. With more mechanisms, and much great uncertainties. So what? How does that negate the effect of CO2?

Surface temperature is controlled by a myriad of factors and the interaction between them. Why do you think a simple and straight forward influence like CO2 should be removed? Shouldn't we be looking for more factors and interactions, rather than ignore one of the ones we know and understand to a fair degree?

Because we know that the oceans are the heat engines of the world and that long wave IR can't affect oceanic heat in the slightest. That's why.

What a load of self serving drivel.

Liquid water is both a good absorber and emitter of IR. Any incoming IR is absorbed to extinction within the first few centimetres.(edit. Millimetres, most of it in less than that)

Luckily water is not such a good absorber of visible and UV light. If it was, the top skin of the ocean would just boil off during daytime. As it is, much of the energy is transmitted deeper, and it is all absorbed sooner or later. The atmosphere works differently. Any surface radiation not absorbed close to the surface gets more and more likely to be lost to space.

You are incorrect Ian. Long Wave IR can not penetrate even one millimeter into water. 10 or so microns is the limit. There is no possible way that heat from Long Wave IR can transfer to water.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sorry, I don't get your point. Space doesn't care whether it goes without the temporarily retarded energy. It makes no difference.

The mean free path for 15 micron radiation is two metres. We take surface temperature readings at 1.5 metres. Much of the surface radiated 15 micron has already been absorbed by that point. All of it by 10 metres. All of that surface energy has been immediately absorbed and converted to other forms of atmospheric energy. It then bounces around until much farther up where it finally starts escaping but from a cooler temperature. Absorption is not controlled by temperature but emission is. The difference between the amount that goes in at the bottom, and comes out at the top is the amount of energy that accumulates until it finds a new path out of the system.

Adding more CO2 shortens the mean free path. Which puts that energy into a smaller volume of air. And while the energy does find a different pathway out, there must be some change of temperature, or something, because the energy wasn't taking that path before.

My point is that in the complete absence of water vapor CO2 does indeed exert some power to warm. But in a dense water vapor atmosphere, such as ours, it doesn't. Whatever impact it could have was lost in the far more powerful water vapor signal. This belief that CO2 is the "control knob" is silly based on the observed scientific record.

You keep saying CO2 doesn't matter, at all.

I have no problem with admitting it is a small effect. I have said so myself on many occasions. I have also scoffed at the idea that CO2 is the control knob for climate.

Water is a much bigger player. With more mechanisms, and much great uncertainties. So what? How does that negate the effect of CO2?

Surface temperature is controlled by a myriad of factors and the interaction between them. Why do you think a simple and straight forward influence like CO2 should be removed? Shouldn't we be looking for more factors and interactions, rather than ignore one of the ones we know and understand to a fair degree?

Because we know that the oceans are the heat engines of the world and that long wave IR can't affect oceanic heat in the slightest. That's why.

What a load of self serving drivel.

Liquid water is both a good absorber and emitter of IR. Any incoming IR is absorbed to extinction within the first few centimetres.(edit. Millimetres, most of it in less than that)

Luckily water is not such a good absorber of visible and UV light. If it was, the top skin of the ocean would just boil off during daytime. As it is, much of the energy is transmitted deeper, and it is all absorbed sooner or later. The atmosphere works differently. Any surface radiation not absorbed close to the surface gets more and more likely to be lost to space.

You are incorrect Ian. Long Wave IR can not penetrate even one millimeter into water. 10 or so microns is the limit. There is no possible way that heat from Long Wave IR can transfer to water.

Anything above 2.4µ cant penetrate beyond the skin layer.. I'm not sure were hes getting his info.

 

[IanC]

Sorry, I don't get your point. Space doesn't care whether it goes without the temporarily retarded energy. It makes no difference.

The mean free path for 15 micron radiation is two metres. We take surface temperature readings at 1.5 metres. Much of the surface radiated 15 micron has already been absorbed by that point. All of it by 10 metres. All of that surface energy has been immediately absorbed and converted to other forms of atmospheric energy. It then bounces around until much farther up where it finally starts escaping but from a cooler temperature. Absorption is not controlled by temperature but emission is. The difference between the amount that goes in at the bottom, and comes out at the top is the amount of energy that accumulates until it finds a new path out of the system.

Adding more CO2 shortens the mean free path. Which puts that energy into a smaller volume of air. And while the energy does find a different pathway out, there must be some change of temperature, or something, because the energy wasn't taking that path before.

My point is that in the complete absence of water vapor CO2 does indeed exert some power to warm. But in a dense water vapor atmosphere, such as ours, it doesn't. Whatever impact it could have was lost in the far more powerful water vapor signal. This belief that CO2 is the "control knob" is silly based on the observed scientific record.

You keep saying CO2 doesn't matter, at all.

I have no problem with admitting it is a small effect. I have said so myself on many occasions. I have also scoffed at the idea that CO2 is the control knob for climate.

Water is a much bigger player. With more mechanisms, and much great uncertainties. So what? How does that negate the effect of CO2?

Surface temperature is controlled by a myriad of factors and the interaction between them. Why do you think a simple and straight forward influence like CO2 should be removed? Shouldn't we be looking for more factors and interactions, rather than ignore one of the ones we know and understand to a fair degree?

Because we know that the oceans are the heat engines of the world and that long wave IR can't affect oceanic heat in the slightest. That's why.

What a load of self serving drivel.

Liquid water is both a good absorber and emitter of IR. Any incoming IR is absorbed to extinction within the first few centimetres.(edit. Millimetres, most of it in less than that)

Luckily water is not such a good absorber of visible and UV light. If it was, the top skin of the ocean would just boil off during daytime. As it is, much of the energy is transmitted deeper, and it is all absorbed sooner or later. The atmosphere works differently. Any surface radiation not absorbed close to the surface gets more and more likely to be lost to space.

Wrong:

This is a provable fallacy. IR in the 12-20um bands can not go beyond the skin layer (10 microns) of the water. It results in skin tension evaporation, which cools much more than the energy from LWIR can infuse.

12. Light

EMR can do three things when it encounters matter. Be absorbed, be transmitted or be reflected.

Which are you choosing as the predominant mode for IR?

We know visible light can do all three. It is weakly absorbed but there is no other way out.

IR is not transmitted, so that leaves absorption or reflection.

The emissivity of water is quite high, which means it emits and absorbs IR well.

As far as I can tell, you are saying that IR only adds energy at the surface, where it can easily find a path out again. Is that the jist of it?

 

[westwall]

My point is that in the complete absence of water vapor CO2 does indeed exert some power to warm. But in a dense water vapor atmosphere, such as ours, it doesn't. Whatever impact it could have was lost in the far more powerful water vapor signal. This belief that CO2 is the "control knob" is silly based on the observed scientific record.

You keep saying CO2 doesn't matter, at all.

I have no problem with admitting it is a small effect. I have said so myself on many occasions. I have also scoffed at the idea that CO2 is the control knob for climate.

Water is a much bigger player. With more mechanisms, and much great uncertainties. So what? How does that negate the effect of CO2?

Surface temperature is controlled by a myriad of factors and the interaction between them. Why do you think a simple and straight forward influence like CO2 should be removed? Shouldn't we be looking for more factors and interactions, rather than ignore one of the ones we know and understand to a fair degree?

Because we know that the oceans are the heat engines of the world and that long wave IR can't affect oceanic heat in the slightest. That's why.

What a load of self serving drivel.

Liquid water is both a good absorber and emitter of IR. Any incoming IR is absorbed to extinction within the first few centimetres.(edit. Millimetres, most of it in less than that)

Luckily water is not such a good absorber of visible and UV light. If it was, the top skin of the ocean would just boil off during daytime. As it is, much of the energy is transmitted deeper, and it is all absorbed sooner or later. The atmosphere works differently. Any surface radiation not absorbed close to the surface gets more and more likely to be lost to space.

Wrong:

This is a provable fallacy. IR in the 12-20um bands can not go beyond the skin layer (10 microns) of the water. It results in skin tension evaporation, which cools much more than the energy from LWIR can infuse.

12. Light

EMR can do three things when it encounters matter. Be absorbed, be transmitted or be reflected.

Which are you choosing as the predominant mode for IR?

We know visible light can do all three. It is weakly absorbed but there is no other way out.

IR is not transmitted, so that leaves absorption or reflection.

The emissivity of water is quite high, which means it emits and absorbs IR well.

As far as I can tell, you are saying that IR only adds energy at the surface, where it can easily find a path out again. Is that the jist of it?

He explained it to you already. The IR instantly evaporates the skin of the water creating a boundary it can't penetrate. This is very well known. Thus there is no energy transfer beyond the skin of the water, and as heat rises, it is immediately reflected back into the atmosphere. The ocean heat comes from UV radiation that penetrates 500-550 meters deep and has been doing so for the last 4 billion years or so.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You keep saying CO2 doesn't matter, at all.

I have no problem with admitting it is a small effect. I have said so myself on many occasions. I have also scoffed at the idea that CO2 is the control knob for climate.

Water is a much bigger player. With more mechanisms, and much great uncertainties. So what? How does that negate the effect of CO2?

Surface temperature is controlled by a myriad of factors and the interaction between them. Why do you think a simple and straight forward influence like CO2 should be removed? Shouldn't we be looking for more factors and interactions, rather than ignore one of the ones we know and understand to a fair degree?

Because we know that the oceans are the heat engines of the world and that long wave IR can't affect oceanic heat in the slightest. That's why.

What a load of self serving drivel.

Liquid water is both a good absorber and emitter of IR. Any incoming IR is absorbed to extinction within the first few centimetres.(edit. Millimetres, most of it in less than that)

Luckily water is not such a good absorber of visible and UV light. If it was, the top skin of the ocean would just boil off during daytime. As it is, much of the energy is transmitted deeper, and it is all absorbed sooner or later. The atmosphere works differently. Any surface radiation not absorbed close to the surface gets more and more likely to be lost to space.

Wrong:

This is a provable fallacy. IR in the 12-20um bands can not go beyond the skin layer (10 microns) of the water. It results in skin tension evaporation, which cools much more than the energy from LWIR can infuse.

12. Light

EMR can do three things when it encounters matter. Be absorbed, be transmitted or be reflected.

Which are you choosing as the predominant mode for IR?

We know visible light can do all three. It is weakly absorbed but there is no other way out.

IR is not transmitted, so that leaves absorption or reflection.

The emissivity of water is quite high, which means it emits and absorbs IR well.

As far as I can tell, you are saying that IR only adds energy at the surface, where it can easily find a path out again. Is that the jist of it?

He explained it to you already. The IR instantly evaporates the skin of the water creating a boundary it can't penetrate. This is very well known. Thus there is no energy transfer beyond the skin of the water, and as heat rises, it is immediately reflected back into the atmosphere. The ocean heat comes from UV radiation that penetrates 500-550 meters deep and has been doing so for the last 4 billion years or so.

The evaporation cools the molecules and the LWIR that is released is above 20µ due to the temperature of the emitting molecules. Thus there is no effect of warming that can be seen at the surface as the energy is lost to space. IE; No hot spot is created.

 

[IanC]

He explained it to you already. The IR instantly evaporates the skin of the water creating a boundary it can't penetrate. This is very well known. Thus there is no energy transfer beyond the skin of the water, and as heat rises, it is immediately reflected back into the atmosphere. The ocean heat comes from UV radiation that penetrates 500-550 meters deep and has been doing so for the last 4 billion years or so.

Visible and UV light aren't transmitted into a rock lying in the sunshine but it still warms up.

Perhaps you are saying that incoming IR slows the transfer of heat from below the skin, while keeping the same rate of evaporation.

Well, that is what I have been saying all along. The atmosphere doesn't directly heat the surface, it only reduces the loss of heat.

Do you really not understand the concept?

 

[IanC]

Because we know that the oceans are the heat engines of the world and that long wave IR can't affect oceanic heat in the slightest. That's why.

What a load of self serving drivel.

Liquid water is both a good absorber and emitter of IR. Any incoming IR is absorbed to extinction within the first few centimetres.(edit. Millimetres, most of it in less than that)

Luckily water is not such a good absorber of visible and UV light. If it was, the top skin of the ocean would just boil off during daytime. As it is, much of the energy is transmitted deeper, and it is all absorbed sooner or later. The atmosphere works differently. Any surface radiation not absorbed close to the surface gets more and more likely to be lost to space.

Wrong:

This is a provable fallacy. IR in the 12-20um bands can not go beyond the skin layer (10 microns) of the water. It results in skin tension evaporation, which cools much more than the energy from LWIR can infuse.

12. Light

EMR can do three things when it encounters matter. Be absorbed, be transmitted or be reflected.

Which are you choosing as the predominant mode for IR?

We know visible light can do all three. It is weakly absorbed but there is no other way out.

IR is not transmitted, so that leaves absorption or reflection.

The emissivity of water is quite high, which means it emits and absorbs IR well.

As far as I can tell, you are saying that IR only adds energy at the surface, where it can easily find a path out again. Is that the jist of it?

He explained it to you already. The IR instantly evaporates the skin of the water creating a boundary it can't penetrate. This is very well known. Thus there is no energy transfer beyond the skin of the water, and as heat rises, it is immediately reflected back into the atmosphere. The ocean heat comes from UV radiation that penetrates 500-550 meters deep and has been doing so for the last 4 billion years or so.

The evaporation cools the molecules and the LWIR that is released is above 20µ due to the temperature of the emitting molecules. Thus there is no effect of warming that can be seen at the surface as the energy is lost to space. IE; No hot spot is created.

What a load of nonsensical Cliff Clavin bullshit.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What a load of self serving drivel.

Liquid water is both a good absorber and emitter of IR. Any incoming IR is absorbed to extinction within the first few centimetres.(edit. Millimetres, most of it in less than that)

Luckily water is not such a good absorber of visible and UV light. If it was, the top skin of the ocean would just boil off during daytime. As it is, much of the energy is transmitted deeper, and it is all absorbed sooner or later. The atmosphere works differently. Any surface radiation not absorbed close to the surface gets more and more likely to be lost to space.

Wrong:

This is a provable fallacy. IR in the 12-20um bands can not go beyond the skin layer (10 microns) of the water. It results in skin tension evaporation, which cools much more than the energy from LWIR can infuse.

12. Light

EMR can do three things when it encounters matter. Be absorbed, be transmitted or be reflected.

Which are you choosing as the predominant mode for IR?

We know visible light can do all three. It is weakly absorbed but there is no other way out.

IR is not transmitted, so that leaves absorption or reflection.

The emissivity of water is quite high, which means it emits and absorbs IR well.

As far as I can tell, you are saying that IR only adds energy at the surface, where it can easily find a path out again. Is that the jist of it?

He explained it to you already. The IR instantly evaporates the skin of the water creating a boundary it can't penetrate. This is very well known. Thus there is no energy transfer beyond the skin of the water, and as heat rises, it is immediately reflected back into the atmosphere. The ocean heat comes from UV radiation that penetrates 500-550 meters deep and has been doing so for the last 4 billion years or so.

The evaporation cools the molecules and the LWIR that is released is above 20µ due to the temperature of the emitting molecules. Thus there is no effect of warming that can be seen at the surface as the energy is lost to space. IE; No hot spot is created.

What a load of nonsensical Cliff Clavin bullshit.

Until you can come up with an empirically observed and quantifiable explanation I will stay with known Physics. Physics tells me that the temperature of the emitter, of the LWIR energy, determines the wavelength of the emission. This is why cooling water will always emit at greater wavelengths than what it absorbed. ALWAYS!

Evaporating water IS COOLING. Therefore the wavelength of the energy emitted is congruent to that temperature. This is a well documented FACT from empirically observed repeatable experiment. This is also why there is not a redundant loop of heat retention. NO HOT SPOT!

 

[IanC]

Until you can come up with an empirically observed and quantifiable explanation I will stay with known Physics. Physics tells me that the temperature of the emitter, of the LWIR energy, determines the wavelength of the emission. This is why cooling water will always emit at greater wavelengths than what it absorbed. ALWAYS!

Sorry, I didn't find a Planck curve for water so I'll just settle for this one comparing two temperatures 20 degrees apart.

As you can see they both have nearly identical ranges, with the warmer one being able to produce a small amount of slightly more energetic radiation. And more radiation in the whole range. The peak power band is also slightly shifted to more energetic wavelengths.

But for most of the range there is a one-to-one comparison, with the area left over representing the amount of power available to warm the cooler object.

There are no large changes for a 20C difference, the amount of change for 1C gap would be much smaller. Your claim of noticable changes in the quality and quantity or radiation between the ocean skin and the water lying immediately below it appears to be bullshit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oddly enough, I think that I will go along with the real scientists, Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callender, and Hansen, rather than the fakes on this board claiming to be Phd Geologists and Atmospheric Physicists. LOL

 

[IanC]

Evaporating water IS COOLING. Therefore the wavelength of the energy emitted is congruent to that temperature. This is a well documented FACT from empirically observed repeatable experiment. This is also why there is not a redundant loop of heat retention. NO HOT SPOT!

Evaporation is powered by the kinetic energy available in the water and is not directly related to radiation. The molecules that randomly achieve enough speed to break through the surface tension escape, taking their energy with them. Obviously the remaining molecules will have less average kinetic energy than before the 'hot' ones left.

I have no idea what you mean by redundant heat retention loop. Likely it is just more of your bullshit.

 

[westwall]

Until you can come up with an empirically observed and quantifiable explanation I will stay with known Physics. Physics tells me that the temperature of the emitter, of the LWIR energy, determines the wavelength of the emission. This is why cooling water will always emit at greater wavelengths than what it absorbed. ALWAYS!

Sorry, I didn't find a Planck curve for water so I'll just settle for this one comparing two temperatures 20 degrees apart.

As you can see they both have nearly identical ranges, with the warmer one being able to produce a small amount of slightly more energetic radiation. And more radiation in the whole range. The peak power band is also slightly shifted to more energetic wavelengths.

But for most of the range there is a one-to-one comparison, with the area left over representing the amount of power available to warm the cooler object.

There are no large changes for a 20C difference, the amount of change for 1C gap would be much smaller. Your claim of noticable changes in the quality and quantity or radiation between the ocean skin and the water lying immediately below it appears to be bullshit.

 

[IanC]

Until you can come up with an empirically observed and quantifiable explanation I will stay with known Physics. Physics tells me that the temperature of the emitter, of the LWIR energy, determines the wavelength of the emission. This is why cooling water will always emit at greater wavelengths than what it absorbed. ALWAYS!

Sorry, I didn't find a Planck curve for water so I'll just settle for this one comparing two temperatures 20 degrees apart.

As you can see they both have nearly identical ranges, with the warmer one being able to produce a small amount of slightly more energetic radiation. And more radiation in the whole range. The peak power band is also slightly shifted to more energetic wavelengths.

But for most of the range there is a one-to-one comparison, with the area left over representing the amount of power available to warm the cooler object.

There are no large changes for a 20C difference, the amount of change for 1C gap would be much smaller. Your claim of noticable changes in the quality and quantity or radiation between the ocean skin and the water lying immediately below it appears to be bullshit.

Thanks for that. Because absorption equals emission the righthand part of that graph would be similar to the Planck graph for emission at normal terrestrial temperatures. It also backs up my claim that water is a poor absorber of visible light. The portion above visible light involves mechanisms other than vibrational modes and rotation, beyond the scope of IR comparisons.

Added to show the graph lost in the quote block.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evaporating water IS COOLING. Therefore the wavelength of the energy emitted is congruent to that temperature. This is a well documented FACT from empirically observed repeatable experiment. This is also why there is not a redundant loop of heat retention. NO HOT SPOT!

Evaporation is powered by the kinetic energy available in the water and is not directly related to radiation. The molecules that randomly achieve enough speed to break through the surface tension escape, taking their energy with them. Obviously the remaining molecules will have less average kinetic energy than before the 'hot' ones left.

I have no idea what you mean by redundant heat retention loop. Likely it is just more of your bullshit.

Water absorption changes EM energy into kinetic energy as evidenced by the internal motion of the molecule (vibration). Water does this as the energy resides for .5 to 6 seconds and CO2 does not as the energy resides for less than 0.01 nanoseconds. The long residual time is what allows the water molecules to cool and the resulting emission at a much longer bandwidth outside that which CO2 can affect.

The thermal/chemical process of evaporation expends energy and then releases heat as LWIR >20um when the water re-nucleates into a liquid at a much cooler temperature.

example:

CO2 absorbs energy at 16um. Short residency does not allow cooling of the molecule or energy consumption. Energy is re-emitted at the same wave length unattenuated.

H20 absorbs energy in the 16um. Long residency allows molecular vibration and heating. Molecule changes form due to heat application and ENERGY CONSUMPTION. As it rises it cools rapidly in its vapor form to the point of re-nucleation where it releases the reduced energy at a lower temperature.(moderate to heavily attenuated)

Westwall's image is of absorption not correlated with emission. I does not indicate what happens after absorption or the changes in emission.

Even Ian admits there is a 5-7um shift in spectral output as a molecule cools. Water is no exception. The graph below is of CO2 with a 20deg K drop. Water is far more pronounced.

The study below is for imaging techniques and what is causing the problems. It gives huge insight into what water vapor does in our atmosphere.

ABSTRACT
This study investigates small aerosol particles as a source of
an imaging phenomenon observed in thermal remote sensing
data. The phenomenon is characterized by degraded atmospheric
transmissions in the thermal infrared while high transmissions
(clear conditions) are observed in the visible wavelength
region. This atmospheric anomaly has been linked to
conditions of high environmental humidity. A hypothesis attributes
the cause of this phenomenon to small hygroscopic
particles (under the 200 nm diameter) which weakly scatter in
the visible region, but may have (for high particle concentrations)
sufficient absorption effects in the Longwave Infrared
(LWIR).
We describe an experiment to test this hypothesis. The
method takes a simple, but novel approach of using a suite
of cameras to image an aerosol stream from a Harvard Ultrafine
Concentrated Ambient Particle System (HUCAPS). Used
primarily for toxicology studies of environmental aerosols,
the HUCAPS has the ability to control and vary properties of
humidity, temperature, particle size distribution, and number
density of aerosol particle stream concentrated by this system.
This gives a unique opportunity to image a controlled and well
characterized plume of very fine aerosol particles and determine
if any significant optical effects can be observed in the
LWIR region.
Index Terms— Aerosol, LWIR , Humidity, MODTRAN,
HUCAPS, Mie, Atmospheric Transmission

www.cis.rit.edu/~cnspci/references/raqueno2008.pdf