Energy Budgets Without Backradiation

[SSDD]

Whatever. I thought you would like to discuss it but obviously you don't. Sorry I brought it up.

Asking what observation you base your calculations on is a reasonable question. The fact that there are none should give you pause.

 

[SSDD]

Doubling the amount of CO2 is calculated to add 1C but only if everything else remains the same. therefore 100ppm has a different effect depending on the initial value. Warmers multiply that effect by positve feedbacks. Skeptics do not.

One thing I have never seen is what was the zero point for atmospheric CO2? Logically it should be zero CO2 in the atmosphere and then the GHG effect grows from there. Thus if one carries it to its conclusion (and the fact that it is KNOWN that the effect is logarithmic) then we arrive at the realization that all of the measurable CO2 GHG effect has already occurred.

we are into the ninth doubling. The greenhouse effect is about 33C. CO2's portion is estimated at up to 25%. So it could be in the ballpark.

I'm not understanding you. You just said that you don't accept the greenhouse hypothesis as it stands and that you believe pressure plays a large part in determining the temp on a planet and that you believe CO2 has "some" effect in the boundaries and now you are giving it credit for the full claimed 33C of the greenhouse hypothesis.

If you are giving CO2 credit for 33C where do pressure and the ideal gas law fit in?

 

[SSDD]

Ian, do you believe that positive feedbacks will not take place?

I am pretty certain that physical constraints preclude any runaway warming.

Knowing that atmospheric CO2 has been in excess of 7000ppm even acknowledging the possibility of a "runaway" effect is rediculous

 

[Abraham3]

Ian, do you believe that positive feedbacks will not take place?

I am pretty certain that physical constraints preclude any runaway warming.

That's not what I asked you. Do you believe that we warming from the greenhouse effect working directly on the GHG increases caused by human activities will produce no positive feedbacks?

 

[IanC]

One thing I have never seen is what was the zero point for atmospheric CO2? Logically it should be zero CO2 in the atmosphere and then the GHG effect grows from there. Thus if one carries it to its conclusion (and the fact that it is KNOWN that the effect is logarithmic) then we arrive at the realization that all of the measurable CO2 GHG effect has already occurred.

we are into the ninth doubling. The greenhouse effect is about 33C. CO2's portion is estimated at up to 25%. So it could be in the ballpark.

I'm not understanding you. You just said that you don't accept the greenhouse hypothesis as it stands and that you believe pressure plays a large part in determining the temp on a planet and that you believe CO2 has "some" effect in the boundaries and now you are giving it credit for the full claimed 33C of the greenhouse hypothesis.

If you are giving CO2 credit for 33C where do pressure and the ideal gas law fit in?

You have tunnel vision and a distinct aversion to understanding what people say. I said that CO2 has doubled 8.x times. One quarter of 33C is 8.xC. I would give you full marks for asking what is special about parts per million instead of some other unit but instead you went full stupid and said I attributed everything to Co2.

Any composition of atmosphere will warm the surface. The denser it is, the warmer the surface. The actual composition will affect the radiative properties.which will increase or decrease the warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Whatever. I thought you would like to discuss it but obviously you don't. Sorry I brought it up.

Asking what observation you base your calculations on is a reasonable question. The fact that there are none should give you pause.

It's like asking for the CO2/temperature effect. The fact that I hear crickets every time i ask means you're scamming me.

The relationship between CO2 and temperature is readily testable in a lab. Maybe some of the very last AGW money can go toward that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

we are into the ninth doubling. The greenhouse effect is about 33C. CO2's portion is estimated at up to 25%. So it could be in the ballpark.

I'm not understanding you. You just said that you don't accept the greenhouse hypothesis as it stands and that you believe pressure plays a large part in determining the temp on a planet and that you believe CO2 has "some" effect in the boundaries and now you are giving it credit for the full claimed 33C of the greenhouse hypothesis.

If you are giving CO2 credit for 33C where do pressure and the ideal gas law fit in?

You have tunnel vision and a distinct aversion to understanding what people say. I said that CO2 has doubled 8.x times. One quarter of 33C is 8.xC. I would give you full marks for asking what is special about parts per million instead of some other unit but instead you went full stupid and said I attributed everything to Co2.

Any composition of atmosphere will warm the surface. The denser it is, the warmer the surface. The actual composition will affect the radiative properties.which will increase or decrease the warming.

You can show in a lab how Earth atmosphere devoid of CO2 is 8 degrees cooler than one with 400PPM?

 

[SSDD]

Any composition of atmosphere will warm the surface. The denser it is, the warmer the surface. The actual composition will affect the radiative properties.which will increase or decrease the warming.

OK...so you are giving the full 33C warming to the greenhouse effect. Again, how much warming do you believe is due to pressure?

And again, when radiative gasses are added to the atmosphere, they increase its ability to radiatively cool itself. I am not sure why you think an atmosphere of gasses that are opaque to LW would be more efficient at cooling than radiative gasses.

 

[SSDD]

You can show in a lab how Earth atmosphere devoid of CO2 is 8 degrees cooler than one with 400PPM?

If it were true, something like it could be shown in a lab.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Doubling the amount of CO2 is calculated to add 1C but only if everything else remains the same. therefore 100ppm has a different effect depending on the initial value. Warmers multiply that effect by positve feedbacks. Skeptics do not.

In the past, a 1C increase was followed be a doubling of CO2?

This is the first time a species has pulled out buried carbon and burned it to produce CO2. Its not like you can compare it to the past.

So modern CO2 is different?

 

[IanC]

Ian, do you believe that positive feedbacks will not take place?

I am pretty certain that physical constraints preclude any runaway warming.

That's not what I asked you. Do you believe that we warming from the greenhouse effect working directly on the GHG increases caused by human activities will produce no positive feedbacks?

while there can be small positive feedbacks within a larger system the overall effect is always a negative feedback. We would have tipped long ago otherwise.

CO2 is more of a symtom than a cause.

The Earth is a complex system of heatsinks and equilibriums. Extra available energy at the surface from backradiation predominately goes into powering the heat pump of evaporation and clouds to pass the bottleneck at the surface. The warmer it gets the less it can warm. Oceans have a strict Max temp.

 

[IanC]

I'm not understanding you. You just said that you don't accept the greenhouse hypothesis as it stands and that you believe pressure plays a large part in determining the temp on a planet and that you believe CO2 has "some" effect in the boundaries and now you are giving it credit for the full claimed 33C of the greenhouse hypothesis.

If you are giving CO2 credit for 33C where do pressure and the ideal gas law fit in?

You have tunnel vision and a distinct aversion to understanding what people say. I said that CO2 has doubled 8.x times. One quarter of 33C is 8.xC. I would give you full marks for asking what is special about parts per million instead of some other unit but instead you went full stupid and said I attributed everything to Co2.

Any composition of atmosphere will warm the surface. The denser it is, the warmer the surface. The actual composition will affect the radiative properties.which will increase or decrease the warming.

You can show in a lab how Earth atmosphere devoid of CO2 is 8 degrees cooler than one with 400PPM?

Cooler? YES! The exact amount depend on what downhill changes happen from removing CO2. Life, if it existed would certainly be different.

Right now roughly 8% of outgoing radiation is dispersed by CO2. If it directly exited to space we would be cooler.

 

[IanC]

Whatever. I thought you would like to discuss it but obviously you don't. Sorry I brought it up.

Asking what observation you base your calculations on is a reasonable question. The fact that there are none should give you pause.

It's like asking for the CO2/temperature effect. The fact that I hear crickets every time i ask means you're scamming me.

The relationship between CO2 and temperature is readily testable in a lab. Maybe some of the very last AGW money can go toward that?

We can certainly measure how CO2 affects transmission of radiation. Determining that effect on the Earth's surface is a whole different level of complexity.

 

[Abraham3]

But that complexity does not refute what you found in the lab. It simply makes it an element in a complex process. And all the other elements in that process (and even combinations thereof) can be studied in the lab as well. You seem to think that real world climate processes are inherently and unassailably unknowable. That is not the case. You're just using the claim as a defense mechanism; just like SSDD's or Westwall's claim that because evidence shows some value to range between +1,000 and +10,000, the size of the uncertainty means we cannot claim the value is non-zero.

 

[SSDD]

Cooler? YES! The exact amount depend on what downhill changes happen from removing CO2. Life, if it existed would certainly be different.

First you must prove that adding CO2 caused an increase before you can legitimately claim that removing it would cause cooling. To date, that has not been proven in any real way so you are working from a place of assumption, not real information.

 

[SSDD]

But that complexity does not refute what you found in the lab. It simply makes it an element in a complex process. And all the other elements in that process (and even combinations thereof) can be studied in the lab as well. You seem to think that real world climate processes are inherently and unassailably unknowable. That is not the case. You're just using the claim as a defense mechanism; just like SSDD's or Westwall's claim that because evidence shows some value to range between +1,000 and +10,000, the size of the uncertainty means we cannot claim the value is non-zero.

So what falsifies the greenhouse hypothesis and with it the AGW hypothesis?

 

[Abraham3]

Nothing.

 

[SSDD]

ok. whatever.

I was just trying to get you to explain your point of view. I personally think that pressure issues, etc have a much larger impact on temperature equilibriums than is presently given in CO2 theory explanations for the public. I am not going to be the spokesman for it though. any takers?

You might take a look at these as well.....or not, if you really aren't interested. They are located at the open peer review journal.

The Physics Of The Earth’s Atmosphere I. Phase Change Associated With Tropopause

The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere II. Multimerization of atmospheric gases above the troposphere.

The Physics Of The Earth’s Atmosphere III. Pervective Power

Summary: “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere” Papers 1-3

 

[SSDD]

Nothing.

And you claim the greenhouse hypothesis is science.

 

[Abraham3]

Your rejection of the greenhouse effect clearly marks you as an ignorant buffoon who's adopted a conclusion based solely on your politics and having NOTHING to do with the evidence. Truly, seriously, undeniably pathetic.