LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[SSDD]

Reducing the ability to shed energy will raise temperature just as surely as raising the power source.

CO2 raises the emissivity of the atmosphere....it doesn't reduce the ability of the atmosphere to shed energy...it increases it.

 

[SSDD]

probably adds

LOL

For which you have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OR PROOF!

Not willing to discuss the undeniable warming effect of an atmosphere, or the obvious effect of adding GHGs to the atmosphere?

Instead you want to argue about the feeble difference caused by adding more of a GHG that is already 'saturated'?

SO now you agree that CO2 is saturated and has no more power in our atmosphere at current levels?

No.

Increasing CO2 is a warming influence. Whether warming actually happens depends on the total of all the individual influences.

No...increasing CO2 is a cooling influence...it increases the emissivity of the atmosphere.

Climate sensitivity to CO2 is trending towards zero according to the studies...zero or less is where it will end up. Then perhaps you will come to see how terribly flawed your ideas about how energy moves through the atmosphere were.....or not.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Reducing the ability to shed energy will raise temperature just as surely as raising the power source.

CO2 raises the emissivity of the atmosphere....it doesn't reduce the ability of the atmosphere to shed energy...it increases it.

Correct;

This is exactly what we found in our experiment.

 

[IanC]

Reducing the ability to shed energy will raise temperature just as surely as raising the power source.

CO2 raises the emissivity of the atmosphere....it doesn't reduce the ability of the atmosphere to shed energy...it increases it.

Without CO2 all the surface produced 15 micron radiation directly escapes to space at the speed of light. Maximum efficiency.

But you think the meagre portion that atmospheric CO2 finally released to space from high altitude and ~-50C is more than the surface 15 micron radiation produced at 15C which is totally absorbed within a few metres.

I suppose you need to believe the unbelievable to keep your bizarre theory of physics working.

 

[IanC]

probably adds

LOL

For which you have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OR PROOF!

Not willing to discuss the undeniable warming effect of an atmosphere, or the obvious effect of adding GHGs to the atmosphere?

Instead you want to argue about the feeble difference caused by adding more of a GHG that is already 'saturated'?

SO now you agree that CO2 is saturated and has no more power in our atmosphere at current levels?

No.

Increasing CO2 is a warming influence. Whether warming actually happens depends on the total of all the individual influences.

No...increasing CO2 is a cooling influence...it increases the emissivity of the atmosphere.

Climate sensitivity to CO2 is trending towards zero according to the studies...zero or less is where it will end up. Then perhaps you will come to see how terribly flawed your ideas about how energy moves through the atmosphere were.....or not.

Climate sensitivity estimates are trending towards 1.xC per doubling of CO2.

If it were trending towards zero then close to one half of all estimates would be negative.

I don't know of any climate sensitivity estimates that are negative. Do you?

 

[SSDD]

LOL

For which you have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OR PROOF!

Not willing to discuss the undeniable warming effect of an atmosphere, or the obvious effect of adding GHGs to the atmosphere?

Instead you want to argue about the feeble difference caused by adding more of a GHG that is already 'saturated'?

SO now you agree that CO2 is saturated and has no more power in our atmosphere at current levels?

No.

Increasing CO2 is a warming influence. Whether warming actually happens depends on the total of all the individual influences.

No...increasing CO2 is a cooling influence...it increases the emissivity of the atmosphere.

Climate sensitivity to CO2 is trending towards zero according to the studies...zero or less is where it will end up. Then perhaps you will come to see how terribly flawed your ideas about how energy moves through the atmosphere were.....or not.

Climate sensitivity estimates are trending towards 1.xC per doubling of CO2.

If it were trending towards zero then close to one half of all estimates would be negative.

I don't know of any climate sensitivity estimates that are negative. Do you?

Climate sensitivity is trending towards zero...it may be at 1C now...but the inexorable trend is to zero or less.

 

[jc456]

Do you understand conduction convection?

Hahahahaha.

What three things are necessary for convection to take place?

the sun, the surface and the atmosphere.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="SSDD, post: 21663211, member: 40906"]

Reducing the ability to shed energy will raise temperature just as surely as raising the power source.

CO2 raises the emissivity of the atmosphere....it doesn't reduce the ability of the atmosphere to shed energy...it increases it.[/QUOTE]


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^DING, DING, DING, DING^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Billy_Bob]

So a CO2 molecule at 0C won't emit toward the ground at 20C unless work is done?

well 99.9% collide, but the .1% would radiate to space.

You're not answering his question JC. Will at 0C CO2 molecule emit photons towards a 20C surface? Yes or No?

IF it does, whats is the effect of a low energy piece of matter vibrating at much lower frequency going to do? Will the more energetic matter adsorb it or will it reflect it? Please show your work.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Reducing the ability to shed energy will raise temperature just as surely as raising the power source.

CO2 raises the emissivity of the atmosphere....it doesn't reduce the ability of the atmosphere to shed energy...it increases it.

Without CO2 all the surface produced 15 micron radiation directly escapes to space at the speed of light. Maximum efficiency.

But you think the meagre portion that atmospheric CO2 finally released to space from high altitude and ~-50C is more than the surface 15 micron radiation produced at 15C which is totally absorbed within a few metres.

I suppose you need to believe the unbelievable to keep your bizarre theory of physics working.

I guess you fail to understand why LOG functions exist..

 

[jc456]

So a CO2 molecule at 0C won't emit toward the ground at 20C unless work is done?

well 99.9% collide, but the .1% would radiate to space.

You're not answering his question JC. Will at 0C CO2 molecule emit photons towards a 20C surface? Yes or No?

IF it does, whats is the effect of a low energy piece of matter vibrating at much lower frequency going to do? Will the more energetic matter adsorb it or will it reflect it? Please show your work.

Billy, I did an experiment using two cups of hot coffee, one cup had ice above it and the other cooled into the open air. I benchmarked the temps of both cups to the same temperature to start off with, poured from the same pot. I expected the coffee in the cup with the two ice cubes above it to cool faster based on what the warmers state. It didn't. They both cooled at the same rate. again, I had thermometers in each cup. All that happened was the two ice cubes melted away above that coffee in the cup. Imagine that.

 

[IanC]

Do you understand conduction convection?

Hahahahaha.

What three things are necessary for convection to take place?

the sun, the surface and the atmosphere.

Wrong. Try again.

 

[IanC]

QUOTE="SSDD, post: 21663211, member: 40906"]

Reducing the ability to shed energy will raise temperature just as surely as raising the power source.

CO2 raises the emissivity of the atmosphere....it doesn't reduce the ability of the atmosphere to shed energy...it increases it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^DING, DING, DING, DING^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[/QUOTE]

Wrong again. 15 micron radiation would escape to space at the speed of light without CO2 to absorb it. While the atmosphere does finally emit a small amount of 15 micron radiation close to the TOA, it is a much smaller amount than the radiation absorbed from the warmer surface.

 

[IanC]

I guess you fail to understand why LOG functions exist..

Why are you interested in logarithms in base 10 rather than natural logarithms? Why do you capitalize it as LOG?

 

[Wuwei]

I guess you fail to understand why LOG functions exist..

Why are you interested in logarithms in base 10 rather than natural logarithms? Why do you capitalize it as LOG?

Probably because he fails to understand why LOG functions exist.

 

[IanC]

So a CO2 molecule at 0C won't emit toward the ground at 20C unless work is done?

well 99.9% collide, but the .1% would radiate to space.

You're not answering his question JC. Will at 0C CO2 molecule emit photons towards a 20C surface? Yes or No?

IF it does, whats is the effect of a low energy piece of matter vibrating at much lower frequency going to do? Will the more energetic matter adsorb it or will it reflect it? Please show your work.

Billy, I did an experiment using two cups of hot coffee, one cup had ice above it and the other cooled into the open air. I benchmarked the temps of both cups to the same temperature to start off with, poured from the same pot. I expected the coffee in the cup with the two ice cubes above it to cool faster based on what the warmers state. It didn't. They both cooled at the same rate. again, I had thermometers in each cup. All that happened was the two ice cubes melted away above that coffee in the cup. Imagine that.

Partially replacing the 20C background with 0C ice cubes would make the coffee cool faster.

Because radiation is only roughly a few percent of the efficiency of conduction or convection, you would have to measure the temperature loss of the cups very carefully.

 

[jc456]

Do you understand conduction convection?

Hahahahaha.

What three things are necessary for convection to take place?

the sun, the surface and the atmosphere.

Wrong. Try again.

No sun no lwir

 

[Billy_Bob]

Partially replacing the 20C background with 0C ice cubes would make the coffee cool faster.

But you said that adding anything that can radiate would make it cool slower? I'm confused by your double talk.. So are the less energetic photons cooling the hotter coffee?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I guess you fail to understand why LOG functions exist..

Why are you interested in logarithms in base 10 rather than natural logarithms? Why do you capitalize it as LOG?

Probably because he fails to understand why LOG functions exist.

I understand it quite well... What you alarmists fail to understand in a LOG function there is always a corresponding trade off.. In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time. As you add more and more of a substance that can not warm to the atmosphere it will displace items that can warm allowing faster cooling.

You folks are having a hard time with first year physics concepts...

 

[IanC]

Do you understand conduction convection?

Hahahahaha.

What three things are necessary for convection to take place?

the sun, the surface and the atmosphere.

Wrong. Try again.

No sun no lwir

You're getting colder. Try again.