Multiple experiments confirm that CO2 lowers absorptivity & emissivity of air

[IanC]

Really? Please explain that to the glaciers and ice caps.

Why are you true believers in Al Gore's CAGW doomsday cult prophecies so obsessed with glaciers?

What's up with that, Chicken Little?

Because they don't think logically, and glaciers make pretty pictures.

Why did most of the glacier retreat happen over a hundred years ago, before CO2 became 'the big problem'? They don't want to talk about that.

 

[Muhammed]

Really? Please explain that to the glaciers and ice caps.

Why are you true believers in Al Gore's CAGW doomsday cult prophecies so obsessed with glaciers?

What's up with that, Chicken Little?

Because they don't think logically, and glaciers make pretty pictures.

Why did most of the glacier retreat happen over a hundred years ago, before CO2 became 'the big problem'? They don't want to talk about that.

Does glacial "retreat" necessarily mean that it was warmer or colder? Or are there other factors that affect glaciers?

 

[IanC]

Really? Please explain that to the glaciers and ice caps.

Why are you true believers in Al Gore's CAGW doomsday cult prophecies so obsessed with glaciers?

What's up with that, Chicken Little?

Because they don't think logically, and glaciers make pretty pictures.

Why did most of the glacier retreat happen over a hundred years ago, before CO2 became 'the big problem'? They don't want to talk about that.

Does glacial "retreat" necessarily mean that it was warmer or colder? Or are there other factors that affect glaciers?

Lots of other factors. Like the factors that caused the LIA and the increased glaciers that we are comparing against.

You won't get an answer to what the 'right' temperature is, only that we are headed in the wrong direction.

 

[SSDD]

All you do is shout, "You're wrong" at people. No reasonable explanations, and typically the evidence you provide actually weakens your position.

You think I have to have all the answers in order to point out that you are wrong? You are wrong on that point as well...it is undeniable that both the AGW and the greenhouse hypotheses have experienced multiple predictive failures...that is inarguable...both hypotheses are wrong...simple as that. I don't need to have the spot on hypothesis in order to point out that the ones that are presently being used have failed.

 

[IanC]

All you do is shout, "You're wrong" at people. No reasonable explanations, and typically the evidence you provide actually weakens your position.

You think I have to have all the answers in order to point out that you are wrong? You are wrong on that point as well...it is undeniable that both the AGW and the greenhouse hypotheses have experienced multiple predictive failures...that is inarguable...both hypotheses are wrong...simple as that. I don't need to have the spot on hypothesis in order to point out that the ones that are presently being used have failed.

Of course I don't expect you to have all the answers. What I do expect is that you have a specific criticism that you can elaborate on when you say that I'm wrong.

I say there is a greenhouse effect. Powered by surface radiation that would simply escape to space if it wasn't intercepted by GHGs. Instead it adds to the total energy stored in the atmosphere, which means it is available to be returned to the surface in part.

You could argue that there is no surface radiation, that no surface radiation is absorbed, that absorbed radiation is not added to the total energy stored, or that energy is not returned to the surface from the atmosphere. Those are perfectly acceptable debating points, of which I am more than happy to discuss.

Instead, you claim the the climate model hotspot is missing so the greenhouse effect is non-existent. No, the models are wrong but the basic mechanism of the GE is still there. I don't agree with the models either, so why should my statements be tied to a model prediction?

 

[SSDD]

Of course I don't expect you to have all the answers. What I do expect is that you have a specific criticism that you can elaborate on when you say that I'm wrong.

You support both the greenhouse effect hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis...both have experienced multiple predictive failures...they are wrong...you are wrong in your belief that they are correct...how much more specific do you need?...if you want specifics, then look to the predictive failures.

I say there is a greenhouse effect. Powered by surface radiation that would simply escape to space if it wasn't intercepted by GHGs. Instead it adds to the total energy stored in the atmosphere, which means it is available to be returned to the surface in part.

Radiation is demonstrably such a small player in the movement of energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere that the belief that there is anything in the troposphere powered by radiation is simply ignorant.

 

[IanC]

Radiation is demonstrably such a small player in the movement of energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere that the belief that there is anything in the troposphere powered by radiation is simply ignorant

Radiation is the only means of energy loss for the Earth, with the very minor exception of light air molecules that reach escape velocity and take their energy with them to space. Some of that radiation is lost directly from the surface, some from the atmosphere. I don't see how you can dismiss radiation with a wave of the hand when it is ultimately responsible for 99+% of the Earth's energy loss.

You did mention the troposphere though. Are we limiting the discussion to energy movement from the surface to the cloudtops? Then yes, roughly half of the energy is moved by the water cycle via phase change and its associated convection, roughly a quarter by direct radiation escape, and the last quarter through various other options.

 

[IanC]

You support both the greenhouse effect hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis...both have experienced multiple predictive failures...they are wrong...you are wrong in your belief that they are correct...how much more specific do you need?...if you want specifics, then look to the predictive failures

I support the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect, and their ability to change conditions near the surface, which leads to a warmer surface temperature.

I also believe that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, and that mankind's use of fossil fuels has increased the amount of CO2.

In descending order of both importance and certainty...

1. The atmosphere stores and releases energy, which warms the average surface temperature by moderating temperature swings. Absolutely undeniable.

2. The greenhouse effect warms the atmosphere by capturing and recycling surface radiation energy that otherwise would be directly lost to space. Undeniable.

3. CO2 is part of the greenhouse effect. Certain, but with caveats.

4. Increasing CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect. Likely, but with even more caveats. Every change has an effect, while the direction seems likely the amount is not clear.

If you consider this to be unfettered support of the consensus IPCC position then you are not reading for comprehension.

I believe in the basics, easily supported by reality. I am much more skeptical of predictions made by a group that has an admitted agenda, which cherrypicks and distorts the underlying physics principles it uses, and ignores the failures it has already produced. Models are a useful way of testing understanding. Unfortunately consensus climate science has a habit of changing the data to support the theory rather than change the theory to match the data.

 

[SSDD]

Radiation is the only means of energy loss for the Earth, with the very minor exception of light air molecules that reach escape velocity and take their energy with them to space. Some of that radiation is lost directly from the surface, some from the atmosphere. I don't see how you can dismiss radiation with a wave of the hand when it is ultimately responsible for 99+% of the Earth's energy loss.

Weasel on Garth... did I not say explicitly that radiation is a very small bit player from the surface to the upper atmosphere?... Once again..you taking statements out of context...making up something to argue against...your MO...the very one you are always complaining that polar bear is doing...which he isn't.

roughly a quarter by direct radiation escape, and the last quarter through various other options.

Not even a quarter...not even close to a quarter...less than 3% is closer to the actual amount of energy transported to the upper atmosphere (not the cloud tops) via radiation.....but hey, you are a believer...it is all magic all the time with you.

 

[SSDD]

I support the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect, and their ability to change conditions near the surface, which leads to a warmer surface temperature.[/quote


The predictions were based on those mechanisms...the predictions failed...the mechanisms are wrong.

I also believe that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, and that mankind's use of fossil fuels has increased the amount of CO2.

Even that statement is questionable even though it makes no difference at all because the climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.

Limited sign of soil adaptation to climate warming

"
“While scientists and policy experts debate the impacts of global warming, Earth’s soil is releasing roughly nine times more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than all human activities combined.”

Boreal and temperate trees show strong acclimation of respiration to warming. - PubMed - NCBI

“Plant respiration results in an annual flux of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere that is six times as large as that due to the emissions from fossil fuel burning, so changes in either will impact future climate.”


Termites: A Potentially Large Source of Atmospheric Methane, Carbon Dioxide, and Molecular Hydrogen | Science

“The estimated gross amount of CO2 produced [by termites] is more than twice the net global input from fossil fuel combustion. As we noted above, termites process the equivalent of about 28 percent of the earth’s NPP [net primary productivity, or plant energy].”


https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“[R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

1. The atmosphere stores and releases energy, which warms the average surface temperature by moderating temperature swings. Absolutely undeniable.

The sun and internal heat warm the surface...nothing else.

2. The greenhouse effect warms the atmosphere by capturing and recycling surface radiation energy that otherwise would be directly lost to space. Undeniable.

Water vapor and gravity...nothing else.

3. CO2 is part of the greenhouse effect. Certain, but with caveats.

There is no greenhouse effect as described by cliamte science..and CO2 has zero or less to do with global temperatures...but do feel free to show some observed, measured, quantified evidence to the contrary.

4. Increasing CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect. Likely, but with even more caveats. Every change has an effect, while the direction seems likely the amount is not clear.

Since there isn no greenhouse effect as described by climate science as evidenced by the predictive failures of the hypothesis, the statement is meaningless.

If you consider this to be unfettered support of the consensus IPCC position then you are not reading for comprehension.

The very fact that you believe there is a radiative greenhouse effect in spite of the predictive failures the radiative greenhouse effect has experienced, it is clear that you support the failed hypothesis.

I believe in the basics, .

You believe in alchemy...if you believed in basic science, then you could not possibly believe that there is anything like a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...if you believed in basic science, then you would have no other choice than to disregard the greenhouse hypothesis because it has failed and its stepchild...AGW.

 

[IanC]

I support the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect, and their ability to change conditions near the surface, which leads to a warmer surface temperature.[/quote


The predictions were based on those mechanisms...the predictions failed...the mechanisms are wrong.

I also believe that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, and that mankind's use of fossil fuels has increased the amount of CO2.

Even that statement is questionable even though it makes no difference at all because the climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.

Limited sign of soil adaptation to climate warming

"
“While scientists and policy experts debate the impacts of global warming, Earth’s soil is releasing roughly nine times more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than all human activities combined.”

Boreal and temperate trees show strong acclimation of respiration to warming. - PubMed - NCBI

“Plant respiration results in an annual flux of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere that is six times as large as that due to the emissions from fossil fuel burning, so changes in either will impact future climate.”


Termites: A Potentially Large Source of Atmospheric Methane, Carbon Dioxide, and Molecular Hydrogen | Science

“The estimated gross amount of CO2 produced [by termites] is more than twice the net global input from fossil fuel combustion. As we noted above, termites process the equivalent of about 28 percent of the earth’s NPP [net primary productivity, or plant energy].”


https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“[R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

1. The atmosphere stores and releases energy, which warms the average surface temperature by moderating temperature swings. Absolutely undeniable.

The sun and internal heat warm the surface...nothing else.

2. The greenhouse effect warms the atmosphere by capturing and recycling surface radiation energy that otherwise would be directly lost to space. Undeniable.

Water vapor and gravity...nothing else.

3. CO2 is part of the greenhouse effect. Certain, but with caveats.

There is no greenhouse effect as described by cliamte science..and CO2 has zero or less to do with global temperatures...but do feel free to show some observed, measured, quantified evidence to the contrary.

4. Increasing CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect. Likely, but with even more caveats. Every change has an effect, while the direction seems likely the amount is not clear.

Since there isn no greenhouse effect as described by climate science as evidenced by the predictive failures of the hypothesis, the statement is meaningless.

If you consider this to be unfettered support of the consensus IPCC position then you are not reading for comprehension.

The very fact that you believe there is a radiative greenhouse effect in spite of the predictive failures the radiative greenhouse effect has experienced, it is clear that you support the failed hypothesis.

I believe in the basics, .

You believe in alchemy...if you believed in basic science, then you could not possibly believe that there is anything like a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...if you believed in basic science, then you would have no other choice than to disregard the greenhouse hypothesis because it has failed and its stepchild...AGW.

You clipped the trailing square bracket in my very first quote. You should edit it back in for readability.

 

[IanC]

Weasel on Garth... did I not say explicitly that radiation is a very small bit player from the surface to the upper atmosphere?... Once again..you taking statements out of context...making up something to argue against...your MO...the very one you are always complaining that polar bear is doing...which he isn't

Why did you edit out my specific response to your point?

You did mention the troposphere though. Are we limiting the discussion to energy movement from the surface to the cloudtops? Then yes, roughly half of the energy is moved by the water cycle via phase change and its associated convection, roughly a quarter by direct radiation escape, and the last quarter through various other options.

Hahahaha. Are you purposely being dishonest?

 

[IanC]

Not even a quarter...not even close to a quarter...less than 3% is closer to the actual amount of energy transported to the upper atmosphere (not the cloud tops) via radiation.....but hey, you are a believer...it is all magic all the time with you

Are you saying the satellite readings of radiation coming off the surface through the atmospheric window are a lie?

You also seem to be confused about the water cycle and cloudtops. If the energy is released at the cloudtops and the water returns as precipitation, how is water carrying it further up into the atmosphere?

 

[IanC]

SSDD said (cannot quote directly because of his formatting mistake) -

The sun and internal heat warm the surface...nothing else.

Are you now disavowing N&Z? I thought you believed in the ability of atmospheres to affect surface temperature. The Sun's input is insufficient to maintain the surface temperature. Are you saying that geothermal input is more than solar input? Seems unlikely. Perhaps you are missing another input.

 

[IanC]

SSDD quoted this statement -

“While scientists and policy experts debate the impacts of global warming, Earth’s soil is releasing roughly nine times more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than all human activities combined.”

Yes, there are natural reservoirs of CO2 that absorb and release in near equilibrium.

We are interested in new sources that add to the total, and change the absolute amount in the atmosphere.

Could it be burning fossil fuels? Or is it a massive increase in the termite population? Hahahaha. You decide.

 

[IanC]

↑
2. The greenhouse effect warms the atmosphere by capturing and recycling surface radiation energy that otherwise would be directly lost to space. Undeniable.


Water vapor and gravity...nothing else.

Then explain where the energy goes. It enters the atmosphere at the surface, is absorbed, and much less comes out the upper atmosphere. Where did it go? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[polarbear]

Not even a quarter...not even close to a quarter...less than 3% is closer to the actual amount of energy transported to the upper atmosphere (not the cloud tops) via radiation.....but hey, you are a believer...it is all magic all the time with you

Are you saying the satellite readings of radiation coming off the surface through the atmospheric window are a lie?

You also seem to be confused about the water cycle and cloudtops. If the energy is released at the cloudtops and the water returns as precipitation, how is water carrying it further up into the atmosphere?

Are you saying the satellite readings of radiation coming off the surface through the atmospheric window are a lie?
Do you mean the surface or the air above it ?
Please clarify what you mean by "surface temperature". The surface is generally way warmer than the air above it. So what do those "satellite readings" tell you?
That the red hot (photoshop) image blotches show that heat is being radiated rather well from the surface to the satellite?
Or that the surface is overheated because the heat is not radiated as good as it should be because of greenhouse gasses.?
In that case the satellite image should be less "hot"...so which of the 2 is it?
Before you decide revisit all these "scientific" demonstrations where a FLIR can't even see a lit candle behind a tube filled with CO2.
Or is it that you think the satellite sees only the air above the ground and not the ground itself?

 

[IanC]

Not even a quarter...not even close to a quarter...less than 3% is closer to the actual amount of energy transported to the upper atmosphere (not the cloud tops) via radiation.....but hey, you are a believer...it is all magic all the time with you

Are you saying the satellite readings of radiation coming off the surface through the atmospheric window are a lie?

You also seem to be confused about the water cycle and cloudtops. If the energy is released at the cloudtops and the water returns as precipitation, how is water carrying it further up into the atmosphere?

Are you saying the satellite readings of radiation coming off the surface through the atmospheric window are a lie?
Do you mean the surface or the air above it ?
Please clarify what you mean by "surface temperature". The surface is generally way warmer than the air above it. So what do those "satellite readings" tell you?
That the red hot (photoshop) image blotches show that heat is being radiated rather well from the surface to the satellite?
Or that the surface is overheated because the heat is not radiated as good as it should be because of greenhouse gasses.?
In that case the satellite image should be less "hot"...so which of the 2 is it?
Before you decide revisit all these "scientific" demonstrations where a FLIR can't even see a lit candle behind a tube filled with CO2.
Or is it that you think the satellite sees only the air above the ground and not the ground itself?

Hahahaha, do you even read what I say? Or do you just have a prepared rant that you put down no matter what?

At least you actually quoted my statement and the context.

SSDD said 3% of the surface energy is transported by radiation to the upper atmosphere. I rebutted that statement by referring to the the radiation that freely escapes to space through the IR bands not affected by GHGs, commonly called the atmospheric window. It is about 40w.

Now the solar input is pegged at about 160w, so that means 25% of the independent power source is expelled here. Or you could consider as well the energy returning from the atmosphere which allows the surface to radiate at about 400w. In that case the direct loss of 40w to space would only be 10% but you would acknowledging the existence of 'backradiation'. In either case it is more than SSDD's claim of 3%.

I suppose you guys could quibble that the 40w of directly escaping IR is being transported THROUGH rather than TO the upper atmosphere but that is an arbitrary and useless distinction.

Why are you asking me to define surface temperature? I am using the approximate average temperature that radiates 400w, about 16C. It is certainly close enough for our rough calculations. If you want to discuss the ramifications of the S-B equations then define your position first, and don't strawman what you think my position is. I will gladly give it to you first hand.

I think I know which experiment you are talking about. I posted about it at the time it was released. The fellow who did it for the BBC actually had an article explaining all the difficulties he had making it work. Adding false colour to the appearance of the candle, severe filtering of wavelengths (I believe only 3 microns was used), and other issues. As usual in these 'simple' experiments, a lot of exaggeration and deception were needed to produce the desired results.

 

[IanC]

This is a good version because it identifies the type of molecules that take chunks out of the Planck curve.

The missing chunks are the amount of surface radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, there by warming it.

The warmer atmosphere in turn warms the surface. This process continues until the surface warms enough to equal the output of the solar input. A full Planck curve at a lower temperature outputs the same amount of energy as does a Planck curve with missing chunks but at a higher temperature. The GHGs raise the temperature of both the atmosphere and surface by blocking certain bands of radiation and retaining it in the atmosphere until the surface warms enough to again release the equivalent amount of solar energy through the available bands.

ie 75% of 400w equals 100% of 300w. That would correspond to roughly 17C and -3C. I have no idea how much is blocked by GHGs but it is likely more than 25% because my example only produced a 20C greenhouse effect whereas 33C is the typical amount claimed.

There are other factors involved which I have chosen to ignore. I am only interested in the basic mechanism, the direction, and a rough estimate of the size.

Bump for polarbear.

There is a big chunk missing ~15 microns due to CO2. The band between 8-13 microns is radiating at surface temperature (except for a notch due to O3). If you look at the absorbance due to H2O, it starts radiating again at a temperature close to the freezing point of water, when condensation and precipitation occur. CO2 radiation does not escape until it reaches a height where it is unlikely to be reabsorbed, about -60C.

We know all the 15 micron CO2 specific radiation produced by the surface is absorbed within about ten metres of the atmosphere. We know it doesn't reappear until a height commensurate with -60C. The amount of radiation produced at the surface is much more than at -60C. The difference is the warming influence of CO2.

If you increase the amount of CO2, then two things happen. First the surface radiation is absorbed in less than ten metres. The same energy in a smaller volume means the near-surface atmosphere temperature must go up. The second thing is that the height where CO2 starts to send its emissions to space must increase, therefore it is at a cooler temperature and radiates less.

Are these the only factors or mechanisms involved? No. But in isolation it can clearly be seen that CO2 has a warming influence now, and that it increases as the amount of CO2 in the air rises.

 

[polarbear]

Not even a quarter...not even close to a quarter...less than 3% is closer to the actual amount of energy transported to the upper atmosphere (not the cloud tops) via radiation.....but hey, you are a believer...it is all magic all the time with you

Are you saying the satellite readings of radiation coming off the surface through the atmospheric window are a lie?

You also seem to be confused about the water cycle and cloudtops. If the energy is released at the cloudtops and the water returns as precipitation, how is water carrying it further up into the atmosphere?

Are you saying the satellite readings of radiation coming off the surface through the atmospheric window are a lie?
Do you mean the surface or the air above it ?
Please clarify what you mean by "surface temperature". The surface is generally way warmer than the air above it. So what do those "satellite readings" tell you?
That the red hot (photoshop) image blotches show that heat is being radiated rather well from the surface to the satellite?
Or that the surface is overheated because the heat is not radiated as good as it should be because of greenhouse gasses.?
In that case the satellite image should be less "hot"...so which of the 2 is it?
Before you decide revisit all these "scientific" demonstrations where a FLIR can't even see a lit candle behind a tube filled with CO2.
Or is it that you think the satellite sees only the air above the ground and not the ground itself?

Hahahaha, do you even read what I say? Or do you just have a prepared rant that you put down no matter what?

At least you actually quoted my statement and the context.

SSDD said 3% of the surface energy is transported by radiation to the upper atmosphere. I rebutted that statement by referring to the the radiation that freely escapes to space through the IR bands not affected by GHGs, commonly called the atmospheric window. It is about 40w.

Now the solar input is pegged at about 160w, so that means 25% of the independent power source is expelled here. Or you could consider as well the energy returning from the atmosphere which allows the surface to radiate at about 400w. In that case the direct loss of 40w to space would only be 10% but you would acknowledging the existence of 'backradiation'. In either case it is more than SSDD's claim of 3%.

I suppose you guys could quibble that the 40w of directly escaping IR is being transported THROUGH rather than TO the upper atmosphere but that is an arbitrary and useless distinction.

Why are you asking me to define surface temperature? I am using the approximate average temperature that radiates 400w, about 16C. It is certainly close enough for our rough calculations. If you want to discuss the ramifications of the S-B equations then define your position first, and don't strawman what you think my position is. I will gladly give it to you first hand.

I think I know which experiment you are talking about. I posted about it at the time it was released. The fellow who did it for the BBC actually had an article explaining all the difficulties he had making it work. Adding false colour to the appearance of the candle, severe filtering of wavelengths (I believe only 3 microns was used), and other issues. As usual in these 'simple' experiments, a lot of exaggeration and deception were needed to produce the desired results.

hahahaha is that supposed to be an answer?
Who gives a shit about your "average calculation"! What about the satellite images you were talking about. And all you got is "hahahaha"?