Multiple experiments confirm that CO2 lowers absorptivity & emissivity of air

[IanC]

If I had said air was warmer at ten metres than one metre he would have correctly pointed out that the air is warmed by conduction at the surface, which is then spread out by molecular collision and convection. He might have also added that there is an lapse rate of cooling with increased height from the surface.

Instead he went with misdirection just to disagree.

 

[IanC]

The mass of our atmosphere is indeed affected by solar wind striking the earths atmosphere and applying pressure, just as blowing air against a balloon that is spinning will change its displacement.

The mass is affected? Most of the atmospheric matter is within the first few kilometers of the surface. You are talking about a location that is less dense than a commercial grade vacuum. What is your point? How does it pertain to what I have been talking about? Are you trying to rebut something I said, or are you just babbling insignificant trivia for the fun of it?

As I posted Here, You can see the bands which are never allowed to hit the surface of the earth leaving about 20% of incoming radiation with the ability to hit the surface. If we change the distance that energy has to travel, less energy hits the surface, resulting in less warming. (note the log curves on the graphing)

The point is simple, this mechanism is capable of changing the amount of energy, that hits the equator region, from hitting the surface by a factor of approximately 4 - 12 w/m^2 in incoming energy and at the poles, will allow energy loss of 6 - 16 w/m^2. IF there is ice cover the number is low for loss (6-8 w/m^2) but if there is open water the number jumps up rapidly above 10 w/m^2.

If you plug these numbers into the energy balance equations, the simple change in solar output will have an effect of 2-4 deg C. And all because of solar wind impact or lack of impact on our currently weak magnetosphere/atmosphere changing its distribution on a global scale.

Your link still goes to my post at the top of page three. Fix the link or give the message number.

I really don't understand what your point is, and I don't want to try and decipher what you mean. Explain yourself in coherent sentences.

 

[IanC]

which nixes this entirely ridiculous concept where (cooler) air is supposed to be heating a warmer surface below

I agree that this concept that you keep bringing up is ridiculous.

Cooler objects don't heat warmer ones. Cooler objects do radiate towards warmer objects but the net flow of energy is always from warm to cool.

If a cool object replaces an even colder environment then it will cause the warm object to lose energy more slowly. If the warm object has a power source then the cool object (replacing a cold environment) will cause the warm object to become warmer. Do you agree with this concept?

 

[SSDD]

which nixes this entirely ridiculous concept where (cooler) air is supposed to be heating a warmer surface below

I agree that this concept that you keep bringing up is ridiculous.

Cooler objects don't heat warmer ones. Cooler objects do radiate towards warmer objects but the net flow of energy is always from warm to cool.

If a cool object replaces an even colder environment then it will cause the warm object to lose energy more slowly. If the warm object has a power source then the cool object (replacing a cold environment) will cause the warm object to become warmer. Do you agree with this concept?

If your interpretation of the physics were correct, there would invariably be a tropospheric hot spot...alas, there isn't...your interpretation must be wrong.

 

[IanC]

which nixes this entirely ridiculous concept where (cooler) air is supposed to be heating a warmer surface below

I agree that this concept that you keep bringing up is ridiculous.

Cooler objects don't heat warmer ones. Cooler objects do radiate towards warmer objects but the net flow of energy is always from warm to cool.

If a cool object replaces an even colder environment then it will cause the warm object to lose energy more slowly. If the warm object has a power source then the cool object (replacing a cold environment) will cause the warm object to become warmer. Do you agree with this concept?

If your interpretation of the physics were correct, there would invariably be a tropospheric hot spot...alas, there isn't...your interpretation must be wrong.

Again, you make a naked assertion with no reasoning or data to back it up.

'invariably' ? That is a very strong term. No uncertainty at all then. First you have to define your terms. Then provide data. Then provide your explanation of what is happening. Then demostrate how your findings negate what I have said.

So far the data has been somewhat inconclusive. Either side can interpret it to support their version. I tend to side with Lindzen's Iris Effect but I am no where near certain. There are too many non linear chaotic variables in play.

My position is a simplistic one. I have separated out the mechanism for CO2 and found it to be a warming influence. In general the surface is warmer than it would be if no CO2 was present. I am not certain how much warmer but I am convinced that it is in the warming direction.

In the specific circumstance of increasing CO2, I am still convinced that the direction would be towards warming if taken in isolation. But in combination with other factors it may be a greater or lesser effect than the mechanism suggests. Nature finds the most efficient way of shedding energy.

I do not see how the tropospheric hotspot, present or not, proves or disproves my position. They are at different levels of complexity. First you have the basics, then you keep adding more and more factors. Snapping a twig off does not destroy the whole tree.

 

[SSDD]

The terms have already been provided ian...look to the greenhouse hypothesis and its bastard child the AGW hypothesis...the predictions have failed...and they have failed because of incorrect assumptions on how energy moves through the atmosphere...the fact that the hypotheses...both of them...have failed is not inconclusive in the least...predictions were made...they didn't happen...failure. The fact that you still believe is a matter of faith...not science.

 

[IanC]

The terms have already been provided ian...look to the greenhouse hypothesis and its bastard child the AGW hypothesis...the predictions have failed...and they have failed because of incorrect assumptions on how energy moves through the atmosphere...the fact that the hypotheses...both of them...have failed is not inconclusive in the least...predictions were made...they didn't happen...failure. The fact that you still believe is a matter of faith...not science.

Link up to definitions of the Greenhouse Effect and the AGW hypothesis. We can then argue how far up the chain of reasoning goes before it starts veering from reality.

 

[IanC]

The terms have already been provided ian...look to the greenhouse hypothesis and its bastard child the AGW hypothesis...the predictions have failed...and they have failed because of incorrect assumptions on how energy moves through the atmosphere...the fact that the hypotheses...both of them...have failed is not inconclusive in the least...predictions were made...they didn't happen...failure. The fact that you still believe is a matter of faith...not science.

A while back polarbear linked up to a simplistic university diagram showing an average solar input, average surface and average atmosphere, describing energy transfer only as radiation.

He made fun of it, and made ridiculous statements like the Sun had a temperature of minus 100C.

Was it ridiculous or just over simplified? Can you explain a tree with a diagram? Is there information in a child's stick figure drawing of a tree, or do you need a detailed and labeled diagram with cutaways to show the interior? Depends on the situation.

For university students, this basic diagram was enough to imply the general mechanisms in context. I am sure they went on to discuss more details.

You have a cartoonish outdated version of the second law of thermodynamics that you fervently believe in. It is like that university diagram that polarbear ridiculed. Generally correct but oversimplified and wrong in the fine details.

 

[SSDD]

The terms have already been provided ian...look to the greenhouse hypothesis and its bastard child the AGW hypothesis...the predictions have failed...and they have failed because of incorrect assumptions on how energy moves through the atmosphere...the fact that the hypotheses...both of them...have failed is not inconclusive in the least...predictions were made...they didn't happen...failure. The fact that you still believe is a matter of faith...not science.

Link up to definitions of the Greenhouse Effect and the AGW hypothesis. We can then argue how far up the chain of reasoning goes before it starts veering from reality.

It begins with the most basic diagram that preports to show energy from the cooler atmosphere warming the warmer surface of the earth....so it begins to veer from reality nanoseconds after IR leaves the surface of the earth.

 

[IanC]

The terms have already been provided ian...look to the greenhouse hypothesis and its bastard child the AGW hypothesis...the predictions have failed...and they have failed because of incorrect assumptions on how energy moves through the atmosphere...the fact that the hypotheses...both of them...have failed is not inconclusive in the least...predictions were made...they didn't happen...failure. The fact that you still believe is a matter of faith...not science.

Link up to definitions of the Greenhouse Effect and the AGW hypothesis. We can then argue how far up the chain of reasoning goes before it starts veering from reality.

It begins with the most basic diagram that preports to show energy from the cooler atmosphere warming the warmer surface of the earth....so it begins to veer from reality nanoseconds after IR leaves the surface of the earth.

So here we are at the usual impasse. You make a naked assertion and refuse to explain it or give evidence to support it.

You have many times stated that the Earth's surface would be warmer with no GHGs in the atmosphere. But then refuse to explain your reasoning.

No atmosphere- the Sun warms the surface and it quickly relinquishes that energy as freely escaping IR. There are huge swings of temperature.

Non-GHG atmosphere- the Sun warms the surface and it still radiates IR freely but also conducts some of the energy into the atmosphere where it is stored until nighttime when it is released again. The temperature swings are smaller.

GHG atmosphere without water- the Sun warms the surface, some of the energy goes into the atmosphere by conduction, some into escaping IR, some into IR that is absorbed near the surface and released near the top of the atmosphere.

(Edit- phone crapped out, continued below)

 

[IanC]

...the non-water GHG atmosphere is the most contentious and needs further discussion.

Atmosphere with water vapour- Sun warms surface, which conducts to atmosphere and radiates IR to space and atmosphere. Water adds a third pathway via latent heat and convection that acts like an elevator to transport surface energy aloft. This warms the atmosphere causing more stored energy to be available to be returned to the surface, especially at night. The temperature swings are even less, the average surface temp higher.

 

[IanC]

SSDD could then say something like, "the CO2 warming near the surface is balanced out by the reduced conduction because of the smaller temperature difference".

Hmm. That would mean the surface was not losing as much energy by CO2 specific IR (it would escape directly to space without CO2) AND less through conduction! Things are worse instead of better.

The surface would have to warm up even more to push out IR energy in the bands that are still available to escape freely to space.

Hey SSDD, feel free to criticize any of these points. But address them specifically and demonstrate your reasoning rather than your typical unadorned 'NO'.

If you want to bring up failed model predictions then demonstrate how they are pertinent to the basic mechanism.

And I am still waiting for your explanation of N&Z's paper on how mass alone defines surface temperature.

 

[IanC]

Damn, I lost a whole comment.

Briefly, absorption is not temperature dependant but emission is. CO2 absorbs all surface CO2 specific IR and converts it into stored atmospheric energy by molecular collision. This energy is freely swapped between kinetic and potential forms until the density drops enough for CO2 emissions to escape to space. At this height the temperature is cooler, therefore the amount of radiation produced is less. The deficit between the amount going in at the bottom and coming out at the top is the amount of warming CO2 is responsible for.

 

[Divine Wind]

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

Or send him to Venus (one-way) and explore that option:

Venus - Overview | Planets - NASA Solar System Exploration
Similar in structure and size to Earth, Venus spins slowly in the opposite direction most planets do. Its thick atmosphere traps heat in a runaway greenhouse effect, making it the hottest planet in our solar system with surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead. Glimpses below the clouds reveal volcanoes and deformed mountains. ...

....
Atmosphere

Venus' atmosphere consists mainly of carbon dioxide, with clouds of sulfuric acid droplets. The thick atmosphere traps the sun's heat, resulting in surface temperatures higher than 880 degrees Fahrenheit (470 degrees Celsius). The atmosphere has many layers with different temperatures. At the level where the clouds are, about 30 miles up from the surface, it's about the same temperature as on the surface of the Earth.

As Venus moves forward in its solar orbit while slowly rotating backwards on its axis, the top level of clouds zips around the planet every four Earth days, driven by hurricane-force winds traveling at about 224 miles (360 kilometers) per hour. Atmospheric lightning bursts light up these quick-moving clouds. Speeds within the clouds decrease with cloud height, and at the surface are estimated to be just a few miles per hour.

On the ground, it would look like a very hazy, overcast day on Earth. And the atmosphere is so heavy it would feel like you were 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) deep underwater.

Potential for Life

No human has visited Venus, but the spacecraft that have been sent to the surface of Venus do not last very long there. Venus' high surface temperature overheat electronics in spacecraft in a short time, so it seems unlikely that a person could survive for long on the Venusian surface.

There is speculation about life existing in Venus' distant past, as well as questions about the possibility of life in the top cloud layers of Venus' atmosphere, where the temperatures are less extreme.

 

[SSDD]

Hey SSDD, feel free to criticize any of these points. But address them specifically and demonstrate your reasoning rather than your typical unadorned 'NO'.
.

Go ahead and argue with yourself...and just make up arguments for me...it is hardly different from when I join in except this way, I don't have to even bother to type.

 

[IanC]

Hey SSDD, feel free to criticize any of these points. But address them specifically and demonstrate your reasoning rather than your typical unadorned 'NO'.
.

Go ahead and argue with yourself...and just make up arguments for me...it is hardly different from when I join in except this way, I don't have to even bother to type.

Every discussion I have ever had with you is an argument with myself because you refuse to defend your position against criticism.

For example, you use a 150 year old version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics even though it has now evolved into a law of entropy.

You have further bastardized that version into saying that any transfer of energy must be from warm to cold, not just the net exchange. To you there is no difference between the macroscopic and atomic scales.

I, and many others, have pointed out glaring incongruities with your position. A simple macroscopic example like evaporation destroys your case. Even the definition of temperature being the average kinetic speed of the molecules destroys your position. At the atomic radiation scale your belief that radiation is throttled down to only allow a gross one way flow is in contempt of entropy.

When you are asked to explain these problems, you cover your ears and chant your mantra over and over again.

I enjoy finding the errors in your statements. I have long since given up the hope that you will be convinced by some new way of looking at things but I will keep thinking up new stuff. I actually appreciate your obstinate ignorance, it makes me try harder.

So yes, conversing with you is mostly an argument with myself because I try to make the best possible defence of your statements and then show them wrong anyways.

 

[SSDD]

For example, you use a 150 year old version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics even though it has now evolved into a law of entropy.

Has any observation been made in the past 150 years that would invalidate the second law of thermodynamics?....or are you just put off because I don't accept an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over every observation ever made?

You have further bastardized that version into saying that any transfer of energy must be from warm to cold, not just the net exchange. To you there is no difference between the macroscopic and atomic scales.

I haven't bastardized anything...the second law states that energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm...it is your model...your unobservable, unmeasurable untestable model that has introduced net energy flow....not me. And again..can you point to any observed, measured difference between macroscopic and atomic scales beyond your model?...your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model?

I, and many others, have pointed out glaring incongruities with your position. A simple macroscopic example like evaporation destroys your case. Even the definition of temperature being the average kinetic speed of the molecules destroys your position. At the atomic radiation scale your belief that radiation is throttled down to only allow a gross one way flow is in contempt of entropy.

Sorry ian, but it doesn't...evaporation was well known when the second law was written.....models don't destroy my position.

When you are asked to explain these problems, you cover your ears and chant your mantra over and over again.

Sorry ian, but it is you who does that. When you point out these supposed problems, I ask if you have any observed measured, quantified examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm..you don't...what you have is "problems" with your models in that they don't represent reality...the problems are yours, not mine....every observation ever made supports my position...only unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models support yours.

I enjoy finding the errors in your statements. I have long since given up the hope that you will be convinced by some new way of looking at things but I will keep thinking up new stuff. I actually appreciate your obstinate ignorance, it makes me try harder.

I am sure you like to pretend that you find problems in my statements...and I even believe that you believe you have found problems with them..alas, though...I haven't. But do let me know when an actual observation and measurement is made of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.


]

 

[IanC]

I haven't bastardized anything...the second law states that energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm...it is your model...your unobservable, unmeasurable untestable model that has introduced net energy flow....not me. And again..can you point to any observed, measured difference between macroscopic and atomic scales beyond your model?...your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model?

Of course you have bastardized it! The old version says heat (net energy) will not flow from cold to warm without work done.

You have hidden behind the vague definition of the word 'energy'. All heat is energy, not all energy is heat. Wuwei (or someone) gave you fifty examples of heat transfer being described as the net exchange, including one from Einstein. Still you refuse to listen.

You used to give analogies like electrons flowing through a wire, or air coming out of a tire. Those are gross one way flows. Matter occupies space, only one piece is allowed at a time, light does not have that restriction. When two pieces of matter meet at the same spot they collide and the more energetic particle wins, with only the residual momentum left over. Two photons simply pass through each other unchanged. Light only interacts with matter, not other light. There is no cancelling out, once emitted the photon does not change until it encounters a different bit of matter.

Radiation is emitted according to the internal conditions of the molecule, not the average kinetic speed (temperature) of its possible target.

The SLoT is now defined in terms of entropy (increasing disorder). Your interpretation says that two objects throttle down their respective radiation, with the cooler one not radiating and the warmer one only giving off the amount equivalent to what would have been the net exchange.

Production of photons involves a small amount of momentum, equal but opposite directions for the photon and emitter. If your throttling down idea is real, then the other sides of the objects would still be imparting momentum while the connecting faces would have less. This would push the two objects together, creating more order not less. A definite violation of entropy, and hence the SLoT.

I have brought up these incongruities before and you refuse to discuss them or even acknowledge them. You say I put words in your mouth but I am only responding to what you have said. Are you denying that you said that there is only a one way gross radiation between two objects? Or that one object S-B equation describing radiation according to temperature is only valid in a 'super vacuum'?

Physicists and their textbooks describe a two way flow of radiation leaving a net energy exchange. There is no one who espouses your bastardized version, which is completely dependent on your interpretation of the word energy, taken out of context.

If you respond at all, my guess is that you will just endlessly repeat your mantra. Ignoring all of my points, and refusing to explain your position. Perhaps it is time for you to dredge up that hoary old chestnut, "How does a rock know which way to fall?". As if that has anything to do with thermodynamics.

 

[IanC]

I am sure you like to pretend that you find problems in my statements...and I even believe that you believe you have found problems with them..alas, though...I haven't. But do let me know when an actual observation and measurement is made of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

How does a liquid water molecule attain the necessary energy to evaporate if not from the cooler cohort of molecules?

Explain why that doesn't violate your bastardized interpretation of the SLoT.

Simple question, do you have a simple answer?

 

[SSDD]

Of course you have bastardized it! The old version says heat (net energy) will not flow from cold to warm without work done.'/quote]

Sorry ian...but it doesn't. When the argument doesn't go your way, you just make it up don't you?

Clausius put it this way: "Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time."

Kelvin said it this way: "It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects"

Planck said it this way: "Every process occurring in nature proceeds in the sense in which the sum of the entropies of all bodies taking part in the process is increased."

None of the statements of the second law mention net energy flow....net is a product of post modern science which all to often simply assumes that because the unobservable, unmeasurable, UNTESTABLE mathematical model says it, that it must therefore be true.

You have hidden behind the vague definition of the word 'energy'. All heat is energy, not all energy is heat. Wuwei (or someone) gave you fifty examples of heat transfer being described as the net exchange, including one from Einstein. Still you refuse to listen.

Sorry ian, but again, it is you who is hiding behind the logical fallacy of complexity....if heat is energy, then the second law states that energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm...if heat is nothing more than the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another, then the same is true...since energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm, then there can be no fingerprint (heat) of such a movement happening.

Radiation is emitted according to the internal conditions of the molecule, not the average kinetic speed (temperature) of its possible target.

Radiation is emitted according to the internal conditions of the molecule if it is in a vacuum...if it is in the presence of other matter than it emits according to the difference in temperature between itself and its surroundings...sorry that after all this time, you are still unable to actually read an equation as simple as the SB equation.

The SLoT is now defined in terms of entropy (increasing disorder).

Based on that unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical model...and nothing more..and as a result, there is great confusion within the field of physics. There have been some very big guns who have pointed out the folly of trying to teach the second law as a matter of entropy rather than as energy transfer.


And you can go on and on and on in the description of your mathematical model, but at the end when the bottom line is reached, it is still just a model and it doesn't matter who, or how many accept it...it is a model...a model that can not be observed, can not be measured, and can not be tested...it is barely a hypothesis if one looks at it in terms of the scientific method.