NASA: Earth Tops Hottest 12 Months On Record Again, Thanks To Warm February

[Old Rocks]

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2015 is +0.30 deg. C, down a little from the January 2015 value of +0.35 deg. C (click for full size version):


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-feb-2015-0-30-deg-c/
Gotta love the lying bozos on this board.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mars 96% CO2 atmosphere, no runaway Greenhouse effect...weird

Totally!

Temperature on Mars should be 400 maybe 500 degrees

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2015 is +0.30 deg. C, down a little from the January 2015 value of +0.35 deg. C (click for full size version):


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-feb-2015-0-30-deg-c/
Gotta love the lying bozos on this board.

UAH Version 5.6 uses infilling modeled temperature where the satellite does not reach in the upper polar regions which are all adjusted up by 1.2 degrees C in the algorithm. Dr. Spencer is simply posting the output. He is not the one grossly adjusting the data set, that would be NASA doing that.

Dr Spencer also posts the other sets of data but I see you dont like them as they all show cooling.

The only Bozo is you. It is you that doesn't know what it is he is posting..

 

[mamooth]

Satellite data sets aren't regarded as reliable, due to all the fiddling, fudging and guesswork that goes into converting a microwave measurement to temperature. In comparison, the surface temperature measurements undergo far less post-processing, so they're regarded as the gold standard.

Frank and Billy, be sure to write up your theory of why Mars should be at 500F. Let the world know why the past century of physics is all wrong. Clearly, a couple fringe culters have figured out what the entire planet has missed. The info was given to you, no doubt, by 4th dimension beings from the 7 planes of Shamballa. The mothership is coming for you soon. Be sure to sell off all of your possessions.

 

[Crick]

absorption of surface IR is a boundary issue because it is basically absorbs all CO2 specific radiation in the first 10 meters and warms that portion of the atmosphere.

Yes.

after the first 10 meters the atmosphere has no surface 15micron IR.
but it is producing its own blackbody radiation that contains CO2 specific radiation, as well there is a modest fraction of CO2 specific re-emission of 15 micron IR from excited CO2 molecules.

Why do you care about the 15 micron radiation? The atmosphere, as you say, is radiating its own blackbody spectrum and that will then be reabsorbed and reradiated and reabsorbed and reradiated until it finally departs the atmosphere.

there is always IR energy to be slowed down by CO2 until the atmosphere is so thin that there are few molecular collisions to produce blackbody radiation.

Yes.

jc456 is more correct on this point.

What point of jc's do you mean?

surface temperature is an equilibrium between energy in and energy out.

That is true of all temperatures.

solar insolation is basically static and independent of atmospheric temperature.

Solar insolation varies by latitude, time and weather and temperature is dependent on it.

escape of surface radiation is not independent of atmospheric temperature.

Emission of surface radiation is dependent on temperature. Transmission of that radiation through the atmosphere is not, but there are numerous constituents and system states that are temperature dependent which do effect transmission. Therefore, transmission is indirectly and complexly dependent on temperature. I am uncertain what you mean here by "escape".

if the air above the surface has an increased temperature then less net radiation escapes, the opposite is true if the air temp decreases.

Would you care to explain that? CO2's IR absorption characteristics are not temperature dependent - at least within the range found in the Earth's atmosphere. If you're including conduction and convection effect, then you're no longer talking about net radiation, are you.

if the height to extinction for 15 micron IR reduces to 9.5 meters from 10 meters then the same amount of energy will be absorbed into less volume, therefore the air just above the surface will increase

But what would reduce the "height to extinction"? Increased levels of CO2 in the mix?

causing a change in the equilibrium to a warmer temp

If you wish to look at this parameter rather than the rate at which CO2's portion of the IR spectrum is getting from the surface to space, feel free. But I don't know what point you're making with your comments about the difference between the surface's and CO2's radiative spectrum.

even though the air is cooler than the surface it can still 'warm' the surface. Old Rocks is more correct on this point.

There is no need to reinforce this point. Everyone here with even the most basic science education already know that all matter radiates IR.

I believe that CO2 actually does warm the surface. but far less than what CO2 theory says it will. why? becausethe extra energy being directed back at the surface will not just be used to heat up the surface.

And you think 200 years worth of real scientists looking and working with this topic have never thought of this point?

Get real.

climate models cannot do clouds or ocean circulation.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course they can. The problem is that modelers cannot be certain that they are being simulated accurately or even correctly.

these are the major players in climate. looking at the flea on the dog's back (CO2) is not going to give us a meaningful understanding of the system as a whole.

Then it's quite the stroke of luck that dozens of different models are able to accurately recreate past climate patterns.
**********************************************
For jc456 and anyone else buying into this idiotic nonsense that cold can't radiate to warm or that CO2 absorbing IR might not increase in temperature:

Absorption and reflection
The object or surface that solar radiation strikes may be a planet, a terrestrial object inside the atmosphere of a planet, or an object exposed to solar rays outside of an atmosphere, such as spacecraft. Some of the radiation will be absorbed and the remainder reflected. Usually the absorbed solar radiation is converted to thermal energy, causing an increase in the object's temperature. Manmade or natural systems, however, may convert a portion of the absorbed radiation into another form, as in the case of photovoltaic cells or plants. The proportion of radiation reflected or absorbed depends on the object's reflectivity or albedo.

Wikipedia's article on solar insolation

All normal (baryonic) matter emits electromagnetic radiation when it has a temperature above absolute zero. The radiation represents a conversion of a body's thermal energy into electromagnetic energy, and is therefore called thermal radiation. It is aspontaneous process of radiative distribution of entropy.


Wikipedia's article on blackbody radiation

 

[Politico]

What do you believe caused the warming of the last 150 years? And please don't answer "nature" or "cycles" or "nothing".

The same thing that caused it during all the other periods in history before factories and cars existed. Nature. Oh wait. I guess I can't answer. Nevermind.

 

[Crick]

Oh wait, you don't HAVE an answer.

 

[Politico]

No I have one. You Leftytoon trehuggers just don't like it.

 

[Crick]

Then let's hear it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The answer is to stick with real science and rigorously test the AGWCult hypothesis in the lab. Anyone claiming "Consensus" should have their funding zeroed out; that's Cult-speak, that's anti-science

 

[G.T.]

Mars 96% CO2 atmosphere, no runaway Greenhouse effect...weird

Totally!

Temperature on Mars should be 400 maybe 500 degrees

Youre such a fuckin bonehead dude.

Why are you comparing what the temperate effect of co2 would be on earth with what it is on mars? Do you not know why thats retarded, or........?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Mars 96% CO2 atmosphere, no runaway Greenhouse effect...weird

Totally!

Temperature on Mars should be 400 maybe 500 degrees

Youre such a fuckin bonehead dude.

Why are you comparing what the temperate effect of co2 would be on earth with what it is on mars? Do you not know why thats retarded, or........?

The point is valid. mars does not have a runaway temp problem EVEN WITH 96% of its atmosphere being CO2.. It is you who is the bone head. The projection here is stunning and reminds me of a hairball..

 

[Billy_Bob]

absorption of surface IR is a boundary issue because it is basically absorbs all CO2 specific radiation in the first 10 meters and warms that portion of the atmosphere.

Yes.

after the first 10 meters the atmosphere has no surface 15micron IR.
but it is producing its own blackbody radiation that contains CO2 specific radiation, as well there is a modest fraction of CO2 specific re-emission of 15 micron IR from excited CO2 molecules.

Why do you care about the 15 micron radiation? The atmosphere, as you say, is radiating its own blackbody spectrum and that will then be reabsorbed and reradiated and reabsorbed and reradiated until it finally departs the atmosphere.

there is always IR energy to be slowed down by CO2 until the atmosphere is so thin that there are few molecular collisions to produce blackbody radiation.

Yes.

jc456 is more correct on this point.

What point of jc's do you mean?

surface temperature is an equilibrium between energy in and energy out.

That is true of all temperatures.

solar insolation is basically static and independent of atmospheric temperature.

Solar insolation varies by latitude, time and weather and temperature is dependent on it.

escape of surface radiation is not independent of atmospheric temperature.

Emission of surface radiation is dependent on temperature. Transmission of that radiation through the atmosphere is not, but there are numerous constituents and system states that are temperature dependent which do effect transmission. Therefore, transmission is indirectly and complexly dependent on temperature. I am uncertain what you mean here by "escape".

if the air above the surface has an increased temperature then less net radiation escapes, the opposite is true if the air temp decreases.

Would you care to explain that? CO2's IR absorption characteristics are not temperature dependent - at least within the range found in the Earth's atmosphere. If you're including conduction and convection effect, then you're no longer talking about net radiation, are you.

if the height to extinction for 15 micron IR reduces to 9.5 meters from 10 meters then the same amount of energy will be absorbed into less volume, therefore the air just above the surface will increase

But what would reduce the "height to extinction"? Increased levels of CO2 in the mix?

causing a change in the equilibrium to a warmer temp

If you wish to look at this parameter rather than the rate at which CO2's portion of the IR spectrum is getting from the surface to space, feel free. But I don't know what point you're making with your comments about the difference between the surface's and CO2's radiative spectrum.

even though the air is cooler than the surface it can still 'warm' the surface. Old Rocks is more correct on this point.

There is no need to reinforce this point. Everyone here with even the most basic science education already know that all matter radiates IR.

I believe that CO2 actually does warm the surface. but far less than what CO2 theory says it will. why? becausethe extra energy being directed back at the surface will not just be used to heat up the surface.

And you think 200 years worth of real scientists looking and working with this topic have never thought of this point?

Get real.

climate models cannot do clouds or ocean circulation.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course they can. The problem is that modelers cannot be certain that they are being simulated accurately or even correctly.

these are the major players in climate. looking at the flea on the dog's back (CO2) is not going to give us a meaningful understanding of the system as a whole.

Then it's quite the stroke of luck that dozens of different models are able to accurately recreate past climate patterns.
**********************************************
For jc456 and anyone else buying into this idiotic nonsense that cold can't radiate to warm or that CO2 absorbing IR might not increase in temperature:

Absorption and reflection
The object or surface that solar radiation strikes may be a planet, a terrestrial object inside the atmosphere of a planet, or an object exposed to solar rays outside of an atmosphere, such as spacecraft. Some of the radiation will be absorbed and the remainder reflected. Usually the absorbed solar radiation is converted to thermal energy, causing an increase in the object's temperature. Manmade or natural systems, however, may convert a portion of the absorbed radiation into another form, as in the case of photovoltaic cells or plants. The proportion of radiation reflected or absorbed depends on the object's reflectivity or albedo.

Wikipedia's article on solar insolation

All normal (baryonic) matter emits electromagnetic radiation when it has a temperature above absolute zero. The radiation represents a conversion of a body's thermal energy into electromagnetic energy, and is therefore called thermal radiation. It is aspontaneous process of radiative distribution of entropy.


Wikipedia's article on blackbody radiation

Wiki is WRONG! Tell me again how a colder mass can cause a warmer mass to get warmer... The laws of thermodynamics apply here and a colder mass can not induce warming in a warmer mass.

Also the black-body IR emitted by the atmosphere must be at the right temperature and wave length for CO2 to have any effect. The bands being so narrow, that over 96% of all convection is emitted to space.

 

[Old Rocks]

You are one stupid little corksmoker. At less than 1% of the pressure of the Earth's atmosphere, it matters little what the atmosphere of Mars is, there is not enough of it to maintain an equilibrium temperature.

 

[G.T.]

Mars 96% CO2 atmosphere, no runaway Greenhouse effect...weird

Totally!

Temperature on Mars should be 400 maybe 500 degrees

Youre such a fuckin bonehead dude.

Why are you comparing what the temperate effect of co2 would be on earth with what it is on mars? Do you not know why thats retarded, or........?

The point is valid. mars does not have a runaway temp problem EVEN WITH 96% of its atmosphere being CO2.. It is you who is the bone head. The projection here is stunning and reminds me of a hairball..

How much closer to the sun is mars, then us?

Dont worry - thats a trick question dude.

And how much more of an ozone do they have then us?

Dont worry, thats a trick question too weirdo.

 

[skookerasbil]

What were some saying about retarded/stupid regarding CO2???

 

[skookerasbil]

I love this forum!!!

Like a personal playground to make fun of progressive mental cases!!

 

[IanC]

absorption of surface IR is a boundary issue because it is basically absorbs all CO2 specific radiation in the first 10 meters and warms that portion of the atmosphere.

Yes.

after the first 10 meters the atmosphere has no surface 15micron IR.
but it is producing its own blackbody radiation that contains CO2 specific radiation, as well there is a modest fraction of CO2 specific re-emission of 15 micron IR from excited CO2 molecules.

Why do you care about the 15 micron radiation? The atmosphere, as you say, is radiating its own blackbody spectrum and that will then be reabsorbed and reradiated and reabsorbed and reradiated until it finally departs the atmosphere.

there is always IR energy to be slowed down by CO2 until the atmosphere is so thin that there are few molecular collisions to produce blackbody radiation.

Yes.

jc456 is more correct on this point.

What point of jc's do you mean?

surface temperature is an equilibrium between energy in and energy out.

That is true of all temperatures.

solar insolation is basically static and independent of atmospheric temperature.

Solar insolation varies by latitude, time and weather and temperature is dependent on it.

escape of surface radiation is not independent of atmospheric temperature.

Emission of surface radiation is dependent on temperature. Transmission of that radiation through the atmosphere is not, but there are numerous constituents and system states that are temperature dependent which do effect transmission. Therefore, transmission is indirectly and complexly dependent on temperature. I am uncertain what you mean here by "escape".

if the air above the surface has an increased temperature then less net radiation escapes, the opposite is true if the air temp decreases.

Would you care to explain that? CO2's IR absorption characteristics are not temperature dependent - at least within the range found in the Earth's atmosphere. If you're including conduction and convection effect, then you're no longer talking about net radiation, are you.

if the height to extinction for 15 micron IR reduces to 9.5 meters from 10 meters then the same amount of energy will be absorbed into less volume, therefore the air just above the surface will increase

But what would reduce the "height to extinction"? Increased levels of CO2 in the mix?

causing a change in the equilibrium to a warmer temp

If you wish to look at this parameter rather than the rate at which CO2's portion of the IR spectrum is getting from the surface to space, feel free. But I don't know what point you're making with your comments about the difference between the surface's and CO2's radiative spectrum.

even though the air is cooler than the surface it can still 'warm' the surface. Old Rocks is more correct on this point.

There is no need to reinforce this point. Everyone here with even the most basic science education already know that all matter radiates IR.

I believe that CO2 actually does warm the surface. but far less than what CO2 theory says it will. why? becausethe extra energy being directed back at the surface will not just be used to heat up the surface.

And you think 200 years worth of real scientists looking and working with this topic have never thought of this point?

Get real.

climate models cannot do clouds or ocean circulation.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course they can. The problem is that modelers cannot be certain that they are being simulated accurately or even correctly.

these are the major players in climate. looking at the flea on the dog's back (CO2) is not going to give us a meaningful understanding of the system as a whole.

Then it's quite the stroke of luck that dozens of different models are able to accurately recreate past climate patterns.
**********************************************
For jc456 and anyone else buying into this idiotic nonsense that cold can't radiate to warm or that CO2 absorbing IR might not increase in temperature:

Absorption and reflection
The object or surface that solar radiation strikes may be a planet, a terrestrial object inside the atmosphere of a planet, or an object exposed to solar rays outside of an atmosphere, such as spacecraft. Some of the radiation will be absorbed and the remainder reflected. Usually the absorbed solar radiation is converted to thermal energy, causing an increase in the object's temperature. Manmade or natural systems, however, may convert a portion of the absorbed radiation into another form, as in the case of photovoltaic cells or plants. The proportion of radiation reflected or absorbed depends on the object's reflectivity or albedo.

Wikipedia's article on solar insolation

All normal (baryonic) matter emits electromagnetic radiation when it has a temperature above absolute zero. The radiation represents a conversion of a body's thermal energy into electromagnetic energy, and is therefore called thermal radiation. It is aspontaneous process of radiative distribution of entropy.


Wikipedia's article on blackbody radiation

There are many topics in my very generalized statement. As I usually use my phone to respond, I would prefer to have one topic per message so that issues don't get conflated.

I said solar insulation is static. While there are minor variations in the Sun's output nothing we do influences it. The geography of the Earth does not change so I don't understand what your comment on latitudes and longitudes has to do with our discussion. A nitpick? Or are you arguing that we shouldn't be using generalized values to make general statements?

The conditions on Earth affected by GHGs change the pathways of energy escaping Earth not the Sun's output. I am OK with talking about clouds changing albedo and affecting the insulation that reaches the surface if you would like.

But I would prefer one specific topic per comment if you could.

 

[IanC]

absorption of surface IR is a boundary issue because it is basically absorbs all CO2 specific radiation in the first 10 meters and warms that portion of the atmosphere.

Yes.

after the first 10 meters the atmosphere has no surface 15micron IR.
but it is producing its own blackbody radiation that contains CO2 specific radiation, as well there is a modest fraction of CO2 specific re-emission of 15 micron IR from excited CO2 molecules.

Why do you care about the 15 micron radiation? The atmosphere, as you say, is radiating its own blackbody spectrum and that will then be reabsorbed and reradiated and reabsorbed and reradiated until it finally departs the atmosphere.

there is always IR energy to be slowed down by CO2 until the atmosphere is so thin that there are few molecular collisions to produce blackbody radiation.

Yes.

jc456 is more correct on this point.

What point of jc's do you mean?

surface temperature is an equilibrium between energy in and energy out.

That is true of all temperatures.

solar insolation is basically static and independent of atmospheric temperature.

Solar insolation varies by latitude, time and weather and temperature is dependent on it.

escape of surface radiation is not independent of atmospheric temperature.

Emission of surface radiation is dependent on temperature. Transmission of that radiation through the atmosphere is not, but there are numerous constituents and system states that are temperature dependent which do effect transmission. Therefore, transmission is indirectly and complexly dependent on temperature. I am uncertain what you mean here by "escape".

if the air above the surface has an increased temperature then less net radiation escapes, the opposite is true if the air temp decreases.

Would you care to explain that? CO2's IR absorption characteristics are not temperature dependent - at least within the range found in the Earth's atmosphere. If you're including conduction and convection effect, then you're no longer talking about net radiation, are you.

if the height to extinction for 15 micron IR reduces to 9.5 meters from 10 meters then the same amount of energy will be absorbed into less volume, therefore the air just above the surface will increase

But what would reduce the "height to extinction"? Increased levels of CO2 in the mix?

causing a change in the equilibrium to a warmer temp

If you wish to look at this parameter rather than the rate at which CO2's portion of the IR spectrum is getting from the surface to space, feel free. But I don't know what point you're making with your comments about the difference between the surface's and CO2's radiative spectrum.

even though the air is cooler than the surface it can still 'warm' the surface. Old Rocks is more correct on this point.

There is no need to reinforce this point. Everyone here with even the most basic science education already know that all matter radiates IR.

I believe that CO2 actually does warm the surface. but far less than what CO2 theory says it will. why? becausethe extra energy being directed back at the surface will not just be used to heat up the surface.

And you think 200 years worth of real scientists looking and working with this topic have never thought of this point?

Get real.

climate models cannot do clouds or ocean circulation.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course they can. The problem is that modelers cannot be certain that they are being simulated accurately or even correctly.

these are the major players in climate. looking at the flea on the dog's back (CO2) is not going to give us a meaningful understanding of the system as a whole.

Then it's quite the stroke of luck that dozens of different models are able to accurately recreate past climate patterns.
**********************************************
For jc456 and anyone else buying into this idiotic nonsense that cold can't radiate to warm or that CO2 absorbing IR might not increase in temperature:

Absorption and reflection
The object or surface that solar radiation strikes may be a planet, a terrestrial object inside the atmosphere of a planet, or an object exposed to solar rays outside of an atmosphere, such as spacecraft. Some of the radiation will be absorbed and the remainder reflected. Usually the absorbed solar radiation is converted to thermal energy, causing an increase in the object's temperature. Manmade or natural systems, however, may convert a portion of the absorbed radiation into another form, as in the case of photovoltaic cells or plants. The proportion of radiation reflected or absorbed depends on the object's reflectivity or albedo.

Wikipedia's article on solar insolation

All normal (baryonic) matter emits electromagnetic radiation when it has a temperature above absolute zero. The radiation represents a conversion of a body's thermal energy into electromagnetic energy, and is therefore called thermal radiation. It is aspontaneous process of radiative distribution of entropy.


Wikipedia's article on blackbody radiation

Wiki is WRONG! Tell me again how a colder mass can cause a warmer mass to get warmer... The laws of thermodynamics apply here and a colder mass can not induce warming in a warmer mass.

Also the black-body IR emitted by the atmosphere must be at the right temperature and wave length for CO2 to have any effect. The bands being so narrow, that over 96% of all convection is emitted to space.

BB- you should stop making outlandish claims. You're not helping the skeptical side by stating untruths.

All the energy leaves the Earth by radiation, whether it was partially carried aloft by conduction, convection or as latent heat.

CO2 likes to absorb the same wavelengths at all terrestrial temperatures. Also the Planck curves for all terrestrial temps contain the 15 micron band that CO2 is important for, only the proportion changes.

As far as cooler bodies increasing the temp of warmer one, on Earth the surface is warmed by the Sun. The atmosphere reduces the rate at which the surface can cool. The surface is much cooler than the maximum that sunshine could heat it. So stop making specious claims that it is the energy from the atmosphere that is doing the warming. The atmosphere affects the equilibrium of input minus output only.

I have no problem with you criticizing public explanations that use vague terminology which confuse the public but doing the same thing in reverse is just as bad.

 

[Billy_Bob]

absorption of surface IR is a boundary issue because it is basically absorbs all CO2 specific radiation in the first 10 meters and warms that portion of the atmosphere.

Yes.

after the first 10 meters the atmosphere has no surface 15micron IR.
but it is producing its own blackbody radiation that contains CO2 specific radiation, as well there is a modest fraction of CO2 specific re-emission of 15 micron IR from excited CO2 molecules.

Why do you care about the 15 micron radiation? The atmosphere, as you say, is radiating its own blackbody spectrum and that will then be reabsorbed and reradiated and reabsorbed and reradiated until it finally departs the atmosphere.

there is always IR energy to be slowed down by CO2 until the atmosphere is so thin that there are few molecular collisions to produce blackbody radiation.

Yes.

jc456 is more correct on this point.

What point of jc's do you mean?

surface temperature is an equilibrium between energy in and energy out.

That is true of all temperatures.

solar insolation is basically static and independent of atmospheric temperature.

Solar insolation varies by latitude, time and weather and temperature is dependent on it.

escape of surface radiation is not independent of atmospheric temperature.

Emission of surface radiation is dependent on temperature. Transmission of that radiation through the atmosphere is not, but there are numerous constituents and system states that are temperature dependent which do effect transmission. Therefore, transmission is indirectly and complexly dependent on temperature. I am uncertain what you mean here by "escape".

if the air above the surface has an increased temperature then less net radiation escapes, the opposite is true if the air temp decreases.

Would you care to explain that? CO2's IR absorption characteristics are not temperature dependent - at least within the range found in the Earth's atmosphere. If you're including conduction and convection effect, then you're no longer talking about net radiation, are you.

if the height to extinction for 15 micron IR reduces to 9.5 meters from 10 meters then the same amount of energy will be absorbed into less volume, therefore the air just above the surface will increase

But what would reduce the "height to extinction"? Increased levels of CO2 in the mix?

causing a change in the equilibrium to a warmer temp

If you wish to look at this parameter rather than the rate at which CO2's portion of the IR spectrum is getting from the surface to space, feel free. But I don't know what point you're making with your comments about the difference between the surface's and CO2's radiative spectrum.

even though the air is cooler than the surface it can still 'warm' the surface. Old Rocks is more correct on this point.

There is no need to reinforce this point. Everyone here with even the most basic science education already know that all matter radiates IR.

I believe that CO2 actually does warm the surface. but far less than what CO2 theory says it will. why? becausethe extra energy being directed back at the surface will not just be used to heat up the surface.

And you think 200 years worth of real scientists looking and working with this topic have never thought of this point?

Get real.

climate models cannot do clouds or ocean circulation.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course they can. The problem is that modelers cannot be certain that they are being simulated accurately or even correctly.

these are the major players in climate. looking at the flea on the dog's back (CO2) is not going to give us a meaningful understanding of the system as a whole.

Then it's quite the stroke of luck that dozens of different models are able to accurately recreate past climate patterns.
**********************************************
For jc456 and anyone else buying into this idiotic nonsense that cold can't radiate to warm or that CO2 absorbing IR might not increase in temperature:

Absorption and reflection
The object or surface that solar radiation strikes may be a planet, a terrestrial object inside the atmosphere of a planet, or an object exposed to solar rays outside of an atmosphere, such as spacecraft. Some of the radiation will be absorbed and the remainder reflected. Usually the absorbed solar radiation is converted to thermal energy, causing an increase in the object's temperature. Manmade or natural systems, however, may convert a portion of the absorbed radiation into another form, as in the case of photovoltaic cells or plants. The proportion of radiation reflected or absorbed depends on the object's reflectivity or albedo.

Wikipedia's article on solar insolation

All normal (baryonic) matter emits electromagnetic radiation when it has a temperature above absolute zero. The radiation represents a conversion of a body's thermal energy into electromagnetic energy, and is therefore called thermal radiation. It is aspontaneous process of radiative distribution of entropy.


Wikipedia's article on blackbody radiation

Wiki is WRONG! Tell me again how a colder mass can cause a warmer mass to get warmer... The laws of thermodynamics apply here and a colder mass can not induce warming in a warmer mass.

Also the black-body IR emitted by the atmosphere must be at the right temperature and wave length for CO2 to have any effect. The bands being so narrow, that over 96% of all convection is emitted to space.

BB- you should stop making outlandish claims. You're not helping the skeptical side by stating untruths.

All the energy leaves the Earth by radiation, whether it was partially carried aloft by conduction, convection or as latent heat.

CO2 likes to absorb the same wavelengths at all terrestrial temperatures. Also the Planck curves for all terrestrial temps contain the 15 micron band that CO2 is important for, only the proportion changes.

As far as cooler bodies increasing the temp of warmer one, on Earth the surface is warmed by the Sun. The atmosphere reduces the rate at which the surface can cool. The surface is much cooler than the maximum that sunshine could heat it. So stop making specious claims that it is the energy from the atmosphere that is doing the warming. The atmosphere affects the equilibrium of input minus output only.

I have no problem with you criticizing public explanations that use vague terminology which confuse the public but doing the same thing in reverse is just as bad.

What was untrue?

CO2 has narrow bands in frequency where it can absorb or emit. 15microns is one of those bands but not all radiated energy is emitted at that frequency.

A colder body can not warm a warmer one, it may slow the rate of cooling of the warmer object but the warmer object still radiates more energy. The issue is how it slows the cooling.