OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?

[IanC]

....and keep using the entire amount under the 300 K curve instead of the portion which the CO2 actually absorbs:

It's not me who uses the total area under the curve. I specifically reference the different bands, some escape freely, some are retarded by water vapour, some by CO2. I wish you would directly quote any of my statements that you disagree with, rather than make a strawman caricature that you then attribute to me.

I notice you have not responded to the point I made about your graph. The energy output from the sun is four orders of magnitude greater in the visible light range than it is for the CO2 reactive IR band.

The IR coming off the Sun is a large amount but not in comparison to the total amount.

By the time the Sun's radiation reaches the Earth it has been attenuated to just 1360w at the zenith. The proportions of the wavelengths remains the same but the flux has been reduced. So the maximum CO2 reactive radiation reaching the Earth is 1360 divided by 10^4. That is further reduced by a factor of 4 to compensate for the rotation of the Earth. In actuality it should be further reduced for the inefficiencies involved with uneven distribution because of the rotation but that is splitting hairs. The amount of 15 micron radiation reaching the Earth is real but negligible. And it has already been accounted for in the amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere.

It is a clever idea to think about but in reality it doesn't make much of a difference.

 

[IanC]

Are you an idiot? Conduction is not storage...it is a less efficient way of moving energy through the atmosphere..but not storage...if there were more CO2, then more energy could be radiated out of the atmosphere rather than taking the slow boat out via conduction to the upper atmosphere.

Like I said. Everytime you actually say something rather than just hurl insults, I win!

Radiation produced by Co2 only escapes to space when the density of CO2 is low enough that the 15 micron photons are no longer being reabsorbed by another CO2 molecule.

It does not matter how much CO2 is in the air, it only matters where the radiation escapes.

More CO2 raises the escape emission height, less CO2 would lower it.

The atmosphere cools with height, at least until you get up into the stratosphere. A cooler emission height therefore has less energy available to produce radiation.

I think you probably have a naive idea that more CO2 produces more radiation that escapes, despite the actual satellite measurements.

You also flip-flop on whether conduction and convection are more efficient at moving energy around. They are much more efficient but they run into the bottleneck caused by radiation being the only pathway for energy to escape to space.

I am also willing to discuss the more complex situation caused by the water cycle. But first we should come to some conclusion about the simple case of CO2 radiation in the atmosphere. Direct measurements of how much 15 micron radiation is emitted by the surface, compared to how much 15 micron radiation is emitted by the atmosphere, show a deficit that is stored in the atmosphere. You need to explain where that energy goes.

 

[SSDD]

Like I said. Everytime you actually say something rather than just hurl insults, I win!

No ian.. you don't win...and the fact that you believe you do just goes to show how out of it you actually are...more GHG's increase the emissivity of the atmosphere...and once again..what happens to an object when you increase its emissivity? Think you can manage to answer honestly?

Radiation produced by Co2 only escapes to space when the density of CO2 is low enough that the 15 micron photons are no longer being reabsorbed by another CO2 molecule.

There is almost no radiation produced by CO2 molecules...one CO2 molecule per billion actually radiates the energy it absorbs...the rest lose the energy via collision with some other molecule.

More CO2 raises the escape emission height, less CO2 would lower it.

No ian...more CO2 would mean that energy doesn't have to move as far via conduction...that would lower the escape emission height..

You also flip-flop on whether conduction and convection are more efficient at moving energy around. They are much more efficient but they run into the bottleneck caused by radiation being the only pathway for energy to escape to space.

Lying again...but do feel free to bring forward a quote from me suggesting that conduction and convection are more efficient means of moving energy than radiation.

I am also willing to discuss the more complex situation caused by the water cycle. But first we should come to some conclusion about the simple case of CO2 radiation in the atmosphere. Direct measurements of how much 15 micron radiation is emitted by the surface, compared to how much 15 micron radiation is emitted by the atmosphere, show a deficit that is stored in the atmosphere. You need to explain where that energy goes.

The sensitivity of the climate is zero or less...there is nothing to discuss unless you care to argue how much CO2 would need to be in the atmosphere for it to actually start causing cooling.

And ian, try to use your brain for just one second...if nine hundred and ninety nine million nine hundred and ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine molecules out of a billion are losing their energy via collision to be conducted to the top of the atmosphere..and most of that is eventually being carried aloft by water molecules in the form of water vapor...what wavelength do you believe they are radiating the energ that the CO2 molecule lost via collision when the water vapor finally turns to ice? Do you think a water molecule is going to radiate it at 15 microns just because some O2 or N2 molecule took it from a CO2 molecule way down in the atmosphere?

there is no magic ian...and CO2 has zero or less effect on the temperature of the air.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So if CO2 goes up after temperature goes up, and our current model of climate change is correct (anthropomorphic climate change), how does it explain this?

I think I heard an answer to this a while ago but I forgot.

Why in the world would you come to a clearinghouse for uneducated, ass-backwards climate science deniers to get a question answered about climate science?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I have shown Ian multiple times that water vapor holds energy upwards of 9 seconds. During this residency time the water vapor temperature decreases by 20 deg. emitting energy at a much longer wave length... but alas he dosent care

It's a waste of time responding to you but...

Where is the link showing residency time of more than 9 seconds for a photon that excites a water vapour molecule? What wavelength was it?

You say that a lower energy wavelengths is reemited. That can only happen if the molecule loses the energy in multiple steps, with several photons produced that add up to the same energy as the original photon that excited the molecule. Of course molecular collisions can disrupt the absorption/emission but then we are talking about a totally different process altogether.

Temperature is only a valid concept for large conglomerations of particles. The wet Atmospheric lapse rate is less than 10C per kilometre. So you are claiming that all water vapour molecules are rising at a minimum of two kilometres per 9 seconds. What's that work out to? 500 mph? I don't think even thunderstorms produce that speed of updraught.

I think you are full of shit, as usual.

Alas it is you who is full of shit...

Several papers have shown the residency time of energy in water vapor. The graph above shows that residency time and the rate of wave length change.

The one above is: Residence Time and Heat Transfer When Water Droplets Hit a Scalding Surface | Journal of Heat Transfer | ASME DC

There are others which look specifically at atmospheric water vapor and estimate it as long as 9 min when the pressures are normalized in the atmospheric column. IF energy can be kept out of the LWIR bands as it ascends then it will be emitted at a much longer wave length at TOA.

Why have you never asked yourself why the water vapor emissions band starts at 12um and doesn't end until it is over 120um? its long for a very good reason..

 

[SSDD]

I have shown Ian multiple times that water vapor holds energy upwards of 9 seconds. During this residency time the water vapor temperature decreases by 20 deg. emitting energy at a much longer wave length... but alas he dosent care

It's a waste of time responding to you but...

Where is the link showing residency time of more than 9 seconds for a photon that excites a water vapour molecule? What wavelength was it?

You say that a lower energy wavelengths is reemited. That can only happen if the molecule loses the energy in multiple steps, with several photons produced that add up to the same energy as the original photon that excited the molecule. Of course molecular collisions can disrupt the absorption/emission but then we are talking about a totally different process altogether.

Temperature is only a valid concept for large conglomerations of particles. The wet Atmospheric lapse rate is less than 10C per kilometre. So you are claiming that all water vapour molecules are rising at a minimum of two kilometres per 9 seconds. What's that work out to? 500 mph? I don't think even thunderstorms produce that speed of updraught.

I think you are full of shit, as usual.

Alas it is you who is full of shit...

Several papers have shown the residency time of energy in water vapor. The graph above shows that residency time and the rate of wave length change.

The one above is: Residence Time and Heat Transfer When Water Droplets Hit a Scalding Surface | Journal of Heat Transfer | ASME DC

There are others which look specifically at atmospheric water vapor and estimate it as long as 9 min when the pressures are normalized in the atmospheric column. IF energy can be kept out of the LWIR bands as it ascends then it will be emitted at a much longer wave length at TOA.

Why have you never asked yourself why the water vapor emissions band starts at 12um and doesn't end until it is over 120um? its long for a very good reason..

Ian spends his time angsting over that bit of 15 micron radiation that CO2 molecules absorb...and he just doesn't seem to understand that CO2 loses almost all of that energy via conduction with other molecules...then for some reason, he seems to believe that it when it eventually radiates out into space, that it is going to be radiated in that same 15 micron wavelength that it was originally absorbed in by that CO2 molecule way back down near the ground. It appears that it never occurred to him that it is all just energy and isn't obligated to remain at the same wavelength as it moves about and is exchanged from one molecule to another...

To him the fact that it can be absorbed at 15 microns, then lost via a collision with another molecule then conducted and convected to the top of the troposphere, then radiated at a different wavelength by a different molecule is some sort of magic...and beyond his comprehension...his concern over 15 micron radiation at the top of the atmosphere might be justified if the troposphere were not so completely dominated by conduction... Chalk it up to poor critical thinking skills...he believes and rational thought rarely enters the belief equation.

 

[IanC]

I have shown Ian multiple times that water vapor holds energy upwards of 9 seconds. During this residency time the water vapor temperature decreases by 20 deg. emitting energy at a much longer wave length... but alas he dosent care

It's a waste of time responding to you but...

Where is the link showing residency time of more than 9 seconds for a photon that excites a water vapour molecule? What wavelength was it?

You say that a lower energy wavelengths is reemited. That can only happen if the molecule loses the energy in multiple steps, with several photons produced that add up to the same energy as the original photon that excited the molecule. Of course molecular collisions can disrupt the absorption/emission but then we are talking about a totally different process altogether.

Temperature is only a valid concept for large conglomerations of particles. The wet Atmospheric lapse rate is less than 10C per kilometre. So you are claiming that all water vapour molecules are rising at a minimum of two kilometres per 9 seconds. What's that work out to? 500 mph? I don't think even thunderstorms produce that speed of updraught.

I think you are full of shit, as usual.

Alas it is you who is full of shit...

Several papers have shown the residency time of energy in water vapor. The graph above shows that residency time and the rate of wave length change.

The one above is: Residence Time and Heat Transfer When Water Droplets Hit a Scalding Surface | Journal of Heat Transfer | ASME DC

There are others which look specifically at atmospheric water vapor and estimate it as long as 9 min when the pressures are normalized in the atmospheric column. IF energy can be kept out of the LWIR bands as it ascends then it will be emitted at a much longer wave length at TOA.

Why have you never asked yourself why the water vapor emissions band starts at 12um and doesn't end until it is over 120um? its long for a very good reason..

What a imbecile you are. We were talking about how long a molecule can remain in an excited state before it gives up that energy and returns to groundstate.

And you post up a paper on bouncing water drops on a frying pan.

 

[polarbear]

I have shown Ian multiple times that water vapor holds energy upwards of 9 seconds. During this residency time the water vapor temperature decreases by 20 deg. emitting energy at a much longer wave length... but alas he dosent care

It's a waste of time responding to you but...

Where is the link showing residency time of more than 9 seconds for a photon that excites a water vapour molecule? What wavelength was it?

You say that a lower energy wavelengths is reemited. That can only happen if the molecule loses the energy in multiple steps, with several photons produced that add up to the same energy as the original photon that excited the molecule. Of course molecular collisions can disrupt the absorption/emission but then we are talking about a totally different process altogether.

Temperature is only a valid concept for large conglomerations of particles. The wet Atmospheric lapse rate is less than 10C per kilometre. So you are claiming that all water vapour molecules are rising at a minimum of two kilometres per 9 seconds. What's that work out to? 500 mph? I don't think even thunderstorms produce that speed of updraught.

I think you are full of shit, as usual.

Alas it is you who is full of shit...

Several papers have shown the residency time of energy in water vapor. The graph above shows that residency time and the rate of wave length change.

The one above is: Residence Time and Heat Transfer When Water Droplets Hit a Scalding Surface | Journal of Heat Transfer | ASME DC

There are others which look specifically at atmospheric water vapor and estimate it as long as 9 min when the pressures are normalized in the atmospheric column. IF energy can be kept out of the LWIR bands as it ascends then it will be emitted at a much longer wave length at TOA.

Why have you never asked yourself why the water vapor emissions band starts at 12um and doesn't end until it is over 120um? its long for a very good reason..

Ian spends his time angsting over that bit of 15 micron radiation that CO2 molecules absorb...and he just doesn't seem to understand that CO2 loses almost all of that energy via conduction with other molecules...then for some reason, he seems to believe that it when it eventually radiates out into space, that it is going to be radiated in that same 15 micron wavelength that it was originally absorbed in by that CO2 molecule way back down near the ground. It appears that it never occurred to him that it is all just energy and isn't obligated to remain at the same wavelength as it moves about and is exchanged from one molecule to another...

To him the fact that it can be absorbed at 15 microns, then lost via a collision with another molecule then conducted and convected to the top of the troposphere, then radiated at a different wavelength by a different molecule is some sort of magic...and beyond his comprehension...his concern over 15 micron radiation at the top of the atmosphere might be justified if the troposphere were not so completely dominated by conduction... Chalk it up to poor critical thinking skills...he believes and rational thought rarely enters the belief equation.

Ever notice, every time he is confronted with facts that contradict his CO2 forcing he claims that it was just a straw man which has been defeated...not him or this radiation budget "math" designed to be used by the kind of people who get their "facts" from web pages that peddle "consensus science" .
In addition to that he prefers to move the goal posts, like now.
I notice you have not responded to the point I made about your graph. The energy output from the sun is four orders of magnitude greater in the visible light range than it is for the CO2 reactive IR band.
The IR coming off the Sun is a large amount but not in comparison to the total amount.
Hard to say if he really believes that is relevant or if he is trying to troll me.
As if it mattered what the amount the CO2 prevents from reaching the surface is in comparison to how much visible light makes it through. It`s like saying that a coffee filter does not filter anything because most of the coffee makes it through. But on the other hand I can`t really blame him. The internet web pages that deal with the entire CO2 absorption spectrum don`t really show up if all you got as a resource is Google...which is known to censor dissent from the political views Google actively promotes.
Ian would look at a graph like this to come to his conclusion:

So of course if you look at what is under the "CO2" in the absorption bands (which does not even include the 15 micron band) one would say it is minuscule how much incoming IR the CO2 is preventing from reaching the surface. That graph is misleading because some of the other bands where CO2 absorbs also are labelled as H2O absorption only...instead of H20+CO2
Like this one does:

As you can see the CO2 does make a significant difference how much down dwelling IR is impeded at the 1400 nm band and the 2000 nm band...not just at the 15 micrometer ( 15 000 nm) band .
Of course any of that is "denialism" as is anything that contradicts the easy to digest milk maid math AGW energy budget which comes up with over 1 watt/m^2 as opposed to just 0.05 watt/m^2 as determined by spectroscopic analysis. Even if you ignore the findings of Dr.Heinz Hug (The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact) who`s figure I quote you would come up with almost exactly the same number if you paste a CO2 IR absorption spec picture into a half decent CAD window and perform an integration.

 

[IanC]

I have shown Ian multiple times that water vapor holds energy upwards of 9 seconds. During this residency time the water vapor temperature decreases by 20 deg. emitting energy at a much longer wave length... but alas he dosent care

It's a waste of time responding to you but...

Where is the link showing residency time of more than 9 seconds for a photon that excites a water vapour molecule? What wavelength was it?

You say that a lower energy wavelengths is reemited. That can only happen if the molecule loses the energy in multiple steps, with several photons produced that add up to the same energy as the original photon that excited the molecule. Of course molecular collisions can disrupt the absorption/emission but then we are talking about a totally different process altogether.

Temperature is only a valid concept for large conglomerations of particles. The wet Atmospheric lapse rate is less than 10C per kilometre. So you are claiming that all water vapour molecules are rising at a minimum of two kilometres per 9 seconds. What's that work out to? 500 mph? I don't think even thunderstorms produce that speed of updraught.

I think you are full of shit, as usual.

Alas it is you who is full of shit...

Several papers have shown the residency time of energy in water vapor. The graph above shows that residency time and the rate of wave length change.

The one above is: Residence Time and Heat Transfer When Water Droplets Hit a Scalding Surface | Journal of Heat Transfer | ASME DC

There are others which look specifically at atmospheric water vapor and estimate it as long as 9 min when the pressures are normalized in the atmospheric column. IF energy can be kept out of the LWIR bands as it ascends then it will be emitted at a much longer wave length at TOA.

Why have you never asked yourself why the water vapor emissions band starts at 12um and doesn't end until it is over 120um? its long for a very good reason..

Ian spends his time angsting over that bit of 15 micron radiation that CO2 molecules absorb...and he just doesn't seem to understand that CO2 loses almost all of that energy via conduction with other molecules...then for some reason, he seems to believe that it when it eventually radiates out into space, that it is going to be radiated in that same 15 micron wavelength that it was originally absorbed in by that CO2 molecule way back down near the ground. It appears that it never occurred to him that it is all just energy and isn't obligated to remain at the same wavelength as it moves about and is exchanged from one molecule to another...

To him the fact that it can be absorbed at 15 microns, then lost via a collision with another molecule then conducted and convected to the top of the troposphere, then radiated at a different wavelength by a different molecule is some sort of magic...and beyond his comprehension...his concern over 15 micron radiation at the top of the atmosphere might be justified if the troposphere were not so completely dominated by conduction... Chalk it up to poor critical thinking skills...he believes and rational thought rarely enters the belief equation.

SSDD is now saying that the energy absorbed by CO2 bounced around in the atmosphere and radiated out by a different molecule.

That is a totally reasonable idea, and I am sure that if you could actually follow the energy through all the transformations in the atmosphere it would happen some of the time.

BUT there is a big problem there. The molecules that SSDD says are getting rid of the excess CO2 absorbed energy already have excess energy of their own that they cannot get rid of.

By the same process as CO2, water vapour absorbs more energy from the warm surface than it can emit to space from the cool emission height.

If water vapour is getting rid of the CO2 energy, what is getting rid of the water vapour energy? If some unknown x molecule is getting rid of the water vapour energy, then what is getting rid of x's energy? SSDD is proposing a Ponzi scheme.

 

[IanC]

I have shown Ian multiple times that water vapor holds energy upwards of 9 seconds. During this residency time the water vapor temperature decreases by 20 deg. emitting energy at a much longer wave length... but alas he dosent care

It's a waste of time responding to you but...

Where is the link showing residency time of more than 9 seconds for a photon that excites a water vapour molecule? What wavelength was it?

You say that a lower energy wavelengths is reemited. That can only happen if the molecule loses the energy in multiple steps, with several photons produced that add up to the same energy as the original photon that excited the molecule. Of course molecular collisions can disrupt the absorption/emission but then we are talking about a totally different process altogether.

Temperature is only a valid concept for large conglomerations of particles. The wet Atmospheric lapse rate is less than 10C per kilometre. So you are claiming that all water vapour molecules are rising at a minimum of two kilometres per 9 seconds. What's that work out to? 500 mph? I don't think even thunderstorms produce that speed of updraught.

I think you are full of shit, as usual.

Alas it is you who is full of shit...

Several papers have shown the residency time of energy in water vapor. The graph above shows that residency time and the rate of wave length change.

The one above is: Residence Time and Heat Transfer When Water Droplets Hit a Scalding Surface | Journal of Heat Transfer | ASME DC

There are others which look specifically at atmospheric water vapor and estimate it as long as 9 min when the pressures are normalized in the atmospheric column. IF energy can be kept out of the LWIR bands as it ascends then it will be emitted at a much longer wave length at TOA.

Why have you never asked yourself why the water vapor emissions band starts at 12um and doesn't end until it is over 120um? its long for a very good reason..

Ian spends his time angsting over that bit of 15 micron radiation that CO2 molecules absorb...and he just doesn't seem to understand that CO2 loses almost all of that energy via conduction with other molecules...then for some reason, he seems to believe that it when it eventually radiates out into space, that it is going to be radiated in that same 15 micron wavelength that it was originally absorbed in by that CO2 molecule way back down near the ground. It appears that it never occurred to him that it is all just energy and isn't obligated to remain at the same wavelength as it moves about and is exchanged from one molecule to another...

To him the fact that it can be absorbed at 15 microns, then lost via a collision with another molecule then conducted and convected to the top of the troposphere, then radiated at a different wavelength by a different molecule is some sort of magic...and beyond his comprehension...his concern over 15 micron radiation at the top of the atmosphere might be justified if the troposphere were not so completely dominated by conduction... Chalk it up to poor critical thinking skills...he believes and rational thought rarely enters the belief equation.

Ever notice, every time he is confronted with facts that contradict his CO2 forcing he claims that it was just a straw man which has been defeated...not him or this radiation budget "math" designed to be used by the kind of people who get their "facts" from web pages that peddle "consensus science" .
In addition to that he prefers to move the goal posts, like now.
I notice you have not responded to the point I made about your graph. The energy output from the sun is four orders of magnitude greater in the visible light range than it is for the CO2 reactive IR band.
The IR coming off the Sun is a large amount but not in comparison to the total amount.
Hard to say if he really believes that is relevant or if he is trying to troll me.
As if it mattered what the amount the CO2 prevents from reaching the surface is in comparison to how much visible light makes it through. It`s like saying that a coffee filter does not filter anything because most of the coffee makes it through. But on the other hand I can`t really blame him. The internet web pages that deal with the entire CO2 absorption spectrum don`t really show up if all you got as a resource is Google...which is known to censor dissent from the political views Google actively promotes.
Ian would look at a graph like this to come to his conclusion:

So of course if you look at what is under the "CO2" in the absorption bands (which does not even include the 15 micron band) one would say it is minuscule how much incoming IR the CO2 is preventing from reaching the surface. That graph is misleading because some of the other bands where CO2 absorbs also are labelled as H2O absorption only...instead of H20+CO2
Like this one does:

As you can see the CO2 does make a significant difference how much down dwelling IR is impeded at the 1400 nm band and the 2000 nm band...not just at the 15 micrometer ( 15 000 nm) band .
Of course any of that is "denialism" as is anything that contradicts the easy to digest milk maid math AGW energy budget which comes up with over 1 watt/m^2 as opposed to just 0.05 watt/m^2 as determined by spectroscopic analysis. Even if you ignore the findings of Dr.Heinz Hug (The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact) who`s figure I quote you would come up with almost exactly the same number if you paste a CO2 IR absorption spec picture into a half decent CAD window and perform an integration.

You still have not responded to my point.

Now you have changed the subject again. Absorption of high energy solar insolation is a one way street. Molecules in the atmosphere cannot reradiate high energy photons because the temperature is too low. Unlike the thermal transfers of IR in the terrestrial system where molecules can both absorb and emit the same wavelengths.

 

[IanC]

No ian.. you don't win...and the fact that you believe you do just goes to show how out of it you actually are...more GHG's increase the emissivity of the atmosphere...and once again..what happens to an object when you increase its emissivity? Think you can manage to answer honestly?

Other than the ad homs, this is a wonderful question! It makes one think.

What are the basics? Emissivities of gases are tricky things at the best of times. A single gas, like CO2, acts like a blackbody at certain wavelengths but totally transmits other wavelengths. Can there really be an 'average' emissivity for a range of wavelengths?

Adding a new type of gas into a mixture of gases changes the emissivity but does simply adding more of an already present gas make a fundamental change? That is not so clear.

CO2 emits 15 micron radiation that escapes to space from an elevated cold emission height. It escapes because there are too few CO2 molecules to recapture it, not because CO2 has lost its ability to absorb.

My back of the envelope calculation suggests that half of the surface emitted 15 micron radiation would escape if the sea level concentration of CO2 was about 50 parts per billion. That is the same volumetric distribution of CO2 molecules as the emission height. The break even point. Anything less than that would end up radiating more 15 micron energy than it absorbed from the surface (the extra energy would come from molecular collision and the atmosphere would cool). Any concentration greater than 50 ppb would store energy in the atmosphere by molecular collision. The exact concentration doesn't matter. Just the idea that there is a break even point that is determined by geometry rather than emmisivity.

Of course I could be full of shit. This is a new idea, at least to me.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD is now saying that the energy absorbed by CO2 bounced around in the atmosphere and radiated out by a different molecule.

How could it possibly be any other way ian...sorry that you are just coming around to realizing what I have been saying all along... Let me guess...never mind...who knows what the hell you think...

That is a totally reasonable idea, and I am sure that if you could actually follow the energy through all the transformations in the atmosphere it would happen some of the time.

No ian...that happens damned near all the time...CO2 radiates almost no energy out of the troposphere...it all moves by conduction and convection....some wee bit is radiated by CO2 but the amount is vanishingly small.

BUT there is a big problem there. The molecules that SSDD says are getting rid of the excess CO2 absorbed energy already have excess energy of their own that they cannot get rid of.

Again...not listening ian...how often have I said that eventually most of that conducted energy ends up in a water molecule...which is then convected on up to the upper atmosphere where it freezes and promptly emits all the energy that it took to cause it to change phases in the first place.

By the same process as CO2, water vapour absorbs more energy from the warm surface than it can emit to space from the cool emission height.

No ian...not by the same process at all because CO2 doesn't change phases at atmospheric pressures and temperatures...

If water vapour is getting rid of the CO2 energy, what is getting rid of the water vapour energy? If some unknown x molecule is getting rid of the water vapour energy, then what is getting rid of x's energy? SSDD is proposing a Ponzi scheme.

You really don't use your brain for much other than learning the dogma do you? Ever notice how broad the H20 spectrum is...water is getting rid of most of the energy that makes it to the upper atmosphere...along with some CO2 that is up there and a few other so called greenhouse gasses...sometimes you come up with the stupidest ideas...

And it isn't CO2 energy..it is just energy...

 

[SSDD]

Of course I could be full of shit. This is a new idea, at least to me.

Well yes you are now that you mention it...but it is fun watching you squirm in an attempt to defend your dogma...and the magic.

 

[IanC]

No ian...that happens damned near all the time...CO2 radiates almost no energy out of the troposphere...it all moves by conduction and convection....some wee bit is radiated by CO2 but the amount is vanishingly small.

Only radiation lost to space causes cooling. Period. You can move energy around all you want by matter-mediated convection and conduction but that causes zero energy loss.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I have shown Ian multiple times that water vapor holds energy upwards of 9 seconds. During this residency time the water vapor temperature decreases by 20 deg. emitting energy at a much longer wave length... but alas he dosent care

It's a waste of time responding to you but...

Where is the link showing residency time of more than 9 seconds for a photon that excites a water vapour molecule? What wavelength was it?

You say that a lower energy wavelengths is reemited. That can only happen if the molecule loses the energy in multiple steps, with several photons produced that add up to the same energy as the original photon that excited the molecule. Of course molecular collisions can disrupt the absorption/emission but then we are talking about a totally different process altogether.

Temperature is only a valid concept for large conglomerations of particles. The wet Atmospheric lapse rate is less than 10C per kilometre. So you are claiming that all water vapour molecules are rising at a minimum of two kilometres per 9 seconds. What's that work out to? 500 mph? I don't think even thunderstorms produce that speed of updraught.

I think you are full of shit, as usual.

Alas it is you who is full of shit...

Several papers have shown the residency time of energy in water vapor. The graph above shows that residency time and the rate of wave length change.

The one above is: Residence Time and Heat Transfer When Water Droplets Hit a Scalding Surface | Journal of Heat Transfer | ASME DC

There are others which look specifically at atmospheric water vapor and estimate it as long as 9 min when the pressures are normalized in the atmospheric column. IF energy can be kept out of the LWIR bands as it ascends then it will be emitted at a much longer wave length at TOA.

Why have you never asked yourself why the water vapor emissions band starts at 12um and doesn't end until it is over 120um? its long for a very good reason..

What a imbecile you are. We were talking about how long a molecule can remain in an excited state before it gives up that energy and returns to groundstate.

And you post up a paper on bouncing water drops on a frying pan.

Again you miss the forest for the trees.. A water molecule can hold energy as shown in that experiment for very long periods of time. As the energy level diminishes, as it is with LWIR, the energy can be held for much longer periods of time in water vapor, before the molecule returns to a ground state through phase change to water or ice.

You keep grasping at straws.. The article I posted up show the energy at 100 Deg C is held in water vapor for upwards of 6-9 seconds. If we take this graphing out further, as it cools, the time gets real long in a normalized atmosphere pressure column.

I don't know how to get you to see this... Your so set on AGW that you refuse to see what empirical observations are telling us right in front of our eyes.

 

[Billy_Bob]

BUT there is a big problem there. The molecules that SSDD says are getting rid of the excess CO2 absorbed energy already have excess energy of their own that they cannot get rid of.

Total BS...

There is no "extra energy".. There is no hot spot, which would have to be present if it were true.

You fail to understand how water vapor actually moves energy.

 

[jillian]

Thank you for your help. I have been waffling as of late.

The next time you waffle all you need to do is ask yourself how the earth entered and left a glacial cycle with CO2 levels at or above 7,000ppm..

View attachment 179620

And when we get to a resolution where you can see them.....

View attachment 179621

This pattern is right in line with Milankovitch cycles and lays waste to any credible CO2 fantasy.

in other words, none of the actual climate scientists agree with it

 

[Billy_Bob]

Thank you for your help. I have been waffling as of late.

The next time you waffle all you need to do is ask yourself how the earth entered and left a glacial cycle with CO2 levels at or above 7,000ppm..

View attachment 179620

And when we get to a resolution where you can see them.....

View attachment 179621

This pattern is right in line with Milankovitch cycles and lays waste to any credible CO2 fantasy.

in other words, none of the actual climate scientists agree with it

Poor silly jilly....

all you have left is personal attack... priceless...

 

[SSDD]

No ian...that happens damned near all the time...CO2 radiates almost no energy out of the troposphere...it all moves by conduction and convection....some wee bit is radiated by CO2 but the amount is vanishingly small.

Only radiation lost to space causes cooling. Period. You can move energy around all you want by matter-mediated convection and conduction but that causes zero energy loss.

Well its a good damned thing that water vapor is between 10,000 and 20,000ppm isn't it?
As I have said over and over but you don't seen to want to listen either because you are impervious to fact, or because it challenges your dogma or both...that convection completely dominates energy movement in the troposphere and radiation dominates once you are above the troposphere...get a grip on reality ian...there is no radiative greenhouse effect, and the effect of CO2 on the climate is zero or less.

 

[SSDD]

I have shown Ian multiple times that water vapor holds energy upwards of 9 seconds. During this residency time the water vapor temperature decreases by 20 deg. emitting energy at a much longer wave length... but alas he dosent care

It's a waste of time responding to you but...

Where is the link showing residency time of more than 9 seconds for a photon that excites a water vapour molecule? What wavelength was it?

You say that a lower energy wavelengths is reemited. That can only happen if the molecule loses the energy in multiple steps, with several photons produced that add up to the same energy as the original photon that excited the molecule. Of course molecular collisions can disrupt the absorption/emission but then we are talking about a totally different process altogether.

Temperature is only a valid concept for large conglomerations of particles. The wet Atmospheric lapse rate is less than 10C per kilometre. So you are claiming that all water vapour molecules are rising at a minimum of two kilometres per 9 seconds. What's that work out to? 500 mph? I don't think even thunderstorms produce that speed of updraught.

I think you are full of shit, as usual.

Alas it is you who is full of shit...

Several papers have shown the residency time of energy in water vapor. The graph above shows that residency time and the rate of wave length change.

The one above is: Residence Time and Heat Transfer When Water Droplets Hit a Scalding Surface | Journal of Heat Transfer | ASME DC

There are others which look specifically at atmospheric water vapor and estimate it as long as 9 min when the pressures are normalized in the atmospheric column. IF energy can be kept out of the LWIR bands as it ascends then it will be emitted at a much longer wave length at TOA.

Why have you never asked yourself why the water vapor emissions band starts at 12um and doesn't end until it is over 120um? its long for a very good reason..

What a imbecile you are. We were talking about how long a molecule can remain in an excited state before it gives up that energy and returns to groundstate.

And you post up a paper on bouncing water drops on a frying pan.

Again you miss the forest for the trees.. A water molecule can hold energy as shown in that experiment for very long periods of time. As the energy level diminishes, as it is with LWIR, the energy can be held for much longer periods of time in water vapor, before the molecule returns to a ground state through phase change to water or ice.

You keep grasping at straws.. The article I posted up show the energy at 100 Deg C is held in water vapor for upwards of 6-9 seconds. If we take this graphing out further, as it cools, the time gets real long in a normalized atmosphere pressure column.

I don't know how to get you to see this... Your so set on AGW that you refuse to see what empirical observations are telling us right in front of our eyes.

In addition to the energy it holds, there is the latent energy that resides there that caused its phase change...when, for example, water vapor freezes in the upper atmosphere, it releases exactly as much energy as it took to cause its phase change to vapor in the first place.