Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[Wuwei]

Your windowpane example is meaningless, as it fails to account for how the atmosphere works. You did a lot of calculations, but your setup was totally wrong, so your conclusions are nonsense. Nobody ever said "More CO2 means the air is more insulating". That's your bad strawman, so the fact that you disproved it means nothing.

At low altitudes, CO2 primarily loses heat by conduction.

At high altitudes, with few molecular collisions, CO2 will primarily lose heat to space by radiation.

It's the high altitudes that are changing with increased CO2. The highest radiating layer is getting higher, so there are more layers of atmosphere that heat has to be pushed through, so temperature at the bottom has to get warmer to do that. It's much like putting another blanket on the bed. More insulation means a higher temperature at the heat source.

Also what is important is that, as higher altitudes get colder, radiation to space will be less because of the S-B law.

 

[ding]

Ok, each day the O2 and N2 warms by convection during the day, right? Maybe even at night too, right? How much does it warm up and how much is lost during the day or night? Is all of the heating of the 99% of the atmosphere - by convection - lost each and every day? Or is there some heat or energy that was left over and was not lost?

Maybe latent is a better term than residual.

Yes, day and night O2 and N2 are continually being warmed by earth convection and thermal radiation. The O2 and N2 are unable to absorb the earth's thermal radiation directly, but the GHG's can, and since the are thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere the GHG's heat all the atmosphere. The heat loss at the top of the atmosphere is largely constant day and night. Of course at night we loose the influx of solar energy so it gets colder and the blanketing effect of GHG's keeps most of the heat retained in the atmosphere.

Ok. But the heat resides primarily in the 99% of the atmosphere, right? What is the temperature difference between the GHG and o2 and n2?

 

[ding]

Ding-

I don't know if this is the answer you were looking for. The amount of energy going into the atmosphere from the surface, and the similar amount leaving the TOA, is a tiny fraction of the total energy contained by the atmosphere.

It is the total energy that is the source of blackbody radiation that increases the average surface temp. The GHGs just enhance the effect.

I'm just asking questions right now. I'm not looking for a specific answer. This is me being curious about the basis of his belief.

 

[SSDD]

Ding-

I don't know if this is the answer you were looking for. The amount of energy going into the atmosphere from the surface, and the similar amount leaving the TOA, is a tiny fraction of the total energy contained by the atmosphere.

It is the total energy that is the source of blackbody radiation that increases the average surface temp. The GHGs just enhance the effect.

I'm just asking questions right now. I'm not looking for a specific answer. This is me being curious about the basis of his belief.

What interests me is that their beliefs don't conform to the official climate science line as described by the IPCC.....which states:

Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is re ected di- rectly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce air ow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

I think their position is that the "greenhouse effect" slows the escape of energy from the atmosphere but doesn't actually radiate energy back to warm the surface of the earth...it is funny that they give me a hard time because I don't accept the IPCC's description of a greenhouse effect when in fact, they don't either...at least my position is supported by actual repeatable laboratory experiments and accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while theirs only predicts the temperature here, and then only with the judicious use of an ad hoc fudge factor.

 

[Wuwei]

Ok. But the heat resides primarily in the 99% of the atmosphere, right? What is the temperature difference between the GHG and o2 and n2?

The GHG's, O2, and N2 are thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere and are at the same temperature.

 

[Wuwei]

I think their position is that the "greenhouse effect" slows the escape of energy from the atmosphere but doesn't actually radiate energy back to warm the surface of the earth...it is funny that they give me a hard time because I don't accept the IPCC's description of a greenhouse effect when in fact, they don't either

Not true.

... Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

That is not totally accurate wording, because it's the sun that warms the earth. Many say the strictly more correct, "keeps the surface warm", or "prevents heat loss", etc. But they do correctly say "...reradiated back to Earth.."

at least my position is supported by actual repeatable laboratory experiments and accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere ...

What experiments are those?

 

[IanC]

That's why I have never even considered putting him on ignore. He may be wrong but he causes me to think and defend my ideas. That is rare around here.

Your ideas are on solid ground but it`s always advantageous to view them from another vantage point. That`s why I also like reading what he has to say.
Like just now when you discussed the effect of an atmosphere
Remember your thread about the moon?
Suppose it were under a very thin 100% volume/volume CO2 gas layer.
That would of course absorb some IR going out, but would also conduct heat. That layer would increase the surface area of the overall radiating sphere and thus increase the amount of energy that this sphere radiates. Agree ?
The question is now what is the net effect of this CO2 layer in terms of exact numbers, after taking the amount it absorbed into account.
Leave aside all the rest of it which complicates that question, like water vapor and clouds etc. and how they affect the overall outcome, because all of that, especially their negative magnitude is just as verboten in AGW as doubting the accuracy of the data they feed into their models.
Too bad the guys at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab stopped short at doing that when they experimented with using CO2 in the double pane window gap:

The U value per deg K inside/outside temperature includes heat loss by conduction and radiation.
But it does show that it is a logarithmically decreasing function as the gap (the CO2 layer) is increased. There is not much of a drop by doubling the thickness of the CO2 layer.

(In spectroscopic analysis we use variable path length cuvettes for low concentrations because doubling the path length L is like doubling the Concentration C since A=ε*L *C (Beer Lambert).)

And that is with 100% unadulterated CO2 not just 0.04 % as we have been discussing.
Also the 2 glass panes help quite a bit dropping the U value down to what it is even without the CO2. A double pane window with a 1/2 inch gap filled with air has a typical U value of 0.37.
The U value for CO2 even at a 100% concentration is only 0.07 watts per m^2 per deg K better than just air.
Heinz Hug found a similar ratio which is 1/80th of what the IPCC uses.

Inert or single bond gases are a better choice for Windows because they don't interact with IR.

A CO2 atmosphere on the moon would illustrate my point about stored potential energy. The fourteen day long night would leave the CO2 a frozen crust on the surface. The 14 day long day would quickly heat the CO2 and puff it up until it reached escape velocity.

About the "CO2 moon", which was meant to serve as a mathematical model only to single out the effect the CO2 has, without any unnecessary interference like water etc. and I did say that thinking you would understand it as such. Obviously not.
It also was not my intention to discuss what makes a better window. The point was that the numbers for 100% CO2 instead of air in the gap are very close, within 0.07 w/(K*m^2).
Too bad that you decided to sidestep that as well. That`s okay and I am not really surprised you did. Most of the people here don`t want to crunch numbers and equations. It`s easier for them to huff and puff buzz words picked&pasted from wikipedia web pages without really understanding the associated concepts and equations. Discussing physics here is as amusing as being challenged by somebody who isn`t sure at which end the bullets come out of a gun.

WTF?!?

Your CO2 Moon example is untenable. CO2 snow on one side and escape velocity on the other. If you wanted me to pretend that the temperature wouldnt affect the atmosphere then you should have said so. You said a very thin layer. What does that mean? One kilometer, twenty five kilometers? One Km would have negligible effect on the surface area, 25Km would be what? About one percent? What would be the lapse rate, ignoring zero height in the dark and infinity (escape velocity) in the light? What is the percentage of CO2 specific surface IR produced on cold and hot sides?

If you consider that sidestepping you are being hypocritical. Your record of answering my pointed questions is sketchy at best.

No it`s not. All the statements you made are absurd.
With a thin layer that has a barometric pressure of 10 mm Hg the only places where you would have dry ice are at the 2 poles and in craters that never get sunlight..
Everywhere else where the temperature is above - 120 C that won`t happen (vapor pressure of CO2 at > -120 = > 10 mm Hg). Anyhow why are you insisting to use the lunar cycle of our moon for a mathematical model ?...unless you wanted to avoid thinking what would happen...as you obviously did when you say that the CO2 would reach escape velocity on the sun-lit side.
I would like to see you making a 2.38 km per second hypersonic projectile out of dry ice by shining sunlight on it. If you can you could get a job at DARPA right now because that would solve all their problems in that area.

You said

Remember your thread about the moon?

If you want to change the parameters of the type of moon you want to discuss then you should have defined the parameters instead of making a reference to our Moon.

Daytime and nighttime on our Moon are roughly 300+ hours long. Night temps quickly drop to ~ minus 150C, cold enough to turn CO2 into a solid. Day temps rise to about 100C+, more than hot enough to boil off any CO2 atmosphere present under the weak lunar gravity.

Sorry, I am too lazy to actually find the precise facts and figures for the speed of a CO2 molecule under lunar gravity. 2.4K m/s sounds fast but is not for a molecule of gas. My vague recollection from 35 years ago is that air molecules here travel at 1000 MPH, or 500 m/s. rule of six for speed distribution sets max speed at 3000m/s.

My back of the envelope calculations suggest dry ice in the dark and disappearing gas in the light. Perhaps the mediating effect on temperature of having even a thin atmosphere would push the numbers around a bit.

The Moon's albedo is less than the Earth. It should be warmer than the Earth if only total solar input is considered. About -10C for the Earth and 0C for the Moon, if my memory of someone else's calculations are right. But that is only if the average is in force all the time. The moon has huge swings, the Earth moderate ones. Any deflection from average drops the average temp. Especially because the radiation loss is related to the fourth power of temperature in Kelvins. The 600 hr day of the Moon and the 24 hr day of the Earth also skews things. But the energy in (solar) always equals the energy out to space, over time.

 

[IanC]

Ok, each day the O2 and N2 warms by convection during the day, right? Maybe even at night too, right? How much does it warm up and how much is lost during the day or night? Is all of the heating of the 99% of the atmosphere - by convection - lost each and every day? Or is there some heat or energy that was left over and was not lost?

Maybe latent is a better term than residual.

Yes, day and night O2 and N2 are continually being warmed by earth convection and thermal radiation. The O2 and N2 are unable to absorb the earth's thermal radiation directly, but the GHG's can, and since the are thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere the GHG's heat all the atmosphere. The heat loss at the top of the atmosphere is largely constant day and night. Of course at night we loose the influx of solar energy so it gets colder and the blanketing effect of GHG's keeps most of the heat retained in the atmosphere.

Ok. But the heat resides primarily in the 99% of the atmosphere, right? What is the temperature difference between the GHG and o2 and n2?

potential and kinetic energy are fully transferable by molecular collisions. Keep in mind that 'temperature' is a macroscopic quality defined as the average speed of molecules, which defines the range of speed for the atmospheric molecules but does not define any individual particle.

The energy absorbed by CO2 near the surface is much greater than the energy released by CO2 which escapes into space. The energy differential between these two quantities is used to warm the atmosphere (kinetic) or increase the height (potential).

 

[IanC]

Ding-

I don't know if this is the answer you were looking for. The amount of energy going into the atmosphere from the surface, and the similar amount leaving the TOA, is a tiny fraction of the total energy contained by the atmosphere.

It is the total energy that is the source of blackbody radiation that increases the average surface temp. The GHGs just enhance the effect.

I'm just asking questions right now. I'm not looking for a specific answer. This is me being curious about the basis of his belief.

What interests me is that their beliefs don't conform to the official climate science line as described by the IPCC.....which states:

Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is re ected di- rectly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce air ow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

I think their position is that the "greenhouse effect" slows the escape of energy from the atmosphere but doesn't actually radiate energy back to warm the surface of the earth...it is funny that they give me a hard time because I don't accept the IPCC's description of a greenhouse effect when in fact, they don't either...at least my position is supported by actual repeatable laboratory experiments and accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while theirs only predicts the temperature here, and then only with the judicious use of an ad hoc fudge factor.

Since I have been here I have criticized the IPCC in numerous ways. Their science, their methods and their politics. Why do you continue to ask ME to support their position? I don't agree with them and never have, except for instances where they haven't mangled the data or underlying science to the point of being false.

I have my own internally consistent view on climate science. I do not bow to authority. I do not claim certainty unless I am. Unlike you, I defend my ideas and I am open to new ones.

Where is YOUR evidence that radiation is prohibited until a cooler target is available? You have been asked a hundred times, you have been given dozens of reasons why it is logically impossible which you simply ignore.

 

[jc456]

Ding-

I don't know if this is the answer you were looking for. The amount of energy going into the atmosphere from the surface, and the similar amount leaving the TOA, is a tiny fraction of the total energy contained by the atmosphere.

It is the total energy that is the source of blackbody radiation that increases the average surface temp. The GHGs just enhance the effect.

I'm just asking questions right now. I'm not looking for a specific answer. This is me being curious about the basis of his belief.

What interests me is that their beliefs don't conform to the official climate science line as described by the IPCC.....which states:

Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is re ected di- rectly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce air ow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

I think their position is that the "greenhouse effect" slows the escape of energy from the atmosphere but doesn't actually radiate energy back to warm the surface of the earth...it is funny that they give me a hard time because I don't accept the IPCC's description of a greenhouse effect when in fact, they don't either...at least my position is supported by actual repeatable laboratory experiments and accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while theirs only predicts the temperature here, and then only with the judicious use of an ad hoc fudge factor.

Since I have been here I have criticized the IPCC in numerous ways. Their science, their methods and their politics. Why do you continue to ask ME to support their position? I don't agree with them and never have, except for instances where they haven't mangled the data or underlying science to the point of being false.

I have my own internally consistent view on climate science. I do not bow to authority. I do not claim certainty unless I am. Unlike you, I defend my ideas and I am open to new ones.

Where is YOUR evidence that radiation is prohibited until a cooler target is available? You have been asked a hundred times, you have been given dozens of reasons why it is logically impossible which you simply ignore.

All I know is that you believe that if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the surface temperature will get warmer. That is exactly what the IPCC states. So, not sure how you feel you've separated yourself from them.

Fact, 120 PPM of CO2 was added to the atmosphere and there has been no more warming at the surface.

Fact, 20 PPM of CO2 was added in the last decade and no temperature increase. So, not quite sure how you get there, but I will argue daily that adding CO2 to our atmosphere does not add any heat to our planet.

 

[IanC]

Ding-

I don't know if this is the answer you were looking for. The amount of energy going into the atmosphere from the surface, and the similar amount leaving the TOA, is a tiny fraction of the total energy contained by the atmosphere.

It is the total energy that is the source of blackbody radiation that increases the average surface temp. The GHGs just enhance the effect.

I'm just asking questions right now. I'm not looking for a specific answer. This is me being curious about the basis of his belief.

What interests me is that their beliefs don't conform to the official climate science line as described by the IPCC.....which states:

Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is re ected di- rectly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce air ow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

I think their position is that the "greenhouse effect" slows the escape of energy from the atmosphere but doesn't actually radiate energy back to warm the surface of the earth...it is funny that they give me a hard time because I don't accept the IPCC's description of a greenhouse effect when in fact, they don't either...at least my position is supported by actual repeatable laboratory experiments and accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while theirs only predicts the temperature here, and then only with the judicious use of an ad hoc fudge factor.

Since I have been here I have criticized the IPCC in numerous ways. Their science, their methods and their politics. Why do you continue to ask ME to support their position? I don't agree with them and never have, except for instances where they haven't mangled the data or underlying science to the point of being false.

I have my own internally consistent view on climate science. I do not bow to authority. I do not claim certainty unless I am. Unlike you, I defend my ideas and I am open to new ones.

Where is YOUR evidence that radiation is prohibited until a cooler target is available? You have been asked a hundred times, you have been given dozens of reasons why it is logically impossible which you simply ignore.

All I know is that you believe that if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the surface temperature will get warmer. That is exactly what the IPCC states. So, not sure how you feel you've separated yourself from them.

Fact, 120 PPM of CO2 was added to the atmosphere and there has been no more warming at the surface.

Fact, 20 PPM of CO2 was added in the last decade and no temperature increase. So, not quite sure how you get there, but I will argue daily that adding CO2 to our atmosphere does not add any heat to our planet.

The price of your morning coffee goes up by 10%. Does it make a noticeable difference in your net worth? Or maybe change your coffee drinking habits?

 

[ding]

Ok. But the heat resides primarily in the 99% of the atmosphere, right? What is the temperature difference between the GHG and o2 and n2?

The GHG's, O2, and N2 are thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere and are at the same temperature.

So o2, n2 and ghg are all at the same temperature at all times?

 

[Wuwei]

Ok. But the heat resides primarily in the 99% of the atmosphere, right? What is the temperature difference between the GHG and o2 and n2?

The GHG's, O2, and N2 are thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere and are at the same temperature.

So o2, n2 and ghg are all at the same temperature at all times?

That's right. If a molecule of a GHG picks up energy, it will transfer it to the rest of the atmosphere immediately.

 

[mamooth]

All you have to do is go out and look at the specs hairball...

I did.

_None_ of them use thermocouples. They (modern uncooled IR cameras) all use CCD's of some type, or their descendant technologies, where incoming photons result in a flow of electrons.

Yet you were raving about how they work by raising the temperature of a thermocouple. Hence, why everyone was laughing.

So, now that your fantasy thermocouple explanation has been laughed out of the room, maybe you'd like to try again. Think up a new conspiracy theory. How is it that an IR camera can display detailed pictures of the IR coming in from much colder sources?

This will be tricky for you, explaining how they're not absorbing photons, given that they use electronics technology that specifically relies on reacting to the absorption of photons, independent of the instrument temperature.

 

[ding]

Ok. But the heat resides primarily in the 99% of the atmosphere, right? What is the temperature difference between the GHG and o2 and n2?

The GHG's, O2, and N2 are thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere and are at the same temperature.

So o2, n2 and ghg are all at the same temperature at all times?

That's right. If a molecule of a GHG picks up energy, it will transfer it to the rest of the atmosphere immediately.

And then that molecule of o2 or n2 then dissipates it too, right, because o2 and n2 do not trap heat, right?

 

[Wuwei]

Ok. But the heat resides primarily in the 99% of the atmosphere, right? What is the temperature difference between the GHG and o2 and n2?

The GHG's, O2, and N2 are thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere and are at the same temperature.

So o2, n2 and ghg are all at the same temperature at all times?

That's right. If a molecule of a GHG picks up energy, it will transfer it to the rest of the atmosphere immediately.

And then that molecule of o2 or n2 then dissipates it too, right, because o2 and n2 do not trap heat, right?

Right, O2 and N2 don't trap heat, but of course, they can stay hot and dissipate heat eventually to outer space. But during the day they will pick up more heat, and you see the up and down temperatures of day and night.

 

[ding]

Ok. But the heat resides primarily in the 99% of the atmosphere, right? What is the temperature difference between the GHG and o2 and n2?

The GHG's, O2, and N2 are thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere and are at the same temperature.

So o2, n2 and ghg are all at the same temperature at all times?

That's right. If a molecule of a GHG picks up energy, it will transfer it to the rest of the atmosphere immediately.

And then that molecule of o2 or n2 then dissipates it too, right, because o2 and n2 do not trap heat, right?

Right, O2 and N2 don't trap heat, but of course, they can stay hot and dissipate heat eventually to outer space. But during the day they will pick up more heat, and you see the up and down temperatures of day and night.

Agreed. But the heat that is immediately transferred from the ghg to the non-ghg is not trapped, right?

 

[SSDD]

... Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

That is not totally accurate wording, because it's the sun that warms the earth. Many say the strictly more correct, "keeps the surface warm", or "prevents heat loss", etc. But they do correctly say "...reradiated back to Earth.."

My statement is verbatim from the IPCC web site answering the question...what is the greenhouse effect....

What experiments are those?

Here are a couple....there are plenty out there...and they directly contradict the claim that pressure does not create a temperature gradient in columns of air.

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf

Gravity induced atmospheric temperature gradient: New developments

 

[SSDD]

Since I have been here I have criticized the IPCC in numerous ways. Their science, their methods and their politics. Why do you continue to ask ME to support their position? I don't agree with them and never have, except for instances where they haven't mangled the data or underlying science to the point of being false.

I am not asking anything...I am merely observing.

I have my own internally consistent view on climate science. I do not bow to authority. I do not claim certainty unless I am. Unlike you, I defend my ideas and I am open to new ones.

Internal perhaps...but not external. My view on climate science is corroborated by observation across the solar system...and repeatable lab experiments.

Where is YOUR evidence that radiation is prohibited until a cooler target is available? You have been asked a hundred times, you have been given dozens of reasons why it is logically impossible which you simply ignore.

And as I have stated 100 times...observation....neither heat nor energy have ever been observed moving SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm...do you think it suddenly stops when we start looking?

 

[SSDD]

Ding-

I don't know if this is the answer you were looking for. The amount of energy going into the atmosphere from the surface, and the similar amount leaving the TOA, is a tiny fraction of the total energy contained by the atmosphere.

It is the total energy that is the source of blackbody radiation that increases the average surface temp. The GHGs just enhance the effect.

I'm just asking questions right now. I'm not looking for a specific answer. This is me being curious about the basis of his belief.

What interests me is that their beliefs don't conform to the official climate science line as described by the IPCC.....which states:

Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is re ected di- rectly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce air ow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

I think their position is that the "greenhouse effect" slows the escape of energy from the atmosphere but doesn't actually radiate energy back to warm the surface of the earth...it is funny that they give me a hard time because I don't accept the IPCC's description of a greenhouse effect when in fact, they don't either...at least my position is supported by actual repeatable laboratory experiments and accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while theirs only predicts the temperature here, and then only with the judicious use of an ad hoc fudge factor.

Since I have been here I have criticized the IPCC in numerous ways. Their science, their methods and their politics. Why do you continue to ask ME to support their position? I don't agree with them and never have, except for instances where they haven't mangled the data or underlying science to the point of being false.

I have my own internally consistent view on climate science. I do not bow to authority. I do not claim certainty unless I am. Unlike you, I defend my ideas and I am open to new ones.

Where is YOUR evidence that radiation is prohibited until a cooler target is available? You have been asked a hundred times, you have been given dozens of reasons why it is logically impossible which you simply ignore.

All I know is that you believe that if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the surface temperature will get warmer. That is exactly what the IPCC states. So, not sure how you feel you've separated yourself from them.

Fact, 120 PPM of CO2 was added to the atmosphere and there has been no more warming at the surface.

Fact, 20 PPM of CO2 was added in the last decade and no temperature increase. So, not quite sure how you get there, but I will argue daily that adding CO2 to our atmosphere does not add any heat to our planet.

The price of your morning coffee goes up by 10%. Does it make a noticeable difference in your net worth? Or maybe change your coffee drinking habits?

If I watched my total net worth as closely as climate science supposedly watches the temperature...then yes, it would be a noticeable difference.....climate science claims to measure data to the 1000th of a degree...if I watched my net worth to the 1000th of a cent, then practically any change would be easy to track and quantifiably identify.