What AGW is doing to the planet

[Toddsterpatriot]

Go look up logarithmic characteristics of CO2 and look at the way the line goes as CO2 increases temperature does not follow.

As soon as you post the definition of saturation, then you can try to change the subject.

 

[boedicca]

I, for one, am ECSTATIC that we have a bit of Global Warming before the world freezes over into another Ice Age. Global Warming be berry berry good to me, and humans all over.

 

[jc456]

Go look up logarithmic characteristics of CO2 and look at the way the line goes as CO2 increases temperature does not follow.

As soon as you post the definition of saturation, then you can try to change the subject.

Hahahaha right that's been the subject.

 

[flacaltenn]

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

The surface heat (infrared) going skyward is always greater than the infrared coming back down from the GHouse. So the NET transfer is a loss to space. The streams simply add and subtract much like voltages in a circuit. So when you INCREASE the GHouse downward IR (back radiation) it's not warming the surface. What it is doing is reducing the LOSS to space. So over time -- with the same solar stimulus -- there will eventually be a higher surface equilibrium temperature.

KINDA like insulation in the attic. Except that is thermal CONDUCTION, not thermal RADIATION..

During the day there is more incoming heat than outgoing. At night, the situation is reversed. However, add some GHGs to the atmosphere, and the ratio is changed, so there is a lower percentage outgoing. And that is why the nights are warming at a more rapid rate than the days.

Nope.. The loss rate IDEALLY should be the same. IF there is a diurnal difference, it would be due to changes to changes in water vapor and cloud formation during the heating of the day.. GHGases work the same during insolation or at night. Minor diffs could be due to filtering of INCOMING solar IR by the same vapor and cloud effects.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Go look up logarithmic characteristics of CO2 and look at the way the line goes as CO2 increases temperature does not follow.

As soon as you post the definition of saturation, then you can try to change the subject.

Hahahaha right that's been the subject.

Yes, your ignorance of physics has been the subject, but let's concentrate on one of your errors at a time.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today.

Because you're an idiot.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate

All matter above 0K radiates. It doesn't "look around" before deciding whether or not to radiate.
It doesn't "measure the temperature around it" and decide to radiate in only one direction.
It radiates in all directions, all the time.
Even if it's a CO2 molecule high above the Earth, radiating toward the warmer surface.

I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide

Photons don't collide or push each other out of the way.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens

You'd have to see evidence that photons don't collide? LOL!

Photons don't collide. Once emitted they continue on their path until they interact with matter. A trillion photons could occupy the same nanometer cubed and they would not notice each other. Light does not have the same restrictions as matter.

And what matter is it they interact with?

Typically the first particle in their path.

Could you be more specific?

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface? I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs, then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed? I thought it did.

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface?

CO2, water vapor other greenhouse gasses.

I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs

Why would CO2 no longer absorb?

then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

Well, yeah, eventually it radiates away into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed?

Yes, lots of back radiation involves clouds and water vapor.

Sure CO2 saturates. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901 was the evidence.

Saturates in this sense is statistical.. There are absorption bands (frequencies of IR) for CO2 that overlap water vapor and the water vapor can easily BLOCK the CO2 absorption in a wet atmos. But even in the bands that are not blocked by water vapor, increasing amounts of CO2 will find pockets of absorption energy that are left at the edges of the band if the absorption is pushed deeper.

That why you get the same amount of "heat absorption" per DOUBLING of the CO2 concentration.. If you go from 280 to 560ppm -- you get about 1degC (CO2 only no feedbacks, no water vapor, no magic multipliers).. To get the NEXT 1degC increase -- you need to go from 560ppm to 1120ppm. TWICE the amount of CO2 that it took the previous time.. 280ppm the first doubling. 560 the next..

 

[Crick]

Are you assuming there will be no feedbacks, no multipliers?

 

[Old Rocks]

Go look up logarithmic characteristics of CO2 and look at the way the line goes as CO2 increases temperature does not follow.

How Much Will The Planet Warm If We Double CO2 - Dan s Wild Wild Science Journal - AGU Blogosphere

However, reasonably comprehensive global temperature records exist only since around 1850, and sensitivity estimates derived from surface temperature records can be overly sensitive to decadal variability. To illustrate that latter point, in the Norwegian study referred to earlier, an estimate of sensitivity using temperature data up to the year 2000 resulted in a relatively high sensitivity of 3.9 C per doubling. Adding in just a single decade of data, from 2000 to 2010, significantly reduces the estimate of sensitivity to 1.9 C.

There’s an important lesson there: The fact that the results are so sensitive to relatively short periods of time should provide a cautionary tale against taking single numbers at face value. If the current decade turns out to be hotter than the first decade of this century, some sensitivity estimates based on surface temperature records may end up being much higher.

So what about climate sensitivity? We are left going back to the IPCC synthesis, that it is “likely” between 2 C and 4.5 C per doubling of CO2 concentrations, and “very likely” more than 1.5 C. While different researchers have different best estimates (James Annan, for example, says his best estimate is 2.5 C), uncertainties still mean that estimates cannot be narrowed down to a far narrower and more precise range.

Ultimately, from the perspective of policy makers and the general public, the impacts of climate change and the required mitigation and adaptation efforts are largely the same in a world of 2 or 4 C per doubling of CO2 concentrations where carbon dioxide emissions are rising quickly.

Here is what real scientists have to say on the subject. You already admitted that you don't know much about science. So why not start by finding out what the people who have studied science all their lives have to say.

 

[Old Rocks]

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today.

Because you're an idiot.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate

All matter above 0K radiates. It doesn't "look around" before deciding whether or not to radiate.
It doesn't "measure the temperature around it" and decide to radiate in only one direction.
It radiates in all directions, all the time.
Even if it's a CO2 molecule high above the Earth, radiating toward the warmer surface.

I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide

Photons don't collide or push each other out of the way.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens

You'd have to see evidence that photons don't collide? LOL!

And what matter is it they interact with?

Typically the first particle in their path.

Could you be more specific?

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface? I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs, then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed? I thought it did.

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface?

CO2, water vapor other greenhouse gasses.

I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs

Why would CO2 no longer absorb?

then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

Well, yeah, eventually it radiates away into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed?

Yes, lots of back radiation involves clouds and water vapor.

Sure CO2 saturates. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901 was the evidence.

Saturates in this sense is statistical.. There are absorption bands (frequencies of IR) for CO2 that overlap water vapor and the water vapor can easily BLOCK the CO2 absorption in a wet atmos. But even in the bands that are not blocked by water vapor, increasing amounts of CO2 will find pockets of absorption energy that are left at the edges of the band if the absorption is pushed deeper.

That why you get the same amount of "heat absorption" per DOUBLING of the CO2 concentration.. If you go from 280 to 560ppm -- you get about 1degC (CO2 only no feedbacks, no water vapor, no magic multipliers).. To get the NEXT 1degC increase -- you need to go from 560ppm to 1120ppm. TWICE the amount of CO2 that it took the previous time.. 280ppm the first doubling. 560 the next..

That is your number, the scientists state 1.5 to 3.5 C. I would rather that you are correct, but I think that the scientists know a good deal more than you do.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today.

Because you're an idiot.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate

All matter above 0K radiates. It doesn't "look around" before deciding whether or not to radiate.
It doesn't "measure the temperature around it" and decide to radiate in only one direction.
It radiates in all directions, all the time.
Even if it's a CO2 molecule high above the Earth, radiating toward the warmer surface.

I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide

Photons don't collide or push each other out of the way.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens

You'd have to see evidence that photons don't collide? LOL!

Typically the first particle in their path.

Could you be more specific?

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface? I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs, then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed? I thought it did.

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface?

CO2, water vapor other greenhouse gasses.

I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs

Why would CO2 no longer absorb?

then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

Well, yeah, eventually it radiates away into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed?

Yes, lots of back radiation involves clouds and water vapor.

Sure CO2 saturates. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901 was the evidence.

Okay. Did his experiment show that back radiation didn't exist?
Realize your error yet?

No error. Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

Ahhhhh.. There it is.. Let's fix it.. Thermal energy exists either as HEAT or electromagnetic radiation in the infrared. There's some semantics involved there because even physicists disagree on how rigid this should be stated. Since InfraRed is not HEAT unless a body can absorb it. Here's your fix.. Some bodies CAN and some bodies cant' and every range in between. Oxygen for instance is a poor absorber of IR while CO2 is an agressive absorber. It all has to do with the molecular structure and how many axes the molecule can vibrate in to hold the "heat". CO2 can absorb IR photons of SPECIFIC frequencies in the IR. It ignores all other electromagnetic radiation outside those frequencies. When a photon of the right frequency hits a CO2 molecule, it is converted to heat energy and stored in those vibrational modes.

At the same time -- the same molecule (of whatever element) can only EMIT photons in those bands of frequency. And emission and absorption are constantly going on based on the Temperature of the material. For CO2 to GAIN and STORE heat -- it has to get hotter and more active. And it's that activity that causes the downward radiation to increase to the surface.

 

[Old Rocks]

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface? I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs, then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed? I thought it did.

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface?

CO2, water vapor other greenhouse gasses.

I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs

Why would CO2 no longer absorb?

then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

Well, yeah, eventually it radiates away into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed?

Yes, lots of back radiation involves clouds and water vapor.

Sure CO2 saturates. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901 was the evidence.

Okay. Did his experiment show that back radiation didn't exist?
Realize your error yet?

No error. Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

Ahhhhh.. There it is.. Let's fix it.. Thermal energy exists either as HEAT or electromagnetic radiation in the infrared. There's some semantics involved there because even physicists disagree on how rigid this should be stated. Since InfraRed is not HEAT unless a body can absorb it. Here's your fix.. Some bodies CAN and some bodies cant' and every range in between. Oxygen for instance is a poor absorber of IR while CO2 is an agressive absorber. It all has to do with the molecular structure and how many axes the molecule can vibrate in to hold the "heat". CO2 can absorb IR photons of SPECIFIC frequencies in the IR. It ignores all other electromagnetic radiation outside those frequencies. When a photon of the right frequency hits a CO2 molecule, it is converted to heat energy and stored in those vibrational modes.

At the same time -- the same molecule (of whatever element) can only EMIT photons in those bands of frequency. And emission and absorption are constantly going on based on the Temperature of the material. For CO2 to GAIN and STORE heat -- it has to get hotter and more active. And it's that activity that causes the downward radiation to increase to the surface.

Well stated.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today.

Because you're an idiot.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate

All matter above 0K radiates. It doesn't "look around" before deciding whether or not to radiate.
It doesn't "measure the temperature around it" and decide to radiate in only one direction.
It radiates in all directions, all the time.
Even if it's a CO2 molecule high above the Earth, radiating toward the warmer surface.

I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide

Photons don't collide or push each other out of the way.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens

You'd have to see evidence that photons don't collide? LOL!

Typically the first particle in their path.

Could you be more specific?

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface? I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs, then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed? I thought it did.

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface?

CO2, water vapor other greenhouse gasses.

I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs

Why would CO2 no longer absorb?

then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

Well, yeah, eventually it radiates away into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed?

Yes, lots of back radiation involves clouds and water vapor.

Sure CO2 saturates. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901 was the evidence.

Saturates in this sense is statistical.. There are absorption bands (frequencies of IR) for CO2 that overlap water vapor and the water vapor can easily BLOCK the CO2 absorption in a wet atmos. But even in the bands that are not blocked by water vapor, increasing amounts of CO2 will find pockets of absorption energy that are left at the edges of the band if the absorption is pushed deeper.

That why you get the same amount of "heat absorption" per DOUBLING of the CO2 concentration.. If you go from 280 to 560ppm -- you get about 1degC (CO2 only no feedbacks, no water vapor, no magic multipliers).. To get the NEXT 1degC increase -- you need to go from 560ppm to 1120ppm. TWICE the amount of CO2 that it took the previous time.. 280ppm the first doubling. 560 the next..

That is your number, the scientists state 1.5 to 3.5 C. I would rather that you are correct, but I think that the scientists know a good deal more than you do.

You are not listening closely enough there champ.. Every atmos physicist would agree with the 1degC per doubling under the conditions that I STATED.. No feedbacks, no water vapor, no magic fear multipliers...
It's right there in the Atmos physic book on my shelf..

What you are pushing are the wild ass -- wildly spread -- guesses about how the ENTIRE thermodynamics of the Planet RESPONDS to a particular forcing like CO2 concentrations. Those are the "Climate Sensitivity Estimates". And there is no empirical PROOF that any of those GLOBAL worldwide numbers is more accurate than another. In fact the concept that the you can quantify the entire Earth thermodynamics in a SINGLE NUMBER is quite a juvenile concept.. Since that number is TIME VARYING, has different complex feedbacks for different forcings and is WILDLY DIFFERENT in different climate zones around the world.

I thought by now you would have understood what I meant by "CO2 ONLY doubling" --- but apparently you don't...

 

[Old Rocks]

In reality, not single number models, nothing happens in isolation. GHGs raise the temperature a bit, that causes more evaporation, thus more warming. And more out gassing of GHGs from permafrost and other areas. Just to quote that one number is to lead the average person to believe that is the upper limit of the warming for a doubling. Most are already confused enough by the conflicting claims from so many non-expert experts.

 

[flacaltenn]

----- IPCC 2007 WG-1 AR4 Carbon dioxide only causes 1.1°C of warming if it doubles. That’s according to the IPCC. Did you know that?


CO2 no-feedback sensitivity Climate Etc.

Hence, the CO2 no feedback sensitivity can only be calculated using models. Determination of the no feedback sensitivity has two parts:

¦calculation of the direct radiative forcing associated with doubling CO2
¦determination of the equilibrium change of global mean surface temperature in response to the CO2 forcing
The IPCC TAR adopted the value of 3.7 W/m2 for the direct CO2 forcing, and I could not find an updated value from the AR4. This forcing translates into 1C of surface temperature change. These numbers do not seem to be disputed, even by most skeptics. Well, perhaps they should be disputed.

So once we calculate the direct no feedback CO2 forcing (to a doubling of CO2, it is often stated that all scientists agree that the Earth’s temperature would respond by increasing 1C.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wrongly stated.

 

[flacaltenn]

In reality, not single number models, nothing happens in isolation. GHGs raise the temperature a bit, that causes more evaporation, thus more warming. And more out gassing of GHGs from permafrost and other areas. Just to quote that one number is to lead the average person to believe that is the upper limit of the warming for a doubling. Most are already confused enough by the conflicting claims from so many non-expert experts.

Not as confused as they are by the President confusing pollution and minority oppression with Global Warming today . That's for sure.
There IS a climate sensitivity variable. Sure.. But what we know is that there are short term and longer term multipliers. And REGIONAL multipliers and even SEASONAL multipliers.

Where my skepticism lays is in the theory that a 2degC forcing of ANY type would be the trigger for CATACLYSMIC destruction of the planet. Without that FAITH on behalf of the warmers, you have no crisis.

What melted in terms of permafrost and frozen methane since the last Global Icing FAR EXCEEDS what it left to melt and add to your "multipliers". And the planet has survived at least 4 Global Ice Ages over it's "recent" climate history without the complex system going unstable and unstoppable..

As you can see from the summary that IanC posted last month. Your heroes who insist on describing the thermodynamics of the Earth with ONE NUMBER have revised their estimates CONSTANTLY downwards since the peak of the 8 to 10degC by 2100 Hysteria. Unfortunately, those comical estimates will survive on the web for decades and continue to be misused and frighten people unnecessarily.. And even their silly ass number is now getting closer to the "CO2 Only" number than it was at peak Hype for your movement.

 

[jc456]

Go look up logarithmic characteristics of CO2 and look at the way the line goes as CO2 increases temperature does not follow.

As soon as you post the definition of saturation, then you can try to change the subject.

Hahahaha right that's been the subject.

Yes, your ignorance of physics has been the subject, but let's concentrate on one of your errors at a time.

Herr Koch

 

[Old Rocks]

Personal problem?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Go look up logarithmic characteristics of CO2 and look at the way the line goes as CO2 increases temperature does not follow.

As soon as you post the definition of saturation, then you can try to change the subject.

Hahahaha right that's been the subject.

Yes, your ignorance of physics has been the subject, but let's concentrate on one of your errors at a time.

Herr Koch

Yes, he knew what saturation means. Unlike you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wrongly stated.

Let's calmly look at this again..

""So once we calculate the direct no feedback CO2 forcing (to a doubling of CO2, it is often stated that all scientists agree that the Earth’s temperature would respond by increasing 1C.""

That is not a "climate sensitity" number. The sentence states the conditions of "NO FEEDBACKS. It is the stripped naked warming power of CO2 ALONE in the atmos. And I would guess that J. Curry is correct that 95% of atmos guys would agree with that statement. As in the IPCC recitation of that number in AR4.

That number is the real atmos warming power of CO2 BY ITSELF. All the other magical powers attributed to it are a GUESS at how the ENTIRE climate system responds to that forcing.

Not shitting ya here. It's the underlying physics of the problem. ACTUALLY -- the easiest part. The more complex and yet UNSOLVED part is knowing how the Climate system RESPONDS over time and place...