[Steve_American]

So I will ignore that whole tangent on convection that you supplied as an explanation for the lab experiment.

Now, would you like to discuss how convection works in the atmosphere and makes the lab experiment irrelevant?

https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10 ... ev.38.1876

From the known amounts of the various gases of the atmosphere from sea level to about 20 km, from the observed light absorption coefficients of the gases and from the albedo of the earth's surface the temperature of the atmosphere in radiative equilibrium is calculated on the assumption that the sunlight is the only source of energy. The calculation is perhaps more rigorous than has hitherto been attempted, although it contains a number of approximations. The sea level temperature comes out to be about 19° above the observed world-wide average value 287°K, and the temperature above about 3 km falls many degrees below the observed temperatures. The temperature gradient in levels from 3 to 6 km is greater than that of convective equilibrium and hence the atmosphere would not be dynamically stable if radiation equilibrium prevailed. Therefore air currents take place to bring about convective equilibrium. Continuing the calculation it is found that only when the convective region extends to about 12 km (as is observed), with radiative equilibrium above 12 km (as is observed), does the atmosphere satisfy the conditions of dynamic stability and thermal equilibrium with the received solar energy. For this case the calculated sea level temperature is 290°K in good agreement with the observed value 287°K. Calculation shows that doubling or tripling the amount of the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere increases the average sea level temperature by about 4° and 7°K, respectively; halving or reducing to zero the carbon dioxide decreases the temperature by similar amounts. Such changes in temperature are about the same as those which occur when the earth passes from an ice age to a warm age, or vice versa. Thus the calculation indicates that the carbon dioxide theory of the ice ages, originally proposed by Tyndall, is a possible theory.

Received 9 October 1931

So, Angstrom was correct that the air quickly became unable to absorb any more infrared, but his lab experiment did not account for convection, as you just pointed out.

When convection is applied, we see that convection moves the air around and this then mixes the air and spreads the heat around for the first 12 km above sea level.

So when discussing anthropogenic climate change, it is not relevant to discuss what is happening in the first 12 km. Instead, we need to look at the heat interactions above that level.

Right,

Also, IMO, even if the air didn't mix, the CO2 molecules absorb the infrared=heat photons from above and below and don't heat up much. Instead, they reradiate the heat photons in all directions. Near the ground the heat photons going down hit the ground. At some altitude there is not enough CO2 to absorb all the heat photons, so the ones going up go pretty far before they are absorbed again. This means that the air at that altitude cools a little. And so, the heat photons escape toward space and then to space.

The experiment doesn't have this effect.

We use satellites to measure the heat photons coming up and out to space. So, we know for sure that they are escaping to space.

[Truth To Power]

That is only true if all other things are kept the same. That is in a controlled experiment.

No, it is true in the real world.

Other controlled experiments that just increase the temps show reduced yields.

Because they are performed dishonestly to obtain that result.

Also, if temps and CO2 are increased, yields are reduced.

No, that is just false. Temps and CO2 have both increased in recent decades, and yields have increased substantially.

For wheat this happens because each kernel is smaller.

No, it doesn't happen.

So, you are wrong.

I am objectively correct.

And the experts did say that in peer reviewed papers and reports.

Expert liars, maybe.

[Truth To Power]

Now, would you like to discuss how convection works in the atmosphere and makes the lab experiment irrelevant?

No, but I don't mind explaining why your belief to that effect is objectively incorrect.

https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.38.1876
From the known amounts of the various gases of the atmosphere from sea level to about 20 km, from the observed light absorption coefficients of the gases and from the albedo of the earth's surface the temperature of the atmosphere in radiative equilibrium is calculated on the assumption that the sunlight is the only source of energy. The calculation is perhaps more rigorous than has hitherto been attempted, although it contains a number of approximations. The sea level temperature comes out to be about 19° above the observed world-wide average value 287°K, and the temperature above about 3 km falls many degrees below the observed temperatures. The temperature gradient in levels from 3 to 6 km is greater than that of convective equilibrium and hence the atmosphere would not be dynamically stable if radiation equilibrium prevailed.

Obviously. Warm air rises. Duh.

Therefore air currents take place to bring about convective equilibrium. Continuing the calculation it is found that only when the convective region extends to about 12 km (as is observed), with radiative equilibrium above 12 km (as is observed), does the atmosphere satisfy the conditions of dynamic stability and thermal equilibrium with the received solar energy. For this case the calculated sea level temperature is 290°K in good agreement with the observed value 287°K.

That is a very naive calculation (not his fault: they didn't have computers in 1931), as it treats the earth as a uniform sphere, and does not account for the differences in temperature and humidity with latitude, altitude, geography, and season.

Calculation shows that doubling or tripling the amount of the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere increases the average sea level temperature by about 4° and 7°K, respectively;

What "calculation"? How is that additional CO2 assumed to affect convection?

halving or reducing to zero the carbon dioxide decreases the temperature by similar amounts.

We know that can't be true, as the effect is logarithmic.

Such changes in temperature are about the same as those which occur when the earth passes from an ice age to a warm age, or vice versa. Thus the calculation indicates that the carbon dioxide theory of the ice ages, originally proposed by Tyndall, is a possible theory.

"The calculation" that has no basis in empirical fact...

In fact, we know for certain that the CO2 theory of the Ice Ages has been conclusively refuted because we now know about the Milankovic cycles, and the fact that over the last several glacial cycles, CO2 correlates with previous temperatures much better than it does with succeeding ones.

So, Angstrom was correct that the air quickly became unable to absorb any more infrared, but his lab experiment did not account for convection, as you just pointed out.

Convection does not affect the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric air. All it does is transport the absorbed heat energy upward. The speed of that transport is determined by air density and temperature gradient, and is not affected by CO2 concentration.

When convection is applied, we see that convection moves the air around and this then mixes the air and spreads the heat around for the first 12 km above sea level.

It moves the energy upward. It does not affect infrared absorption.

So when discussing anthropogenic climate change, it is not relevant to discuss what is happening in the first 12 km. Instead, we need to look at the heat interactions above that level.

No, that's just an absurd non sequitur fallacy that shows you have no understanding of the relevant atmospheric physics and thermodynamic processes. The heat interactions above 12km are entirely irrelevant to surface temperature.

[Pants-of-dog]

Angstrom and his experiments do not matter since we can now directly measure the energy hitting our atmosphere and the energy leaving.

By looking at these numbers, we know there is a energy imbalance: more energy is staying in the Earth system.

—————-

[
What "calculation"? How is that additional CO2 assumed to affect convection?

The math is available in the study itself.

"The calculation" that has no basis in empirical fact...

No, it is based entirely in observations about the atmosphere and observed lab effects.

Convection does not affect the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric air. All it does is transport the absorbed heat energy upward. The speed of that transport is determined by air density and temperature gradient, and is not affected by CO2 concentration.

No.

Infrared energy is an energy and not a fluid. So it does not move by convection all by its own. It needs to be transported in a fluid, That is what convection means. In this case, the fluid is the water vapour and CO2 in the air.

In this case, the heated CO2 and water vapour move upwards due to convection and colder air (that has not absorbed as much infrared energy) moves in to replace the heated air.

This new air can then absorb more infrared radiation. And the more CO2 and water vapour it has, the more it can absorb, and the hitter it gets, and the more it is affected by convection.

So convection does affect how much heat is absorbed.

The heat interactions above 12km are entirely irrelevant to surface temperature.

No.

Think of the air below 12km as a single unit.

It gets and emits heat from the air above it.

If that sea level unit of air cannot disperse heat as quickly as it receives it from the air above, it will heat the surface of the Earth.

[Steve_American]

No, it is true in the real world.

Because they are performed dishonestly to obtain that result.

No, that is just false. Temps and CO2 have both increased in recent decades, and yields have increased substantially.
No, it doesn't happen.

I am objectively correct.

Expert liars, maybe.

Lurkers, this guy is just totally wrong and resorts to conspiracy theories that, worldwide, the scientists fake their work. Why Indian scientists would do that, escapes me.

Lurkers, the reason real world yields have increased in recent decades is that we have been using more and more fertilizer and bug killer or use more hybrid seeds year after year.
My assertion was that "if all other things are the same" or close to it. That only the temp and the CO2 are changed much.

He has no sources; he just makes things up like Trump. For example, IIRC, India banned rice exports last year, because of the poor harvest, and they needed it all to feed Indians.
.

[Truth To Power]

Angstrom and his experiments do not matter since we can now directly measure the energy hitting our atmosphere and the energy leaving.

Which says more about cloud cover and albedo than it does about CO2.

By looking at these numbers, we know there is a energy imbalance: more energy is staying in the Earth system.

I guess that must be why the other planets are also warming...

The math is available in the study itself.

But makes no sense.

No, it is based entirely in observations about the atmosphere and observed lab effects.

Nope. It's based on false assumptions about such observations.

Infrared energy is an energy and not a fluid. So it does not move by convection all by its own. It needs to be transported in a fluid, That is what convection means. In this case, the fluid is the water vapour and CO2 in the air.

No, that is hopelessly confused. Infrared radiation does not move by convection at all, and the fluid that transports heat energy upward in convection is air, not water vapor and CO2.

In this case, the heated CO2 and water vapour move upwards due to convection and colder air (that has not absorbed as much infrared energy) moves in to replace the heated air.

No. CO2 and water vapor just move with the air, which is all at the same temperature, and their ability to absorb IR radiation is not affected by their temperature. Cooler air is just able to absorb more energy from them kinetically.

This new air can then absorb more infrared radiation. And the more CO2 and water vapour it has, the more it can absorb, and the hitter it gets, and the more it is affected by convection.

No. Cooler air typically has LESS water vapor, and one of the factors driving atmospheric convection in the atmosphere is the addition of evaporated water from warmed bodies of water on the surface, which is much lighter than nitrogen and oxygen.

So convection does affect how much heat is absorbed.

No, it only affects how much of the absorbed IR energy is transferred kinetically to nitrogen and oxygen molecules rather than re-emitted.

No.

Yes.

Think of the air below 12km as a single unit.

No, because it very much isn't.

It gets and emits heat from the air above it.

Every layer of the atmosphere -- think of them as numbering in the thousands, each a few meters thick -- gets heat from and emits heat to the layers above and below, but the layers are not homogeneous. The lower you go in the troposphere, the warmer it is, and the more water vapor there is. It is that increasing water vapor content that blocks IR radiation from higher in the atmosphere from getting down to the surface.

If that sea level unit of air

Only the very bottom layer is at sea level, and unlike all the higher layers, that bottom layer can get heat by conduction from the earth's surface, not just by IR radiation, because it is touching the earth's surface (it can also get heat from condensation of evaporated water molecules).

cannot disperse heat as quickly as it receives it from the air above, it will heat the surface of the Earth.

Up to the stratosphere, the lower layers are warmer, so they disperse more heat to the higher layers than vice versa. The upper layers above the stratosphere are actually very hot because ozone absorbs UV radiation from the sun, but that heat doesn't get down to the surface because there is too much water vapor and CO2 in the way.

[Truth To Power]

Lurkers, this guy is just totally wrong and resorts to conspiracy theories that, worldwide, the scientists fake their work.

False. Only a handful do. The rest just (mostly) go along.

Why Indian scientists would do that, escapes me.

Career advancement.

Lurkers, the reason real world yields have increased in recent decades is that we have been using more and more fertilizer and bug killer or use more hybrid seeds year after year.

That does not explain the increased growth of wild plants.

My assertion was that "if all other things are the same" or close to it. That only the temp and the CO2 are changed much.

Why do you think greenhouse operators keep temperatures up and add CO2?

He has no sources; he just makes things up like Trump.

I give sources when appropriate. In this case, it is well known and I have given sources for it before.

For example, IIRC, India banned rice exports last year, because of the poor harvest, and they needed it all to feed Indians.

Obviously weather is not homogeneous all over the earth. Country -- or region or province -- A gets drought this year and Country B gets floods. Next year it's the other way around. Only a fool would think that has anything to do with CO2.

[Steve_American]

False. Only a handful do. The rest just (mostly) go along.

Career advancement.

That does not explain the increased growth of wild plants.
Why do you think greenhouse operators keep temperatures up and add CO2?

I give sources when appropriate. In this case, it is well known and I have given sources for it before.

Obviously weather is not homogeneous all over the earth. Country -- or region or province -- A gets drought this year and Country B gets floods. Next year it's the other way around. Only a fool would think that has anything to do with CO2.

I ignore the increased growth of wild plants because we don't eat many wild plants.

All civilizations are based on a grain(s) or potatoes.

The only plants that matter here are our domestic grains and maybe potatoes.

Perhaps domestic plants have lost their ability to tolerate higher temps.

Again, I assert that experts are saying that our grains do produce less yield when the temp is too high, all else being the same. Here "too high" is not much hotter than what was normal a few decades ago.
.

[Truth To Power]

I ignore the increased growth of wild plants because we don't eat many wild plants.

So you are deliberately refusing to know the fact that domestic crop yields are increasing for the same reason the growth of wild plants is increasing. Check.

All civilizations are based on a grain(s) or potatoes.

The only plants that matter here are our domestic grains and maybe potatoes.

And their yields continue to increase, as does the growth of wild plants, because of naturally higher temperatures and artificially higher CO2.

Perhaps domestic plants have lost their ability to tolerate higher temps.

No, they grow well in warm temperatures. Why do you think people use greenhouses?

Again, I assert that experts are saying that our grains do produce less yield when the temp is too high, all else being the same.

What that means is that they increase the temperature of the experimental plants but do not commensurately increase the water supply, subjecting them to water stress. In nature, higher temperatures accelerate the hydrological cycle, increasing precipitation, so more water is available for plants. That's why equatorial biomes are all jungle.

Here "too high" is not much hotter than what was normal a few decades ago.

It is not perceptibly hotter now than it was in the 1930s and 40s, and plants grow faster in warmer climates. You are just talking nonscience.

[Pants-of-dog]

Which says more about cloud cover and albedo than it does about CO2.

I guess that must be why the other planets are also warming...

But makes no sense.

Nope. It's based on false assumptions about such observations.

No, that is hopelessly confused. Infrared radiation does not move by convection at all, and the fluid that transports heat energy upward in convection is air, not water vapor and CO2.

No. CO2 and water vapor just move with the air, which is all at the same temperature, and their ability to absorb IR radiation is not affected by their temperature. Cooler air is just able to absorb more energy from them kinetically.

No. Cooler air typically has LESS water vapor, and one of the factors driving atmospheric convection in the atmosphere is the addition of evaporated water from warmed bodies of water on the surface, which is much lighter than nitrogen and oxygen.

No, it only affects how much of the absorbed IR energy is transferred kinetically to nitrogen and oxygen molecules rather than re-emitted.

Yes.

No, because it very much isn't.

Every layer of the atmosphere -- think of them as numbering in the thousands, each a few meters thick -- gets heat from and emits heat to the layers above and below, but the layers are not homogeneous. The lower you go in the troposphere, the warmer it is, and the more water vapor there is. It is that increasing water vapor content that blocks IR radiation from higher in the atmosphere from getting down to the surface.

Only the very bottom layer is at sea level, and unlike all the higher layers, that bottom layer can get heat by conduction from the earth's surface, not just by IR radiation, because it is touching the earth's surface (it can also get heat from condensation of evaporated water molecules).

Up to the stratosphere, the lower layers are warmer, so they disperse more heat to the higher layers than vice versa. The upper layers above the stratosphere are actually very hot because ozone absorbs UV radiation from the sun, but that heat doesn't get down to the surface because there is too much water vapor and CO2 in the way.

please try to write more clearly. Parsing this into coherent sentences is bothersome.

It seems that you need to clarify some things.

Is water vapour a fluid, yes or no?

Is CO2 a fluid? Yes or no?

Can these contain heat energy ? Yes or no?

[ingliz]

@Pants-of-dog

Liquids and gases are called fluids because they can be made to flow.

[Truth To Power]

please try to write more clearly. Parsing this into coherent sentences is bothersome.

It seems that you need to clarify some things.

I am very clear. You just need to find a willingness to know facts.

Is water vapour a fluid, yes or no?

Is CO2 a fluid? Yes or no?

Can these contain heat energy ? Yes or no?

Yes to all three. But although it "feels warm," infrared radiation is not heat energy.

[ingliz]

@Pants-of-dog

Heat is an energy transfer that occurs due to temperature differences between substances. Heat can be transferred in three ways: by conduction, by convection, and by radiation.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am very clear. You just need to find a willingness to know facts.

Yes to all three. But although it "feels warm," infrared radiation is not heat energy.

If you are merely being pedantic, then you agree that the absorbed energy warms the water vapour and CO2 and causes convection.

This convection then creates an equilibrium throughout the bottom 12 km of atmosphere, thereby negating the effect demonstrated by Angstrom.

__________

@ingliz

Please, tell me more!

[Truth To Power]

If you are merely being pedantic,

I am being CLEAR.

Clear?

then you agree that the absorbed energy warms the water vapour and CO2 and causes convection.

No. The absorbed IR radiation excites the water vapor and CO2 molecules, and then kinetic transfer of that energy to the surrounding atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen warm it, and that causes convection. A GHG molecule excited by absorption of IR energy will lose that energy either by re-emitting it as an IR photon or transferring it kinetically through collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere. The denser the atmosphere -- i.e., the lower the altitude -- the more likely the GHG molecule is to lose the energy kinetically to a neighboring molecule before it emits it as IR radiation. In that sense, convection helps transfer heat energy upward towards outer space.

This convection then creates an equilibrium throughout the bottom 12 km of atmosphere, thereby negating the effect demonstrated by Angstrom.

No. The convection itself demonstrates there is no such equilibrium, and it has no effect whatever on the absorption of IR radiation by CO2 and water vapor -- except to the extent that cooler air that flows into the base of convective cells tends to have slightly less water vapor in it, and is therefore less able to absorb IR radiation.

[ingliz]

@Pants-of-dog

Oxygen and nitrogen don’t interfere with infrared waves in the atmosphere. That’s because molecules are picky about the range of wavelengths that they interact with. For example, oxygen and nitrogen absorb energy that has tightly packed wavelengths of around 200 nanometers or less, whereas infrared energy travels at wider and lazier wavelengths of 700 to 1,000,000 nanometers. Those ranges don’t overlap, so to oxygen and nitrogen, it’s as if the infrared waves don’t even exist; they let the waves (and heat) pass freely through the atmosphere.

With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat.

The reason why some molecules absorb infrared waves and some don’t depends on their geometry and their composition. Oxygen and nitrogen molecules are simple — they’re each made up of only two atoms of the same element — which narrows their movements and the variety of wavelengths they can interact with. But greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane are made up of three or more atoms, which gives them a larger variety of ways to stretch, bend, and twist. That means they can absorb a wider range of wavelengths — including infrared waves.

CO2 molecules don’t interact with sunlight’s wavelengths. Only after the Earth absorbs sunlight and reemits the energy as infrared waves can the CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb the energy.

[Pants-of-dog]

….. convection helps transfer heat energy upward towards outer space.

…which then makes Angstrom’s experiment irrelevant, since he did not account for convection.

No. The convection itself demonstrates there is no such equilibrium,

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display ... quilibrium.

The state attained by a gas in which the rate of energy generation (such as by nuclear reactions in stars) is exactly balanced by the rate at which energy is transported outwards by convection, so that the gas remains at a constant temperature. See also radiative equilibrium.

So, heat that radiates from CO2, water vapour, the ground, bodies of water, and other sources is moved around in the bottom 12 km of the atmosphere (through convection!) and this heat is then transferred to the upper atmosphere, in order to maintain a thermal equilibrium at the surface of the Earth.

and it has no effect whatever on the absorption of IR radiation by CO2 and water vapor -- except to the extent that cooler air that flows into the base of convective cells tends to have slightly less water vapor in it, and is therefore less able to absorb IR radiation.

The cooler air that comes in to replace the heated air can easily pick up water vapour and CO2 from anthropogenic sources at the surface of the Earth. In fact, the drier air will be more likely to absorb such gases.

—————-

@ingliz

Thank you for these clarifications.

Please continue to share them as you see fit.

[Truth To Power]

…which then makes Angstrom’s experiment irrelevant, since he did not account for convection.

No, because convection is effectively irrelevant to CO2's IR absorption, as I already explained to you so very patiently, multiple times, in clear, simple, grammatical English. Its only (very weak) effect is to bring in cooler, slightly drier air, which then absorbs very, very slightly less IR, microscopically increasing what is available to be absorbed by CO2.

The state attained by a gas in which the rate of energy generation (such as by nuclear reactions in stars) is exactly balanced by the rate at which energy is transported outwards by convection, so that the gas remains at a constant temperature. See also radiative equilibrium.

That does not describe the situation on earth, where temperature varies with both time and location.

So, heat that radiates from CO2, water vapour, the ground, bodies of water, and other sources is moved around in the bottom 12 km of the atmosphere (through convection!) and this heat is then transferred to the upper atmosphere, in order to maintain a thermal equilibrium at the surface of the Earth.

No, the thermal equilibrium is at the effective emission altitude, above the convective layer.

The cooler air that comes in to replace the heated air can easily pick up water vapour and CO2 from anthropogenic sources at the surface of the Earth. In fact, the drier air will be more likely to absorb such gases.

No, that's just your usual misinformed nonscience. CO2 is already well mixed in the atmosphere, which does not have to "absorb" it, and human activities are not a significant source of water vapor, whose concentration is determined by temperature, winds, and nearby bodies of open water.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

The CO2 and water vapour absorb infrared radiation and then radiate it as heat energy, which then makes convection in the lower atmosphere. This then leads to heat spreading around, as well as mixing the CO2 and water vapour, because heat spreads to where it is cooler, until it evens out enough that the internal interactions in the bottom 12 km do not matter.

Instead, we need to look at the radiative equilibrium of the whole system. This is why Angstrom is irrelevant.

Look up E. O. Hulburt.

[Truth To Power]

The CO2 and water vapour absorb infrared radiation and then radiate it as heat energy, which then makes convection in the lower atmosphere.

Nope. Flat wrong. Please try to understand: you do not know anything about this topic, while I do. The transfer of the energy from absorbed IR radiation to the surrounding air is kinetic, not radiative. It occurs by physical contact of the excited GHG molecules with atmospheric N2 and O2 molecules. The IR radiated by excited GHG molecules, by contrast, is absorbed by other GHG molecules unless it is emitted high enough in the atmosphere to escape to outer space, or low enough to be reabsorbed by the earth's surface. That is why Angstrom's experiment empirically refuted the CO2 narrative.

This then leads to heat spreading around, as well as mixing the CO2 and water vapour,

No, they are already mixed. The heat spreads when IR radiation energy is converted into heat energy via physical contact of excited GHG molecules with air molecules.

because heat spreads to where it is cooler, until it evens out enough that the internal interactions in the bottom 12 km do not matter.

No. That is just absurd nonscience with no basis in fact. The bottom few km are effectively all that matter for surface temperature and climate.

Instead, we need to look at the radiative equilibrium of the whole system. This is why Angstrom is irrelevant.

No. All that matters for climate is what happens in the bottom few km of the troposphere. Everything above that is irrelevant. That is why Angstrom is the central fact, and all the BS about the stratosphere is irrelevant.

Look up E. O. Hulburt.

I have read Hulburt. He didn't understand the climate system any better than you do.