[Truth To Power]

So the absorption rate (and the effects thereof) of an isolated part of this does not matter, since the heat, CO2, water vapour, et cetera is being moved around and new air can come in and absorb more.

No, that's where you go wrong. The new air has the same CO2 content, and usually very similar water vapor content. So moving it around has no effect on its IR absorption.

Instead, we should be looking at the total heat balance of this entire layer of air.

No, because we already know that convection moves heat upward whether there is any CO2 in it or not.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, that's where you go wrong. The new air has the same CO2 content, and usually very similar water vapor content. So moving it around has no effect on its IR absorption.

Maybe, maybe not.

That is outside the scope of Angstrom’s experiment. So if this is the lynchpin of the argument against ACC, then Angstrom’s experiment is not relevant.

No, because we already know that convection moves heat upward whether there is any CO2 in it or not.

The direction of the moving air is irrelevant to the fact that heat moves from where there is more heat to where there is less heat. As is the source of the heat.

If you agree with that fact then you agree that the heat trapped by the CO2 and water vapour snd then released to the surrounding air will move and try to spread itself out.

Do you agree with that?

[BeesKnee5]

No, that's where you go wrong. The new air has the same CO2 content, and usually very similar water vapor content. So moving it around has no effect on its IR absorption.

This isn't true.

The rising of warm air results in moisture condensing and precipitation which reduces the moisture content as the air cools. The cooler air falling is significantly drier and it's why we have deserts at the point the Hadley and Ferrell cells meet.

[BeesKnee5]

Berkeley earth have confirmed UAH numbers. Both satellite and ground based temperatures in agreement.

[Truth To Power]

So the absorption rate (and the effects thereof) of an isolated part of this does not matter, since the heat, CO2, water vapour, et cetera is being moved around and new air can come in and absorb more.

You don't seem to understand the physical situation. The "new" air is also coming from a place where it was absorbing IR radiation from the ground. It's just doing it in a different place. The only reason it can absorb more energy than the rising air it replaces is that it is cooler, not because its composition or IR absorption is any different.

Instead, we should be looking at the total heat balance of this entire layer of air.

No, because that can be affected by many factors such as cloud cover, and thinking of it as one layer removes a large part of the complexity of the interactions.

[Truth To Power]

Berkeley earth have confirmed UAH numbers. Both satellite and ground based temperatures in agreement.

Nonscience. UAH does not show September's temperature as being a full 1C above the 1998 El Nino spike and .5C above 2016. Berkeley is contaminated garbage.

[BeesKnee5]

Nonscience. UAH does not show September's temperature as being a full 1C above the 1998 El Nino spike and .5C above 2016. Berkeley is contaminated garbage.

Berkeley was set up by climate deniers to disprove the hockey stick.

Problem is the evidence shows it to be correct.

Both UAH and Berkeley has very similar results for the most recent months, displayed using different baselines.

[Truth To Power]

This isn't true.

It is most definitely true, and I will thank you to remember it.

The rising of warm air results in moisture condensing and precipitation which reduces the moisture content as the air cools. The cooler air falling is significantly drier and it's why we have deserts at the point the Hadley and Ferrell cells meet.

Even "dry" desert air has so much more water vapor in it than CO2 that adding CO2 has no discernible effect on its IR absorption.

[Truth To Power]

Berkeley was set up by climate deniers

Your use of that term removes any credibility you may have thought you had.

to disprove the hockey stick.

Problem is the evidence shows it to be correct.

False on both counts.

Both UAH and Berkeley has very similar results for the most recent months, displayed using different baselines.

So the results are not similar.

[Truth To Power]

That is outside the scope of Angstrom’s experiment.

So what? Angstrom proved adding CO2 to ordinary atmospheric air has no discernible effect on its IR absorption properties. That conclusively refutes the CO2 narrative.

So if this is the lynchpin of the argument against ACC, then Angstrom’s experiment is not relevant.

No, it is convection that is not relevant to added CO2's lack of effect on IR absorption.

The direction of the moving air is irrelevant to the fact that heat moves from where there is more heat to where there is less heat.

Which is irrelevant to the fact that adding CO2 to ordinary atmospheric air does not noticeably affect its IR absorption properties.

As is the source of the heat.

Wrong again. If the heat source is above, like O3's absorption of UV, it will not drive convection.

If you agree with that fact then you agree that the heat trapped by the CO2 and water vapour snd then released to the surrounding air will move and try to spread itself out.

Do you agree with that?

Yes; do you agree that that does not affect its IR absorption?

[BeesKnee5]

Your use of that term removes any credibility you may have thought you had.
.

If you deny recent changes in climate are driven by a change in the energy balance as a result of GHG then you are a climate denier

So the results are not similar.

Changing the baseline doesn't change the results.

[BeesKnee5]

Even "dry" desert air has so much more water vapor in it than CO2 that adding CO2 has no discernible effect on its IR absorption.

The point remains that the cooler air that comes from the top of the troposphere has lost 99% of its water vapour and isn't remotely similar in concentration. Your claim is false and easily proven by looking at relative humidity in relation to temperature

https://www.lenntech.com/calculators/hu ... midity.htm

At the top of the troposphere the air has cooled to -50C, so even at 100% relative humidity it can only hold 190ppm WV, the rest has condensed out.

This compares to air at the surface near the equator which at 30C can hold 27,700ppm at 100%

As it sinks the relative humidity will fall and so the air is extremely dry.


Here's a picture of the air with 50 parts per billion H2O

[Truth To Power]

If you deny recent changes in climate are driven by a change in the energy balance as a result of GHG then you are a climate denier

No, a climate realist, as Angstrom proved -- and any competent physics undergrad can confirm -- the changes in GHGs cannot possibly have the claimed effect. Your use of the term, "climate denier" simply identifies you as an anti-fossil-fuel hate propagandist not to be taken seriously.

Changing the baseline doesn't change the results.

And it is visually obvious that Berkeley's results differ from UAH's in much more than just the baseline.

[BeesKnee5]

No, a climate realist, as Angstrom proved -- and any competent physics undergrad can confirm -- the changes in GHGs cannot possibly have the claimed effect. Your use of the term, "climate denier" simply identifies you as an anti-fossil-fuel hate propagandist not to be taken seriously.

And it is visually obvious that Berkeley's results differ from UAH's in much more than just the baseline.

Again, every single scientific body accepts that GHG are resulting in the observed rise in temperature.

I agree with them and so does the vast majority of physics undergrads.

It is visually obvious that the September temperature has seen a significant rise to a level above previous recorded temperatures on both records.

[Truth To Power]

The point remains that the cooler air that comes from the top of the troposphere has lost 99% of its water vapour

Nonscience. ~90%, tops.

and isn't remotely similar in concentration. Your claim is false and easily proven by looking at relative humidity in relation to temperature

https://www.lenntech.com/calculators/hu ... midity.htm

No, that proves nothing.

At the top of the troposphere the air has cooled to -50C, so even at 100% relative humidity it can only hold 190ppm WV, the rest has condensed out.

But that is not the air that replaces the air at the bottom of a convective cell.

This compares to air at the surface near the equator which at 30C can hold 27,700ppm at 100%

As it sinks the relative humidity will fall and so the air is extremely dry.

It still has thousands of ppm H2O by the time it gets to the surface, easily enough to make added CO2 irrelevant to its IR absorption.

Here's a picture of the air with 50 parts per billion H2O

No, that's just more nonscience from you with no basis in fact.

[BeesKnee5]

But that is not the air that replaces the air at the bottom of a convective cell.
.

Please take a minute to learn instead of making false assertions about atmospheric convection cells

https://groups.seas.harvard.edu/climate ... adley.html

https://study.com/learn/lesson/convection-cell.html

[Truth To Power]

Again, every single scientific body accepts that GHG are resulting in the observed rise in temperature.

Garbage.

I agree with them and so does the vast majority of physics undergrads.

Because like you, they have had it drummed into them since kindergarten.

It is visually obvious that the September temperature has seen a significant rise to a level above previous recorded temperatures on both records.

But only .2C above the peak of 2016 and .3C above 1998, not .6C and 1.0C above as Berkeley Earth claims.

[BeesKnee5]

any competent physics undergrad can confirm -- the changes in GHGs cannot possibly have the claimed effe.

Because like you, they have had it drummed into them since kindergarten.

Make your mind up.

[Truth To Power]

Please take a minute to learn instead of making false assertions about atmospheric convection cells

https://groups.seas.harvard.edu/climate ... adley.html

https://study.com/learn/lesson/convection-cell.html

<yawn> Take your own advice. Neither of those references disputes what I said.

[Truth To Power]

Make your mind up.

They could do the experiment, but they don't.