[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power,

it is not clear what the underlying phenomenon actually consists of or how it affects climate

Then it is impossible for you to argue that this aspect of the sun is responsible for the observed global warming.

[ingliz]

being fully absorbed by the pre-industrial level of CO2.

Martin & Barker (1932) showed that the absorption bands of carbon dioxide consisted of many different absorption lines, which were caused by different vibrational states of the carbon dioxide molecule. This meant that the absorption bands of carbon dioxide weren’t fully saturated, and there was room for more absorption in between the lines.

Plass (1956) showed that even if for the sake of argument we took the absorption band of carbon dioxide to be fully saturated in the lower parts of the atmosphere, it is not saturated in the higher atmosphere, and the addition of carbon dioxide will cause more absorption of thermal radiation.

[Truth To Power]

TtP does not seem to understand how R-values work. Here "R-values" are how we rate insulation to contain heat in refrigs and buildings.

He is correct that the R-value of 40 wool & 1 cotton blankets is so high that very little of a sleeper's heat will be escaping the bed, except maybe going down out the bottom.

<sigh> The "bed" is a sphere. Duh.

So, adding another down comforter will not matter much, let alone a thin cotton blanket.
. . . This may be the situation on Venus, maybe.

It's the situation here on earth. There is about one molecule of CO2 (the weaker GHG = the cotton blanket) in the lower troposphere where climate happens for every 40 molecules of water vapor (the stronger GHG = the wool blankets).

However, we know that heat is escaping the Earth into space.

That's the same for every planet: energy going in from the sun has to come back out.

So, we know that the Earth does not have the equivalent of 40 wool blankets on it.

We know it does: 40 molecules of water vapor for every one of pre-industrial CO2 near the earth's surface, where climate is determined, or currently ~15 to one for the whole atmosphere.

He exaggerated for effect, and got carried away into ridiculous territory.

No, I made a valid and objectively correct analogy. You can quibble about the exact effective distribution because water vapor varies so much by season, local climate, altitude and latitude, but the overall picture is not going to change.

He seems to think that just because some guy 120 years ago showed that almost every photon of IR heat/light is absorbed by the lower atmosphere, that therefore, it is like the world has 40 blankets on it.

That is most precisely the situation: near the surface, the earth naturally has ~40 wool blankets of water vapor on it and one cotton blanket of CO2.

He seems to think 417 parts per million is enough to equal the R-value of 40 wool blankets.

No, I am stating the fact that the atmosphere's ~0.25% of water vapor by mass is ~22 times as many GHG molecules as its 0.028% (pre-industrial) CO2 by mass or ~15 times as many as its 0.0415% (current) CO2 by mass, and roughly double those ratios near the surface where climate is determined.

He overestimates the effect of 1/2500 CO2 = 0.04% of the air being CO2.

Huh?? How can I be overestimating the effect of the first 0.04% of CO2 but underestimating the effect of the next 0.02%?? Angstrom proved that the pre-industrial level of CO2 was ample to absorb effectively all IR radiation in the relevant wavelengths (i.e., that wasn't already being absorbed by water vapor anyway), so adding CO2 will have almost no effect on climate.

[Truth To Power]

Martin & Barker (1932) showed that the absorption bands of carbon dioxide consisted of many different absorption lines, which were caused by different vibrational states of the carbon dioxide molecule. This meant that the absorption bands of carbon dioxide weren’t fully saturated, and there was room for more absorption in between the lines.

Except in the vast majority of the IR spectrum where water vapor is already absorbing all the emissions anyway, and adding CO2 therefore has almost no effect.

Plass (1956) showed that even if for the sake of argument we took the absorption band of carbon dioxide to be fully saturated in the lower parts of the atmosphere, it is not saturated in the higher atmosphere, and the addition of carbon dioxide will cause more absorption of thermal radiation.

Above the altitude where climate is determined. Right. It doesn't matter how much more heat is absorbed in the upper atmosphere if it can't get back down to the surface -- which it can't, because it runs into so much water vapor on the way back down.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power,

Then it is impossible for you to argue that this aspect of the sun is responsible for the observed global warming.

No, that's just more ridiculous, antiscientific garbage from you. Science was well aware that people's height was largely determined by their parents' height long before the relevant DNA mechanisms were described, and Darwin determined that evolution is a fact without ever having the slightest clue how genetic traits are passed on from parents to their offspring.

You clearly have not the slightest clue how empirical science actually works, which is why you continue to be objectively wrong in pretty much everything you have to say on scientific topics.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Your ongoing insults are irrelevant.

You cannot and will not make a verifiable argument about the sun and the observed warming.

Instead, you will continue to merely argue that it must be so, even if you cannot clearly say what you mean.

[Truth To Power]

You pointed out that without carbon dioxide, we would be really cold.

Which is just as true at a realistic and completely benign ECS of ~0.4C as it would be at the hysteria-mongers' absurd ECS of ~4C.

Science detected the warming over 50 years ago, as I have told you many times.

There had been ~30y of cooling 50ya.

They looked for it because of the rising CO2 levels.

No. They created it by cherry picking and even altering data to match rising CO2 levels.

The scientists reached consensus over 20 years ago, which I've also pointed out many times.

But what there is consensus on is not what AGW hysteria mongers claim there is consensus on. And consensus is politics, not science.

So while you are the best Big Oil liar I have ever seen, that means you're a disgusting joke in really bad taste.

You ... completely refuse to acknowledge when you are wrong (which is nearly all the time).

Odd, then, that no one here seems able actually to demonstrate that I am wrong about anything.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Your ongoing insults are irrelevant.

No, what are really irrelevant are your ongoing fabrications about what I have plainly written.

You cannot and will not make a verifiable argument about the sun and the observed warming.

"Verifiable"? What do you even incorrectly imagine that could mean in the context of empirical science? I have stated my views and identified some of the relevant facts that support them.

Instead, you will continue to merely argue that it must be so, even if you cannot clearly say what you mean.

I have said what I mean very clearly.

[ingliz]

It doesn't matter how much more heat is absorbed in the upper atmosphere

Don't be silly.

When photons are re-emitted by CO2 molecules, around half of that infrared energy is bounced back to earth. These photons will be absorbed by the water vapour and converted into heat, heating the lower atmosphere.

[Pants-of-dog]

Odd, then, that no one here seems able actually to demonstrate that I am wrong about anything.

Nor have you shown that you are right about anything.

For example, you still have not made a clear argument.

Please try to do so now.

[Truth To Power]

Don't be silly.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

When photons are re-emitted by CO2 molecules, around half of that infrared energy is bounced back to earth.

Nope. Flat wrong. It is even more likely to be reabsorbed on the way back down than it was on the way up. Effectively none of it gets back down to the earth's surface unless it was emitted within several meters of the surface.

These photons will be absorbed by the water vapour and converted into heat, heating the lower atmosphere.

No, they are typically just re-emitted and re-absorbed over and over again until eventually they are emitted to outer space. The significant heating is all above the altitude where water vapor condenses out.

[Truth To Power]

Nor have you shown that you are right about anything.

False.

For example, you still have not made a clear argument.

False.

Please try to do so now.

CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption cannot have a significant effect on climate because adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air does not have a significant effect on its IR absorption properties.

Do I have to cite the Angstrom paper yet again?

[Pants-of-dog]

CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption cannot have a significant effect on climate because adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air does not have a significant effect on its IR absorption properties.

Do I have to cite the Angstrom paper yet again?

Your argument fails because it only looks at one aspect of energy absorption. This ignores all other methods by which the planet and atmosphere can absorb heat energy. More importantly, it also ignores IR emission and heat emission entirely.

The amount of heat that a body has depends on both heat absorption and heat loss.

———————-

Make another clear argument. I would like to explain why that one is wrong as well.

[ingliz]

Flat wrong

In the stratosphere (15–50 km), changes in CO2 have only a minor effect on temperature in the troposphere. But increased CO2 levels lead to a decrease in ozone concentrations in the tropical lower stratosphere and an increase over the high latitudes and throughout the upper stratosphere, heating the stratosphere. Ozone generates heat in the stratosphere, both by absorbing the sun's ultraviolet radiation and by absorbing upwelling infrared radiation from the lower atmosphere. The range of ozone responses to CO2 has the potential to induce significant radiative and dynamical effects on climate.

It is in the mesosphere (50–90 km) with increases in CO2 that cooling is likely to be significant.

[Truth To Power]

Your argument fails because it only looks at one aspect of energy absorption.

No, you are wrong again because the one and only aspect of energy absorption that is relevant to the effect of CO2 on climate is CO2's absorption of IR energy. You are just completely innocent of all science.

This ignores all other methods by which the planet and atmosphere can absorb heat energy.

That's correct. I correctly ignore all the rest because the one and only one that is relevant is CO2's absorption of IR energy. To claim that other factors are relevant is just an outright error on your part.

More importantly, it also ignores IR emission and heat emission entirely.

Because they are utterly irrelevant to CO2's effect on climate. You just don't know enough atmospheric physics to understand that, so you mistakenly think other factors are relevant.

The amount of heat that a body has depends on both heat absorption and heat loss.

CO2's effect is strictly on IR absorption. Everything else is irrelevant, so it would be a ridiculous mistake to consider it.

Make another clear argument. I would like to explain why that one is wrong as well.

You just got through explaining that you don't know any atmospheric physics, and have no idea what a scientific argument looks like.

[Saeko]

You have merely proved again that you know no atmospheric physics, and probably no science beyond high school level. The radiative balance will be exactly the same in all three cases: energy in = energy out.

If this were an answer on an exam, you would fail it. You never studied shit.

You are clearly lying about having studied atmospheric physics at an "internationally respected university".

[Steve_American]

No, you are wrong again because the one and only aspect of energy absorption that is relevant to the effect of CO2 on climate is CO2's absorption of IR energy. You are just completely innocent of all science.

That's correct. I correctly ignore all the rest because the one and only one that is relevant is CO2's absorption of IR energy. To claim that other factors are relevant is just an outright error on your part.

Because they are utterly irrelevant to CO2's effect on climate. You just don't know enough atmospheric physics to understand that, so you mistakenly think other factors are relevant.

CO2's effect is strictly on IR absorption. Everything else is irrelevant, so it would be a ridiculous mistake to consider it.

You just got through explaining that you don't know any atmospheric physics, and have no idea what a scientific argument looks like.

I have chosen to start with TtP's reply to PoD, because it is just above so you can see what Pod said that TtP was replying to.
. . . One point of a fact I need to point out at the start is --- the reasons that climate scientists do not talk much about the effect of water vapor in the air are 1] The amount of water vapor can not be effected directly because the oceans are a huge source of more or less water vapor depending on things like the temp of the oceans and air above them. Warm water evaporates faster and warm air holds more water vapor, which is why it sometimes rains more than before and causes flooding. And, 2] The amount of water vapor in the air depends on the amount of CO2 in the air, which scientist believe heats the ocean & air, so scientists can calculate in their models the amount of water vapor by knowing the CO2 level.

TtP also replied to me on the last page. There he explained his analogy. He said his 40 wool blankets represent the effect of water vapor in the air because H2O is 40 times better at absorbing IR het/light than CO2 is. Therefore, here TtP is asserting correctly that water vapor is absorbing a lot of IR heat/light.
. . . Just above TtP asserts that only absorption CO2 matters, all the rest can be ignored, so he does ignore it. However, in his reply to me on the last page he didn't ignore water vapor. He said it absorbs 40 times more than current levels of CO2 do.

Now on to TtP's reply to me on the last page.
. . . I'll start with the part just above that I have put in yellow AND italics.
. . . There TtP wrote: "CO2's effect is strictly on IR absorption."

I think that TtP hopes that you will accept that absorption of IR heat/light means that the IR heat/light is blocked. It seems like it because [while he also asserts that energy in = energy out] here he wants you to believe that because the IR heat/light is absorbed it can not later somehow escape into space.

Here he asserts that CO2's only effect is on absorption. If this was so, [so the CO2 does NOT reradiate the IR heat/light] then it follows that the CO2/air would be getting hugely hotter and would heat the air around it to millions of deg.C. This doesn't happen because the heat/light is (in fact) reradiated.

I'm sure that TtP knows this. So, why did he assert that only absorption matters?
. . . Is it because some is reradiated up and some down? This makes the description of the process very complicated. Too complicated to say it in a paragraph that a lay reader will be able to understand.

The short answer is that the amount of energy that escapes to space must be very, very close to amount of solar energy that comes into the lower atmosphere or reaches the surface. We know this because each day, month, or better averaged over a year, the Earth warms or cools only about 0.0001 deg.C/day. That is 0.0001 deg.C per day.
. . . OK, a lot of IR heat/light is escaping every day to space. You can feel on your skin on a sunny day the heat coming from the sun. Extend that over the whole land and water surface of the Earth and it is a huge amount that comes in from the sun every day, and so almost exactly that huge amount must escape back into space each day on average. My point here is that it is not blocked from escaping.
. . . When TtP says that the IR heat/light is all absorbed in the 1st many meters from the land or water surface he may be right. But, it is all reradiated, half up and half down. Now as I just said, almost all of it does somehow reach space after being absorbed and reradiated many times. It is not blocked in the lower atmosphere.
. . . Therefore, it doesn't matter if it is all absorbed near the surface. Almost all of the energy eventually reaches space. Scientists say that the Earth is being heated a tiny amount each day on average. This means scientists are asserting that some tiny percentage of the incoming solar energy is in fact absorbed by the air, water, rocks, and dirt of the Earth's surface, where we see it as a temp increase.
. . . This percentage is very tiny. So, tiny that every possible verbal argument will not be accurate enough to pick up the tiny change that adding more CO2 to the air causes. However, it adds up more and more as the days become decades. That is, if you add up 0.0001 deg.C /day over the 10,957.5 days in 3 decades it becomes 1.09575 deg.C over 3 decades. If the amount of heating per day is actually 0.0002 deg.C/day then over 3 decades that total amount of heating is 2.1915 deg.C, or about 1.461 deg.C over 2 decades.

BTW --- climate scientists' models have to include the increase in water vapor in the air that will cause more heating. This increased water vapor is caused by more heating caused by more CO2 in the air. There is nothing we can do about the increased water vapor, except reduce CO2 emissions.

[late]

And consensus is politics, not science.

Reaching consensus is how science usually works.

This is a very old story, a new idea comes in, things change, and then the money and kids chase after what the new idea implies.

You're a very good liar, but extraordinarily sleazy.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you are wrong again because the one and only aspect of energy absorption that is relevant to the effect of CO2 on climate is CO2's absorption of IR energy. You are just completely innocent of all science.

That's correct. I correctly ignore all the rest because the one and only one that is relevant is CO2's absorption of IR energy. To claim that other factors are relevant is just an outright error on your part.

Because they are utterly irrelevant to CO2's effect on climate. You just don't know enough atmospheric physics to understand that, so you mistakenly think other factors are relevant.

CO2's effect is strictly on IR absorption. Everything else is irrelevant, so it would be a ridiculous mistake to consider it.

You just got through explaining that you don't know any atmospheric physics, and have no idea what a scientific argument looks like.

So you are now arguing that the amount of heat lost by a body is irrelevant to whether or not the body is heating up.

So a body that never loses heat heats ip just as much as a body that loses heat very quickly as long as they absorb heat the same way, according to you.

Or do you agree with me that heat loss and heat absorption both affect how hot something is?

[Truth To Power]

If this were an answer on an exam, you would fail it.

No, you simply proved you know no atmospheric physics by posing a question that did not require any calculations to answer. You could try again, but it's really a little late to save face.

You never studied shit.

At least I studied enough to be certain that you don't know $#!+ about atmospheric physics.

You are clearly lying about having studied atmospheric physics at an "internationally respected university".

You just love finding new ways to be wrong, don't you?