Steve_American wrote:1] TtP, OK the water condenses out at high altitudes, meaning it isn't there to use its more than CO2's ability to absorb infrared light = heat energy leaving the Earth, incl. its air. This may not matter because it always is like this and adding CO2 to the air doesn't change this, except if (I mean if) all other tings are equal. Things like the interaction between the altitude at which the air becomes so thin that it lets (say) 50% of the infrared keep going up and out.
Good. It seems you are learning something from reading my posts.
The shift in the equilibrium average final emission altitude (EAFEA) caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere means conditions become somewhat different between that altitude and the previous ("pre-industrial") EAFEA, just not farther down. Doubling CO2 means its density is the same 3km higher than it was before, so the EAFEA will increase by about 3km. But there are also two countervailing effects: the temperature of the emissions will be lower, which makes the EAFEA higher, but the angular window of escape will be wider, which makes the EAFEA lower. It's not clear which of these effects is stronger, so we don't know if the EAFEA will be a little more than 3km higher or a little less than 3km higher.
2] I corrected my word from 'concentration' to 'thins out'. When I 1st wrote that reply, to me, the 2 words have the same meaning. I clarified, abd like a troll, you didn't want to let me. [Lurkers this is important.]
See above for my correct description of the fact you so clumsily tried to identify.
So, I still claim that as we go up in altitude there are less and less molecules of CO2 in each cubic cm of the thinner air. So, I'm claiming that it is this num. of molecules/cm that matters. So, I'm claiming [building on my cloudy day analogy] that adding CO2 to the air will be fully mixed so that the CO2 is evenly mixed, and so at some point in altitude the infrared just keeps going.
And, that pushing this altitude higher is like adding more density to a cloud on a cloudy day, or keeping the density the same but increasing to distance from its bottom to its top. Or, adding another blanket to a bad in a bed analogy.
This is all correct. Well done! You finally grasped my blanket analogy.
3] In winter cloudy days are warmer than sunny days because the sunny days are under high pressure domes and they have high pressure for 2 reasons; a] they are drier so have less of the light weight water molecules, and b] they just moved in from up north where it is colder.
Oh, what a shame. And you were doing so well...
No. Cloudy days are warmer than sunny days in the winter because the sun's low angle means little sunlight is absorbed by the earth's surface (especially if it is covered with snow!), and absent clouds, there is too little water vapor in the air to block IR heat loss from the earth's surface and the air layers immediately above it.
This doesn't change that fact that in winter a cold sunny day will heat up more during the day than a cloudy day.
A clear day will only heat up more because a clear night is so much colder than a cloudy one. Duh. You need to read a lot more of my posts to improve your critical thinking skills.
The sunny day just starts out colder because of the above reasons and because during the previous night the sky was cloudless, and so more of the infrared heat light could radiate out into space. [This clear sky effect is also seen in deserts where they are hot in the day and freezing cold at light.]
Because there is so little water vapor in the air that IR heat is easily lost to outer space. Right. The Romans found they could freeze food and water in the middle of the Sahara by covering a large area with half a meter of straw at dawn, uncovering it at sunset, and repeating that for a few days. That trick doesn't work where there is more water vapor in the air.
4] TtP, you are relying a 100 year old paper, and ignoring the refutations of his work.
There has been no refutation, which is why the HITRAN data set agrees with Angstrom. You or someone else here tried to post a putative refutation of Angstrom, and I demolished it.
You said above somewhere that he was referring the sea level air.
Yes, that is the standard atmosphere.
I have pointed out that the refutations brought in the idea that the air thins out as we go up in altitude.
That effect is irrelevant at the surface, as I already explained.
My source said that Angstrom didn't address this effect.
Because it is irrelevant to his results and to surface temperature.
And that later scientists have looked at this, and have shown that Angstrom was wrong only in that he didn't look at the effect of increasing CO2 concentrations that are fully mixed have on the infrared light in the upper atmosphere.
He wasn't wrong, and they showed only that they are trying to pretend an irrelevancy is relevant. THEY are wrong in claiming that the effect of CO2 at higher altitudes is relevant to Angstrom's results or to surface temperature.
. . . TtP, you are trying to use HS debate club rules where any paper no matter how refuted can be used in one's evidence, because it is up to the otherside to know how the refute that info. I am refuting it and so far, you have not convinced the Lurkers or me that my refutation is not correct.
No. I don't care if I have convinced you or anyone else. I have shown why your claimed "refutation" is no such thing. All it does is pretend that an irrelevancy is relevant.
You keep bringing it up. A scientist would be drummed out of the profession if he/she insisted on using refuted info without showing how the refutation was wrong.
Angstrom's result has not been refuted, which is why the HITRAN data agree with him, and I already explained why the putative refutation was no such thing. It was effectively nothing but a disingenuous attempt to change the subject.
You are insisting on using refuted info from Angstrom's paper, and so far you have not groked the refutations and then shown how they are wrong.
See above. Angstrom was never refuted, and I will thank you to remember it. I already proved the disgustingly disingenuous putative "refutation" you have trotted out was a gigantic nothing burger.
. . . This shows that the sun does put out some infrared heat light.
No, absorption of visible light will have the same effect. However, as it happens, the sun does
put out a lot of IR. Just a lot less than the visible part of its output, and it is all absorbed by GHGs on its way down through the atmosphere.
It has no effect on the GHG effect because the increased CO2 blocks the incoming infrared heat light just as much as it blocks the out-going heat light, the 2 effects are very close to cancelling out.]
No. CO2 absorbs incident solar IR high in the atmosphere, above where H2O condenses out. Below that level, the H2O makes the atmosphere almost totally opaque to IR. It's not "very close to cancelling out" because incident solar IR never gets anywhere near the surface, while IR from the surface does end up escaping to outer space.