- 27 Oct 2021 03:23
#15195987
Lurkers, reread what TtP wrote there.
As I read it , he just agreed that adding CO2 to the air will reduce the amount of IR heat that escapes into space each day, compared to the day before. This because reducing the temp of the TR radiation is saying reducing the energy of each photon if IR light. He provided no evidence that the angular size of the escape window is significant. I doubt that it is because the increase is mostly in the part that is close to the horizon and so has to penetrate the most air before it escapes to space.
. . . As I showed above, the effect in any day is very small, it is just that the change over the whole Earth is always in the same direction (less IR escaping all else being equal, which it isn't because the Earth is slightly warmer each day) and these small differences add up over the 3652.5 days in a decade.
Yes, TtP is right I made up that number just to show you how tiny the change in heat loss needs to be to add up over decades to what is being predicted by climate scientists.
. . . I estimated 1 deg. C per decade, this gave me the number of 0.000274 deg. C per day.
. . . If you want to change that to 1 deg. C over 3 decades, then 3x 0.000274 = 0.000822 deg. C per day. This number is still 20% less than 1/1,000 deg. C per day.
He also seemed to agree that increasing CO2 levels will act like a blanket to reduce the heat that escapes out into space, just like the snake will take longer to heat up when it is under a down blanket.
.
Truth To Power wrote:You just made that number up.
You merely assume the earth's surface is warming because of CO2, but Angstrom showed over 100 years ago that no significant surface warming by CO2 is possible.
No, it has nothing to do with the amount of IR radiated up from the surface.
No it isn't, and you have yet to identify any such.
I already explained it: the increased CO2 above the altitude where water vapor condenses out increases the altitude of the average final IR emission to outer space, and thus also the angular size of the escape window, while reducing its temperature. There is no significant effect at the surface.
The difference is that WE KNOW the earth has to lose as much energy to space as it absorbs from sunlight, and WE KNOW that at a certain altitude, IR emitted upward won't be blocked by anything higher up. That is not true in the other direction.
True.
Lurkers, reread what TtP wrote there.
As I read it , he just agreed that adding CO2 to the air will reduce the amount of IR heat that escapes into space each day, compared to the day before. This because reducing the temp of the TR radiation is saying reducing the energy of each photon if IR light. He provided no evidence that the angular size of the escape window is significant. I doubt that it is because the increase is mostly in the part that is close to the horizon and so has to penetrate the most air before it escapes to space.
. . . As I showed above, the effect in any day is very small, it is just that the change over the whole Earth is always in the same direction (less IR escaping all else being equal, which it isn't because the Earth is slightly warmer each day) and these small differences add up over the 3652.5 days in a decade.
Yes, TtP is right I made up that number just to show you how tiny the change in heat loss needs to be to add up over decades to what is being predicted by climate scientists.
. . . I estimated 1 deg. C per decade, this gave me the number of 0.000274 deg. C per day.
. . . If you want to change that to 1 deg. C over 3 decades, then 3x 0.000274 = 0.000822 deg. C per day. This number is still 20% less than 1/1,000 deg. C per day.
He also seemed to agree that increasing CO2 levels will act like a blanket to reduce the heat that escapes out into space, just like the snake will take longer to heat up when it is under a down blanket.
.