Truth To Power wrote:1] Just as adding a teaspoon of water to a leaky bathtub will increase the pressure and thus the rate of leakage. The question is HOW MUCH CO2 reduces the amount of IR escaping into space, and more importantly, the amount escaping the region immediately above the surface higher into the atmosphere.
2] The average energy. Right.
3] It should be obvious as a matter of geometric intuition.
3a] The average emission altitude is currently ~9km, and doubling CO2 will increase it to ~12km.
b] If you have ever flown at that altitude, you may have noticed that the daylight sky near the horizon gets significantly darker.
c] That is because the atmosphere, and thus the GHG density, gets significantly thinner. You can think of the escape window as a cone extending above each GHG molecule.
d] It is mathematically certain that increasing the emission altitude will significantly widen that cone and the escape window.
4] That is exactly why increasing the altitude is so significant.
5] But exactly how much do they add up to?
6] Yes, CO2 acts like a blanket: doubling CO2 is like adding a cotton blanket to a bed that already has a cotton blanket and 40 wool blankets on it.
1] Lurkers, we know how much IR energy must escape the lower atmosphere to reach the higher atmosphere. It obviously must be just just about exactly the amount of energy the sun sends out that reaches the Earth's surface. TtP is claiming that the Earth is NOT heating up because of CO2 in the air. IIRC, he is claiming that it is cooling off, or at least not heating up. You and I know that if the Earth is heating up and does continue to do so, that it will heat up until it reaches a 4 deg. C increase from the ave. temp now.
. . . So, the question TtP seems to be asking vaguely is; is the IR escaping more or less than the incoming energy from the sun? Here he doesn't give his answer.
2] OK, he agrees that the ave. "temp." of the IR light that is going up, is less because the average energy is less. However, he makes no assertion of how many photons are still going up. You and I know that the amount of energy going up at every level must be the same as the amount that came up to that level (plus any stopped at that level), otherwise the air at that level would be heating up. AFAIK, the air at higher altitudes is not heating up much.
. . . 1st, for example, if the average energy of the photons of IR light is 5/6 of the energy at lower altitudes, then if there are the same number of photons of IR there will be less energy sent up and out to space. However, if there are 1.3 times more photons then more energy going up and out to space will be increased.
. . . 2nd, so, TtP, has never explained why the ave. temp of the outgoing IR light is reduced. I would have thought that it would not be changed much because as a molecule absorbs a photon it gains energy, and then later it loses the exact same energy as it reradiates an IR photon in a random direction. This is quantum mechanics.
. . . Until TtP explains why the ave. temp of the IR light is reduced and why the number of photons doesn't change to almost exactly balance this out, we don't need to believe his unsupported assertion that a reduction in the ave. 'temp' of the IR is significant.
3] OK, let's see.
. a] Just an assertion, but OK (for now) I'll assume it's correct. BTW -- 12km = 38,000 ft. as high as airliners fly.
. b] I have not seen this, but again, OK, for now.
. c] Or, it is because the sun is above you and so less of its light is scattered at a 95+ deg. angle back up
. d] TtP wrote, "It is mathematically certain that increasing the emission altitude will significantly widen that cone and the escape window."
So, finally, he gets to his point. The escape window is widened a lot. If this is true, then all else being equal (I know it isn't), it follows that a wider window means more of the IR photons escape. Then, it follows that more energy is escaping. Then it follows that the Earth is cooling a lot. OK, we can all agree that the Earth is not cooling a lot, why?
. . . OK, I accepted for now much of what he asserted. I never saw him assert the number of photons being created at each level of the atmosphere. Without this number the argument is incomplete. However, if the ave. energy of the IR photons is less then to have about the same energy escaping there must be more of them. If he asserts that both numbers (change in IR energy and number of photons exactly cancel out except for the exact amount of energy that is escaping to space to give exactly his exact change in the Earth's ave. temp), then it seems to me that he has just made another unsupported assertion.So, for me his #3 and #4 is just a bunch of word salad without meaning.
5] This asks a question, implying 'not enough or not much'. So, I can't reply.
6] Again, just an unsupported assertion if you lurkers agree that his #3 is just word salad.
BTW --- I made an error in an above reply.
I said that 0.000274 deg C of heating per day adds up to 1 dec. C. over a decade. This is correct. However,
I said that to change it so it takes 3 decades to add 1 deg. C I did it wrong.
To change it to 3 decades the calculation becomes => 0.000274 / 3 = 0.0000913 deg. C/day for the 10957.5 days in 3 decades. [To double check it; 0.0000913 x 10957.5 = 1.00042 = 1.000.]
TtP never addressed this point. My point here is to show you lurkers just how tiny the climate scientists are claiming the Earth as a whole on average will heat up each day, to total 1 deg or 1/3 deg. per decade of heating.