"Whether we like it or not" - Page 34 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15200173
Pants-of-dog wrote:Insulting me is also not an intelligent rebuttal.

But it helps clarify the situation.
If you cannot support your claim that 1% increase in IR absorption is insignificant, then there is no reaason for others to assume your arguments are true.

If a 1% increase is not insignificant, would a 0.1% increase be insignificant? How about a 0.01% increase? A 1% increase in IR absorption is insignificant because the temperature difference between ice ages and interglacials is ~10C, and that is associated with a change in albedo from ~.3 to ~.9 in glaciated areas. A 1% increase in IR absorption would therefore equate to an albedo difference of ~0.006, or enough to increase temperatures by ~0.1C, which is less than the typical year-to-year fluctuation. And remember: Angstrom showed the actual effect of doubling CO2 was a ~0.5% increase in IR absorption, not 1%.
Angstrom’s experiment was wrong in several ways:

No it wasn't. You are merely about to prove, yet again, your total lack of scientific acumen. Watch:
For example, his experiment did not look at convection at all,

Or convertibles, or conventions, or convexity. Because all four are irrelevant to the experiment.

See? You have no knowledge of science. None.
and assumed the only heat transfer was through heat radiation.

No, it made no such assumption. You simply made that up.
This is, of course, wrong. Especially when we look at climate or weather. Wind happens.

See? You proved again that you have no understanding of science, let alone atmospheric physics. There is no reason whatever to assume that convection would be measurably affected by increasing CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm UNLESS it significantly affected IR absorption and thus heating. Which Angstrom proved it can't.
#15200175
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is clear, but it is not a scientific argument.

Yes it is.
It is, at best, a poorly written metaphor with an implied argument.

No, it is an analogy that explains why the graphs ingliz posted are irrelevant and dishonest anti-scientific trash, in language that even laymen with no scientific training or aptitude, such as yourself, might be able to understand.
Are you arguing that measuring the effect of different amounts of pure CO2 on IR absorption and pretending that is relevant to the effect of CO2 emissions on climate, as Angstrom did, is incorrect?

No, I am stating the fact that Angstrom did NOT do that. He correctly ADDED CO2 to standard atmospheric air to determine its effect on IR absorption. He did not incorrectly and dishonestly pretend that the IR absorption characteristics of different amounts of pure CO2 were relevant to the effect of CO2 emissions on climate.
#15200176
ingliz wrote:@Truth To Power

If, for the sake of argument, the global mean surface temperature is rising.

Water vapour and how it affects temperature

Assuming that the relative humidity - the expression of water vapour content relative to the saturation concentration - would remain the same with a changing climate.

As the temperature of the Earth rises, the saturation vapour pressure of the atmosphere rises following the Clausius–Clapyron relationship. If the natural world has an average relative humidity of 80%, the warmer world will also be 80% saturated, but since the warmer air can hold more water vapour, it holds 80% of a higher concentration, the absolute humidity rising proportionally to the saturation value.

The effect of water vapour on climate is, therefore, to amplify a temperature change.

Yes, and your point would be...? The above has nothing whatever to do with CO2.

You appear to have no idea how small the increase in atmospheric water vapor content is with temperature, or how much smaller still the increase in IR absorption is. And you are still assuming that CO2 emissions could significantly increase global surface temperature, which Angstrom proved they could not.
#15200179
Truth To Power wrote:Yes it is.

No, it is an analogy that explains why the graphs ingliz posted are irrelevant and dishonest anti-scientific trash, in language that even laymen with no scientific training or aptitude, such as yourself, might be able to understand.

No, I am stating the fact that Angstrom did NOT do that. He correctly ADDED CO2 to standard atmospheric air to determine its effect on IR absorption. He did not incorrectly and dishonestly pretend that the IR absorption characteristics of different amounts of pure CO2 were relevant to the effect of CO2 emissions on climate.


No, your poorly written metaphor does not explain any flaws in anything.

Instead, it merely implies a possible problem, and you ignore the fact that Angstrom had this exact problem that you imply: assuming impacts (or lack thereof) on climate from an overly simplified model of climate.

Truth To Power wrote:But it helps clarify the situation.

If a 1% increase is not insignificant, would a 0.1% increase be insignificant? How about a 0.01% increase? A 1% increase in IR absorption is insignificant because the temperature difference between ice ages and interglacials is ~10C, and that is associated with a change in albedo from ~.3 to ~.9 in glaciated areas. A 1% increase in IR absorption would therefore equate to an albedo difference of ~0.006, or enough to increase temperatures by ~0.1C, which is less than the typical year-to-year fluctuation. And remember: Angstrom showed the actual effect of doubling CO2 was a ~0.5% increase in IR absorption, not 1%.


This does not seem correct.

It looks more like you just making up numbers and asserting it is true without any evidence,

No it wasn't. You are merely about to prove, yet again, your total lack of scientific acumen. Watch:

Or convertibles, or conventions, or convexity. Because all four are irrelevant to the experiment.


Yes, factors that are active in the real climate are dismissed as irrelevant by this experiment. This is why the experiment is incorrect.

See? You have no knowledge of science. None.

No, it made no such assumption. You simply made that up.


You just argued that it assumed that all other methods of heat transfer were irrelevant. Now you are contradicting yourself and saying the experiment did not assume that convection was irrelevant.

See? You proved again that you have no understanding of science, let alone atmospheric physics. There is no reason whatever to assume that convection would be measurably affected by increasing CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm UNLESS it significantly affected IR absorption and thus heating. Which Angstrom proved it can't.


You do not seem to understand the rebuttal.

No one is claiming that convection would be affected by increased CO2.

The claim is that convection will move heated air through the atmosphere and replace it with air that is not as saturated.
#15200180
Truth To Power wrote:Yes, and your point would be...?

Water vapour would amplify any change in temperature due to increased CO2, something you denied earlier in the thread.


:)
#15200184
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, your poorly written metaphor does not explain any flaws in anything.

It is well written -- unlike your posts -- and explains the logical flaw very clearly: you cannot measure the effect of a factor within a given context by measuring it in the total absence of that context.
Instead, it merely implies a possible problem,

No, it clearly identifies a deal-breaking problem that proves ingliz's graphs are disingenuous and anti-scientific trash.
and you ignore the fact that Angstrom had this exact problem that you imply: assuming impacts (or lack thereof) on climate from an overly simplified model of climate.

No, you just continue to make false claims. Angstrom didn't posit any model of climate. He simply proved that adding CO2 to the atmosphere cannot significantly affect its IR transmission. If adding CO2 to atmospheric air can't significantly affect its IR transmission, CO2 emissions can't significantly affect climate.
This does not seem correct.

But it is close enough.
It looks more like you just making up numbers and asserting it is true without any evidence,

No, it looks like you are just refusing to know facts that prove you wrong, as usual.
Yes, factors that are active in the real climate are dismissed as irrelevant by this experiment.

Right: because they are unrelated to CO2 and therefore irrelevant to CO2's effect on climate.
This is why the experiment is incorrect.

No, it is why the experiment is correct.
You just argued that it assumed that all other methods of heat transfer were irrelevant. Now you are contradicting yourself and saying the experiment did not assume that convection was irrelevant.

No, I correctly stated that the experiment ignored convection because CO2 does not affect convection unless it affects heating, and also correctly stated that the experiment did not assume convection is irrelevant to climate, just to CO2's effect on climate.

In all cases I was objectively correct, and you were objectively incorrect.
You do not seem to understand the rebuttal.

There was no rebuttal, only denial.
No one is claiming that convection would be affected by increased CO2.

Thank you for agreeing that convection is irrelevant to CO2's effect on climate, and you are only trying to muddy the waters in order to evade the facts that prove you wrong.
The claim is that convection will move heated air through the atmosphere and replace it with air that is not as saturated.

But that is false because CO2 is well mixed, and in any case completely irrelevant to CO2's effect on climate. It's just another of your usual nothing burgers. You are obviously just makin' $#!+ up as you go along, repeatedly proving that you have zero (0) knowledge or understanding of atmospheric physics, climate, or science.
#15200185
Truth To Power wrote:It is well written -- unlike your posts -- and explains the logical flaw very clearly: you cannot measure the effect of a factor within a given context by measuring it in the total absence of that context.


And yet your argument attempts to do exactly that:

You are trying to argue the effect of CO2 on climate by measuring it in the total absence of the context of climate; i.e. you reduce all the complexities to a simple experiment by Angstrom that has been shown to be incorrect.

No, it clearly identifies a deal-breaking problem that proves ingliz's graphs are disingenuous and anti-scientific trash.


No.

No, you just continue to make false claims. Angstrom didn't posit any model of climate. He simply proved that adding CO2 to the atmosphere cannot significantly affect its IR transmission. If adding CO2 to atmospheric air can't significantly affect its IR transmission, CO2 emissions can't significantly affect climate.

But it is close enough.

No, it looks like you are just refusing to know facts that prove you wrong, as usual.

Right: because they are unrelated to CO2 and therefore irrelevant to CO2's effect on climate.

No, it is why the experiment is correct.


So it is not Angstrom making the error you are blaming on others.

It is you.

No, I correctly stated that the experiment ignored convection because CO2 does not affect convection unless it affects heating, and also correctly stated that the experiment did not assume convection is irrelevant to climate, just to CO2's effect on climate.

In all cases I was objectively correct, and you were objectively incorrect.

There was no rebuttal, only denial.

Thank you for agreeing that convection is irrelevant to CO2's effect on climate, and you are only trying to muddy the waters in order to evade the facts that prove you wrong.

But that is false because CO2 is well mixed, and in any case completely irrelevant to CO2's effect on climate. It's just another of your usual nothing burgers.


No, you misread.

I can explain it again if you want.

Convection brings new air in to replace the saturated air, thereby making CO2 saturation at ground level irrelevant.

So your argument, i,,e that the ground level air is already saturated with IR and adding more CO2 will not change anything, is wrong.
#15200194
@Truth To Power

Image
Source:NASA

The influence of carbon dioxide can be seen in past changes in climate. Ice cores from over the past million years have shown that carbon dioxide concentrations were high during warm periods – about 0.028%. During ice ages, when the Earth was roughly 7 to 13 F (4-7 C) cooler than in the 20th century, carbon dioxide made up only about 0.018% of the atmosphere.

CO2 makes up 0.041% of Earth’s atmosphere today.

Even though water vapour is more important for the natural greenhouse effect, changes in carbon dioxide have driven past temperature changes. In contrast, water vapour levels in the atmosphere respond to temperature. As Earth becomes warmer, its atmosphere can hold more water vapour, which amplifies the initial warming in a process called the “water vapour feedback.” Variations in carbon dioxide have therefore been the controlling influence on past climate changes.


:)
#15200208
ingliz wrote:@Truth To Power

Image
Source:NASA

The influence of carbon dioxide can be seen in past changes in climate.

Its lack of influence, that is.
Ice cores from over the past million years have shown that carbon dioxide concentrations were high during warm periods – about 0.028%. During ice ages, when the Earth was roughly 7 to 13 F (4-7 C) cooler than in the 20th century, carbon dioxide made up only about 0.018% of the atmosphere.

Because temperature controls CO2, not the other way around. I already posted links to the graphs proving that CO2 is correlated with PAST temperature much more than FUTURE temperature, which proves that the causal link is the opposite of what you and NASA claim. NASA knows better, so they are just lying about it.
CO2 makes up 0.041% of Earth’s atmosphere today.

Which is a considerable improvement over the pre-industrial level.
Even though water vapour is more important for the natural greenhouse effect, changes in carbon dioxide have driven past temperature changes.

No, that has never happened.
In contrast, water vapour levels in the atmosphere respond to temperature. As Earth becomes warmer, its atmosphere can hold more water vapour, which amplifies the initial warming in a process called the “water vapour feedback.”

But that feedback is very small, because the amount of water vapor in the air increases only very slightly with temperature, and the logarithmic response of IR absorption means the increased GH effect is microscopic.
Variations in carbon dioxide have therefore been the controlling influence on past climate changes.

No, that claim has been proved false, not least by the correlation graphs I posted links to. NASA is simply lying about it.
#15200210
Pants-of-dog wrote:And yet your argument attempts to do exactly that:

No it doesn't.
You are trying to argue the effect of CO2 on climate by measuring it in the total absence of the context of climate;

No, that is false. Angstrom and I include the context of the earth's standard surface atmosphere, which the liars who claim to refute Angstrom exclude. The surface atmosphere is precisely the context climate occurs in. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you. Certainly there is no way to explain it so clearly and simply that you would be willing to know it.
i.e. you reduce all the complexities to a simple experiment by Angstrom that has been shown to be incorrect.

It has never been shown to be incorrect. Your claim is just baldly false. The complexities of climate do not involve CO2 as a significant factor, and are therefore irrelevant to the effect of CO2 emissions on climate, which Angstrom showed cannot be significant.
No.

Yes.
So it is not Angstrom making the error you are blaming on others.

It is you.

Neither Angstrom nor I made an error. You, however, have made many -- mostly presuming to dispute with me on a subject about which I am incomparably better informed than you.
No, you misread.

No I did not, and I will thank you to remember it.
I can explain it again if you want.

Your explanation is guaranteed to be just as wrong the second time around.
Convection brings new air in to replace the saturated air, thereby making CO2 saturation at ground level irrelevant.

That is uninformed and absurd gibberish with no basis in science. The air is not "saturated." The new air that is brought in has the same level of CO2 as the air that is rising in a convective current. There is no difference. You have merely again proved that you have no knowledge of science, let alone climate science, let alone atmospheric physics.
So your argument, i,,e that the ground level air is already saturated with IR

There is no such thing as air that is "saturated with IR." You are spewing uninformed gibberish that simply confirms your absolute innocence of all science. It is literal nonsense that only serves cruelly to expose your complete lack of qualification to discuss scientific topics.
and adding more CO2 will not change anything, is wrong.

I didn't say adding CO2 would not change anything. You simply made that up and falsely attributed it to me, like almost everything you claim I say. Adding CO2 is increasing crop yields and bioproductivity, and shrinking deserts. It just isn't significantly increasing temperature.
#15200220
Truth To Power wrote:No it doesn't.

No, that is false. Angstrom and I include the context of the earth's standard surface atmosphere, which the liars who claim to refute Angstrom exclude. The surface atmosphere is precisely the context climate occurs in. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you. Certainly there is no way to explain it so clearly and simply that you would be willing to know it.

It has never been shown to be incorrect. Your claim is just baldly false. The complexities of climate do not involve CO2 as a significant factor, and are therefore irrelevant to the effect of CO2 emissions on climate, which Angstrom showed cannot be significant.


As long as we agree that you and Angstrom are ignoring convection, heat loss to space, and other factors that are present in the actual climate but not in the little experiment that was disproven in 1931.

Perhaps your confusion stems from your incorrect notion that I was talking about the the surrounding context of climate, while I was actually discussing the actual climate as the context.

Yes.

Neither Angstrom nor I made an error. You, however, have made many -- mostly presuming to dispute with me on a subject about which I am incomparably better informed than you.

No I did not, and I will thank you to remember it.

Your explanation is guaranteed to be just as wrong the second time around.


None of this discusses climate change. Ignored.

Please try to stay on topic.

That is uninformed and absurd gibberish with no basis in science. The air is not "saturated." The new air that is brought in has the same level of CO2 as the air that is rising in a convective current. There is no difference. You have merely again proved that you have no knowledge of science, let alone climate science, let alone atmospheric physics.


Again, no one claimed it was saturated with CO2. Please read more carefully.

Convection brings new air in to replace the saturated air (I guess here I need to explain that the air has reached the saturation point for IR radiation. I thought this would be clear from the context of Angstrom and his experiment looking at the saturation point for IR radiation, but since you need to have this clarified, I am discussing the saturation point for IR radiation) thereby making CO2 saturation (of IR radiation, remember!) at ground level irrelevant.

There is no such thing as air that is "saturated with IR." You are spewing uniformed gibberish that simply confirms your absolute innocence of all science. It is literal nonsense that only serves cruelly to expose your complete lack of qualification to discuss scientific topics.


So Angstrom never claimed that adding more CO2 would not help air absorb more IR radiation, because the air was already with IR.

That is your argument, is it not?

I didn't say adding CO2 would not change anything. You simply made that up and falsely attributed it to me, like almost everything you claim I say. Adding CO2 is increasing crop yields and bioproductivity, and shrinking deserts. It just isn't significantly increasing temperature.


No one is discussing any of this. Please read more carefully and try to respond to what is written. You may be getting angry, and this may be part of your confusion.

Adding more CO2 helps the air absorb more heat. Can you address that?
#15200231
Truth To Power wrote:But it [insulting others here] helps clarify the situation.

If a 1% increase is not insignificant, would a 0.1% increase be insignificant? How about a 0.01% increase? A 1% increase in IR absorption is insignificant because the temperature difference between ice ages and interglacials is ~10C, and that is associated with a change in albedo from ~.3 to ~.9 in glaciated areas. A 1% increase in IR absorption would therefore equate to an albedo difference of ~0.006, or enough to increase temperatures by ~0.1C, which is less than the typical year-to-year fluctuation. And remember: Angstrom showed the actual effect of doubling CO2 was a ~0.5% increase in IR absorption, not 1%.

No it wasn't. You are merely about to prove, yet again, your total lack of scientific acumen. Watch:

Or convertibles, or conventions, or convexity. Because all four are irrelevant to the experiment.

See? You have no knowledge of science. None.

No, it made no such assumption. You simply made that up.

See? You proved again that you have no understanding of science, let alone atmospheric physics. There is no reason whatever to assume that convection would be measurably affected by increasing CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm UNLESS it significantly affected IR absorption and thus heating. Which Angstrom proved it can't.

I'm replying to just the part I highlighted.

1] Lurkers, did you follow how TtP got from a "change in albedo from ~.3 to ~.9 in glaciated areas" to "A 1% increase in IR absorption would therefore equate to an albedo difference of ~0.006"? I could see no connection between those 2 statements that are back-to-back in his reply.

2] Lurkers, TtP seems to totally fail to grok that changes in IR absorption cause a tiny amount in cooling or heating each day for centuries. This goes on until a new equilibrium temp is reached. So, a tiny change can cause a large temp change over many decades.

3] Lurkers, TtP above wrote, "A 1% increase in IR absorption is insignificant because". I have not seen any attempt by TtP to support his claim that a 1% change in absorption is insignificant.
. . . This is my attempt to show that he is wrong using his own words. TtP asserts that the 280 ppm (IIRC) of CO2 in the air in 1850, will absorb all the IR light/heat in a few hundred meters. This is a lot of absorption. Yet TtP admits that IR light/heat still escapes into space, when he says energy in = energy out. Then he asserts that a 1% increase in the absorption of IR light/heat is insignificant.
. . . Well, remember we are not talking about an amount of a 'thing', we are talking about a rate of change of a 'thing'. Here the 'thing' is the amount of heat energy retained in a sample of air near the surface. We see this amount of heat energy retained as the temp of the air.
. . . An analogy might be wealth, income, and spending. Here wealth = the energy in the air measured as its temp. Income is the rate at which the IR energy is absorbed. And spending = the rate at which the energy of that sample of air loses its energy by reradiating IR light/heat. OK, here we are talking about what effect changing the rate of change in the income has on wealth. That is, does a 1% increase in the rate of change in income have a significant effect on the accumulated wealth of the person? We know that there is a time lag between increasing the CO2 ppm and the temp of the air. That is the air takes time to increase its temp. You know this because when you cook and boil water, turning up the fire under the pot does not immediately make it boil. This means that the temp of our air below slowly heats up, and because the amount of IR being reradiated depends on the temp of the air the amount of IT reradiated lags behind the amount of IR absorbed. We need to assume that she was spending the same as her income, because before in 1850 the temp was not increasing much due to the CO2 in the air.
. . . Suppose, the person's income was $100K/yr. Her wealth was $0, and her spending was $100K. this means her wealth was not changing because she spent all her income. [In 1850 we are assuming that the temp was constant. We do this because we need to eliminate all other reasons why the temp will change to see the effect a 1% change will have if all other factors are equal.]
. . . OK, her income was $100K. A 1% increase would make her earn $101K/yr. There is a lag in her increased spending. I'll assume for illustration here, that her spending increases by 0.06%, so 1.006 x 100k = $100.6k.
. . . Now, in the 1st year her wealth will increase by $101K - 100.6K = $0.4K. If her wealth is assumed to be 0 just for simplicity, then her wealth is now $0.4K.
. . . In the next year her income was $101K and it again increases by 1% so now her income is 101 x 1.01 = $102.01k. This year we'll illustrate by assuming her spending also increases by 0.06%, so she spends 1.006 x 100.6k = 101.20K. So, her wealth is now 0.4K + 102.01k - 101.20k = 1.21k

In each following year we multiply by the same 1% income increase and the same .6% spending increase, we get her wealth increased to $2.426k. After 7 years her wealth is now $11.564k. If we extend this to 100 years we can see that it is significant.

I redid the spread sheet and assumed that all her increased income was spent, but with a 1 year lag. In this case her wealth after 7 years was $12.365k. So, it was larger.

We all know that TtP will reject this analogy. I hope the Lurkers can grok the point, that is "changing the rate of something is never insignificant if the time is long enough.

Before, I have shown that adding just 0.0001 deg.C each day over 3 decades adds just about 1 deg.C to the temp. Obviously, adding more per day makes the 1 deg.C increase happen sooner.

TtP might have thought that adding just 0.0001 deg.C to the temp per day was insignificant. But, you can see that it isn't.

Also, because of the time lag of temp increase, if we stopped adding CO2 to the air today, by removing all of what we add, the temp would keep increasing. And worse, this would add more water vapor to the air, which is a much stronger GHG, so it would heat the Earth more & faster. In this wonderfully rosy case, it would take decades for the temp to reach the new equilibrium temp, and it might be a 2 or 3 deg.C increase on top of our current 1.15 deg.C increase from 1850 temps. This will be very bad. Even a 1 deg.C increase from now is very bad.
.
#15200240
@Truth To Power

Let's find where we agree and proceed from there.

The fractional concentration of water vapour falls off very rapidly with height. [Agreed?]

CO2 is nearly uniformly distributed within the atmosphere. [Agreed?]

So, even if the water vapour absorption were larger than that of carbon dioxide in a certain spectral interval at the surface of the Earth at only a short distance above the ground, say 7 km, carbon dioxide absorption would be considerably larger, cooling the upper atmosphere. [Agreed?]

Now I contend that increased CO2 cooling leads to increased ozone (heating) at the lower stratosphere - 7 km over the poles in winter - where the polar front jet forms [Agreed?] and that coupled with the warmer observed surface temperatures in the higher latitudes, reduces the temperature gradient, slowing the jet stream.

If you disagree, please show your workings.


:)
#15200278
DEDUCTIVE

Where this thread lives.
It seems that posters have spent many pages trying to understand climate change based on deductive reasoning. This has led posters to list thousands of words of often contradictory theory from other sources. This has been followed by very little real-world observation.

INDUCTIVE

I would recommend taking the opposite approach (inductive) by observing a lot more of what is going on in the ecosystems around you. I have lived through the end of many animals, many insects, and many plants. But to see them die, to witness their new silence... in situ... is much more unequivocal.

Also, observe the economic rules that manipulate the opinions of people and institutions that you are familiar with.

Then, observe the robotic, caged-animal living conditions of virtually all human beings - the creatures that formulate our theories for us, and tell us what to observe.

ONLY THEN... should you be looking at the myriad "theories" about climate. To start with these (deductive) means you will never get through the byzantine piles of narrative that have been created out of data by often interested parties whose motivations will remain unknown to you, the observer.

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/ind ... reasoning/
#15200289
ingliz wrote:@Truth To Power
The fractional concentration of water vapour falls off very rapidly with height. [Agreed?]

CO2 is nearly uniformly distributed within the atmosphere. [Agreed?]

So, even if the water vapour absorption were larger than that of carbon dioxide in a certain spectral interval at the surface of the Earth at only a short distance above the ground, say 7 km, carbon dioxide absorption would be considerably larger,

All good up to here.
cooling the upper atmosphere. [Agreed?]

This is not clear. Remember, GHGs can't stop heat radiated from the surface from escaping, only slow it, and the upper atmosphere is heated from above, not from below, so the relationship is not so simple. Adding CO2 could be expected to make the atmosphere warmer overall, just as adding a cotton blanket to a stack of one cotton and 40 wool blankets would make all the blankets under it slightly warmer. Only the very top layer would be cooler. But unlike the blankets on a bed, the top layer of the atmosphere is much hotter than the layers below, so it is not clear how temperature at any given altitude above the troposphere would be affected by adding CO2.
Now I contend that increased CO2 cooling leads to increased ozone (heating) at the lower stratosphere - 7 km over the poles in winter - where the polar front jet forms [Agreed?]

It's more complicated than that, and I can't say for sure.
and that coupled with the warmer observed surface temperatures in the higher latitudes, reduces the temperature gradient, slowing the jet stream.

As above. It's not clear that would be the effect -- and if such an effect has been observed, it is not clear that CO2 is necessarily the cause.
#15200292
Truth To Power wrote:the top layer of the atmosphere is much hotter than the layers below, so it is not clear how temperature at any given altitude above the troposphere would be affected by adding CO2.


Not quite.

You are confusing heat and temperature.

Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of molecules.

Heat is the thermal energy we feel because of this movement of molecules.

And because there are so few air molecules in the troposphere ( second highest, btw) , there is almost no heat energy in the troposphere. If you could magically breathe up there, you would find it quite cool.

Also, the troposphere also has the coldest temperatures in the atmosphere.
#15200294
@Truth To Power

I understand it's more complicated than that. But with the surface temperature gradient reducing and the lower stratosphere, wouldn't both gradients reducing work in tandem to produce more extreme weather?
#15200326
ingliz wrote:@Truth To Power

I understand it's more complicated than that. But with the surface temperature gradient reducing and the lower stratosphere, wouldn't both gradients reducing work in tandem to produce more extreme weather?

Extreme weather would more likely be driven by higher gradients, not lower ones.
#15200327
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not quite.

I am objectively correct and you are objectively wrong.
You are confusing heat and temperature.

No I'm not.
Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of molecules.

Heat is the thermal energy we feel because of this movement of molecules.

So you are aware of the fact that I am right and you have no basis for your claims to the contrary. Check.
And because there are so few air molecules in the troposphere ( second highest, btw) ,

The troposphere has the highest density of air molecules.
there is almost no heat energy in the troposphere. If you could magically breathe up there, you would find it quite cool.

The troposphere is the lowest layer of the atmosphere. You again prove that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just spewing whatever nonscience you make up on the sopt.
Also, the troposphere also has the coldest temperatures in the atmosphere.

No, the stratosphere does.
  • 1
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 43

I am not sure that empiricism is necessarily anti-[…]

We'll need a Progressive era. Or panic, I'd b[…]

Meth and the homeless

Rural Communes Mao Tse Dumb...

Election 2024 Thread

He's tried. Unfortunately the GOP plus two idiot […]