Recent Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Comments 51 to 100:

51. Charlie_Brown at 11:05 AM on 7 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    CallItAsItIs @ 835

    Unfortunately, I am completely lost by this explanation. We are talking about the Energy Budget diagram @753 and @827, aren’t we? Thermal is convection from the surface, 17 W/m^2. Evapotranspiration is 80 W/m^2, and Latent heat for condensation is 80 W/m^2. Those energy streams redistribute energy in the lower atmosphere and affect the atmospheric temperature profile, along with the lapse rate. The Response @827 already explained it correctly. Note that an energy budget describes the energy flows within the overall global system. If you are talking about the overall global system energy balance, then the boundary is at the TOA. The intermediate streams in the lower atmosphere are not needed. The energy balance becomes:

    Solar In (341 W/m^2) = Solar Reflected (102 W/m^2) + IR Out (239 W/m^2)

    IR Out is the full IR spectrum because it includes IR emitted by the surface that is not absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases.
    Conservation of energy does not apply to each and every frequency individually. Kirchhoff’s Law explained @756 and elsewhere allows for collisions between molecules and energy exchange by conduction. For a small, localized packet of isothermal atmosphere, absorptance will equal emittance. But since there is a temperature change with altitude, it is conservation of energy, not conservation of photons.

    It is clear that you did not understand my description of AWG because you say that we are only interested in 14-16 microns. But AWG also includes strengthening of weak CO2 emittance lines between 13-14 microns and 16-17 microns, as illustrated @788. And warming of the surface increases caused by increasing CO2 increases IR from all of the transparent lines also. The atmospheric spectrum was shown in @819 and for different altitudes @731.

    My perspective now is that you have no business critiquing AGW because we are not even close to talking about the same thing. We seem to be hopelessly talking past each other.

52. CallItAsItIs at 09:27 AM on 7 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Response @827

    Well, you will be pleased to know that every energy flow shown in your diagram is EMR — just different frequencies.  And since our topic is the CO₂ greenhouse effect, we are only interested in the absorption band from 14-16 microns.  Finally, since we are not in the realm of nonlinear optics, the law of conservation of energy applies to each and every frequency individually as well as collectively.  I hope clears up your understanding and perspective on this issue.

    Moderator Response:

    I'd be tempted to ask what frequency evaporation happens at, but I know there isn't an answer to that, because it isn't EMR.

    The only understanding you have cleared up is that you are eternally misinformed.

53. Charlie_Brown at 06:02 AM on 7 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    CallItAsItIs @832

    If you understand the fundamental principles, then perhaps you are not understanding how the parts of AGW fit together and do not violate any of them. Help us out here. Just what part of AGW is it that you think violates a fundamental principle? Kirchhoff’s Law, which I thought was your stumbling block, was well covered in great detail by Bob Loblaw @830 and Michael Sweet @831. Perhaps you are confused about the word “atmosphere” as defining the system energy balance. @827 you say:

    “The problem with this claim is that it is only by EMR that energy enters and leaves the atmosphere. Conduction and convection only redistribute energy already within the atmosphere, and therefore give a sum total contribution of zero to the thermal energy contained in the atmosphere.”

    It is correct that only radiant energy enters and leaves the overall global system at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA) where the global system includes the atmosphere plus the surface. However, you seem to exclude the surface by saying that conduction and convection only redistribute energy already in within the atmosphere. As shown in the energy budget diagram, convection and evaporation transfer energy from the surface to the atmosphere. Total IR flux leaving the TOA is determined by the temperature profile of the atmosphere and the surface. The intensity of the total IR spectrum at the TOA is integrated to give IR heat flux. Do not think that AGW is caused only by absorbing IR in the lower atmosphere. It is caused by reducing IR loss to space which then has to be compensated by accumulating energy until IR from a warmer surface balances the reduction through the full CO2 absorption band. The warmer surface heats the lower atmosphere.

54. Bob Loblaw at 02:56 AM on 7 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    CallItAsItIs:

    As a Ph.D. physicist...

    You need to ask for your money back.

55. CallItAsItIs at 02:45 AM on 7 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Response @825

    ... would bother to try to learn it.

    As a Ph.D. physicist, I have already learned the fundamental principles claimed in this AGW stuff, and I resent this comment of yours.  The issue at hand is that after careful review of the SkS "rebuttals" to the CO₂ band saturation effect, I believe they violate at least one very fundamental physical principle and am trying to get this matter resolved.  And your snip-happy attitude isn't helping any.

56. michael sweet at 02:33 AM on 7 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Callitasitis at 826:

    This is the basis of your misconceptions.  When a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon it does not emit another photon.   The energy from the photon is distributed to other molecules.  New photons are emitted according to the temperature where they are emitted.  You are focused on the incorrect issue and you do not understand how energy flows through the atmosphere.  IndividuaI photons are not important.  I will try to explain it to you again.

    The surface of Earth emits radiation according to its temperature.  Let us say it is 290K.  I will look at the later of air 1000 meters high.  As you point out, all the upwelling energy is absorbed.  Since I am now higher this layer is colder, it is only 285K.  I look at this layer from above.  I see that this layer emits 15 micron radiation according to its temperature.  Since it is colder than the surface it emits less energy.

    Now I look at the next 1000 meters of the atmosphere.  It absorbs all the upwelling radiation.  It is only 280K so it emits less upwelling radiation.

    This process goes up to the top of the atmosphere with each layer emitting less energy up.  The incoming  energy from the Sun makes the Earth about 275K.  At the top of the atmosphere the energy emitted averaged over all wavelengths of radiation must be 275K due to the law of conservation of energy.  Incoming energy must equal outgoing energy.  For the purpose of this discussion I will say that at 3000 meters the temperature is 275K.

    The key issue is the concentration of CO2.  The top of the atmosphere is determined by the concentration of CO2.  The concentration of CO2 determines the amount of energy emitted up.  If the concentration of CO2 is lower the TOA is lower, if the concentration of CO2 is higher the TOA is higher.  The concentration of CO2 is lower when you go up in the atmosphere because the pressure is lower.

    Now I add more CO2 to the atmosphere. I do not care about the first 2999 meters of the atmosphere, I only care about the top of the atmosphere

    At 3000 meters there is now more CO2 so more upwelling energy is absorbed.  (upwelling energy from 2,999 meters).  This reduces the energy emitted to space.   In order to conserve energy the top of the atmosphere has to move higher where CO2 is lower.   Now it is 275K at 3,100 meters instead of 3,000 meters.  The top of the atmosphere must stay 275K to conserve energy.  The CO2 concentration is lower since the pressure is lower.

    The temperature of the atmosphere is determined by the lapse rate.  The lapse rate is a physical property of the atmosphere.  It is measured as 5K per 1000 meters.  That means that if you go up 1000 meters the air is 5K colder.

    When it was 275K at 3,000 meters it was 290K at the surface.  Now, because the CO2 has increased, it is 275K at 3,100 meters.  Since the top of the atmosphere is 100 meters  higher the lapse rate forces the entire atmosphere to increase  by 0.5K.  It is now 290.5K at the surface.

    The top of the atmosphere is extremely sensitive to the concentration of CO2.  It doesn't matter that the first 10 meters on the atmosphere absorb all upwelling 15 micron radiation from the surface.  The upwelling radiation is replaced by black body radiation originating in the atmosphere.  Focus on the top of the atmosphere.

    You have not taken advanced atmospheric physiior chemistry.  Reading a little on the Internet does not make you smarter than all the scientists in the world.  Accept that you do not understand the energy flow in the atmosphere.

57. Bob Loblaw at 01:11 AM on 7 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    I have been staying out of this, to let the moderators try to control the situation, but CallItAsItIs's latest diatribes continue to make the same basic mistakes that he started with, so I"ll attempt once more to point out his main errors.

    The moderator reposted the Trenberth Energy diagram in response to comment 827. I had previously discussed this diagram in comment 772, over a week ago. CallItAsItIs is under the illusion that no energy enters the atmosphere except via radiation. In the diagram, we see 17 W/m² entering the atmosphere from the surface via "thermals", and 80 W/m² entering the atmosphere via "evapotranspiration". These values are not zero.

    • The "thermal" part of this is heat transfer by conduction, as a hot(ter) ground or water surface heats the cool(er) air over that surface. No radiation is involved.
    • The "evapotranspiration" part of this is the movement of energy as a result of the evaporation (or sublimation) of water (liquid or solid) at the surface (or from plants - "transpiration"), the movement of water vapour into the atmosphere, and the condensation (or sublimation) of that water vapour back into liquid (or solid), releasing the latent heat of vaporization back into thermal energy. No radiation is involved.
    • These energy transfers from the surface into the atmosphere are important.

    CallItAsItIs continues to misunderstand the importance of non-radiative energy transfers in the atmosphere, by saying they don't matter, as they just redistribute energy, not adding it. He's wrong about adding it, but he is also wrong about the importance of redistributing it.

    • When looking at a layer of the atmosphere, its temperature (and any changes to that temperature) is a response to any source of energy from layers above and below it that gets converted to thermal energy within that layer. It does not matter whether that energy gets there because of radiation, conduction, condensation, etc.
    • Things that add thermal energy to a layer include:
    • absorption of radiation (IR or solar)
    • bring warm are into the layer and move cooler air out (convection)
    • conduction (can be ignored except directly at the surface, since convection is far more important)
    • condensation of water vapour (when the water vapour was evaporated elsewhere and carried into this layer by convection - i.e., move moist air in, replacing drier air).
    • Things that remove thermal energy from a layer include:
    • emission of radiation (that then leaves the layer)
    • convection (move warm air out of the layer, replace it with cooler air)
    • evaporation of water (and moving the vapour out of the layer)
    • Whenever convection moves energy from one layer to another (thermal or in the form of latent heat in water vapour), that will have an effect on the emission of IR radiation within that layer.

    Now, let's take another look at CallItAsItIs's misunderstanding of the Schwarzchild equation and Kirchoff's Law. Again, previously posted, we have Schwarzschild's equation:

    

    This is a differential equation, telling us the change in radiation in a layer (infinitely thin, only ds units thick, as Calculus is wont to do).

    • If dIλ is >0, the layer is gaining energy via radiation at this wavelength.
    • If dIλ is <0, the layer is losing energy via radiation at this wavelength.

    There are two terms in it (in the middle form):

    • The first is the emission of radiation, according to Planck's law.
    • The second is the absorption, related to Beer's Law.

    ...but we have not really talked about what all the variables mean. Copying from the Wikipedia page:

    n is the number density of absorbing/emitting molecules (units: molecules/volume)
    σλ is their absorption cross-section at wavelength λ (units: area)
    Bλ(T) is the Planck function for temperature T and wavelength λ (units: power/area/solid angle/wavelength - e.g. watts/cm2/sr/cm)
    Iλ is the spectral intensity of the radiation entering the increment ds with the same units as Bλ(T)

    Let's make a few points:

    • Emission requires knowledge of the layer temperature. Any energy flow that affects temperature (not just radiation absorption) will change the emission rate.
    • Absorption does not have  a temperature term.
    • The two terms will only balance at one specific temperature. Any other temperature will lead to an imbalance - i.e., dIλ will not equal zero.
    • "Any other temperature" can and wll occur when there are other energy transfers besides radiation. This is why CallItASItIs is wrong,wrong, wrong, when the thinks that other energy transfers are not important.
    • We also notice that both the emission and absorption terms include the variable σλ - the "absorption cross-section".
    • How does an "absorption" term end up in the emission calculation? Because of Kirchoff's Law.
    • Kirchoff's Law does not say that absorption = emission. It just says that the efficiency of absorption is equal to the efficiency of emission.
    • CallItISsItIs gets it wrong, wrong, wrong when he thinks Kirchoff's Law requires that every absorbed photon must be immediately emitted again.
    • Absorbed photons add there energy to the local thermal energy.
    • Emitted photons take their energy from the local thermal energy.
    • The two processes are largely independent, linked only through thermal conditions, of which radiation absorption is only one part.
    • And thermal conditions depend on absorption of other wavelengths, not just the wavelength that we are currently looking at using Schwarzschild's equation.

    Although CallItAsItIs seems to accept that Schwarzschild's equation is reasonable, he rejects Kirchoff's Law, in spite of the fact that Schwarzschild's equation has Kirchoff's Law as one of its essential parts. In order to reject Kirchoff's Law he throws out bogus "laws of thermodynamics" and "thermal equilibrium" claims that have been criticized many times:

    • Conservation of energy must include all energy transfers - not just radiation, and especially not just an isolated wavelength of radiation.
    • Kirchoff's Law is applicable when we have local thermodynamic equilibrium.

    At this point, it is clear that CallItAsItIs suffers from two major intellectual issues:

    • He does not understand the details of individual bits he reads.
    • He does not understand how these individual bits are related to each other.

    I don't think there is much more we can do help him understand. The resistance is extremely strong.

58. Eclectic at 21:11 PM on 6 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    CallItAsItIs @827 ; @828 ; @829  ~

    [snip]

    You are outdoing yourself.  Not two, but now three (3) repeated posts within 2 hours.

    Still, it does supply some reassurance that you aren't an A.I.

    No A.I. that I am aware of, would make such errors.  Nor would an A.I. keep repeating the multiple scientific errors that you keep repeating. 

    An A.I. of the most modern sort, would change and adapt its responses, when those errors were pointed out.

    Moderator Response:

    This does not help.

59. CallItAsItIs at 18:38 PM on 6 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Charlie_Brown @825

    Forget about conserving only radiant energy and remember that conservation of energy includes conduction and convection.

    The problem with this claim is that it is only by EMR that energy enters and leaves the atmosphere.

    [snip]

    Conduction and convection only redistribute energy already within the atmosphere, and therefore give a sum total contribution of zero to the thermal energy contained in the atmosphere. I believe I explained this in one of my posts which the moderator removed.

    I think your blind spot is assuming that radiation in the CO2 absorption band is absorbed and disappears somewhere within about 10 meters of the surface.

    No, that is not correct. I know that such thermal energy is somewhere within the atmosphere. It's simply a point that I haven't mentioned just yet since it is not relevant to solving the Schwartzschild equation. One thing worth pointing out, however, is that while adding massive amounts of CO₂ to the atmosphere does not increase the overall CO₂ temperature forcing, the entire radiated energy from the 15 micron band would be concentrated within just a few meters from the surface. From this, one might think that the surface would be too hot to touch! And that might be true except for one thing — convection. In addition to the surface being so hot, steep temperature gradients would form which would then result in steep pressure gradients. Then, according to the Navier-Stokes equation, the pressure gradient would drive a fluid velocity near the surface which carries away the excess heat. Anyway, I just wanted to make the point that I have not forgotten about that heat within 10 meters of the surface. It simply hasn't been a compelling issue just yet.

    Moderator Response:

    No matter how many times you say this, it is still wrong.

60. CallItAsItIs at 18:33 PM on 6 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Charlie_Brown @825

    Forget about conserving only radiant energy and remember that conservation of energy includes conduction and convection.

    The problem with this claim is that it is only by EMR that energy enters and leaves the atmosphere. Conduction and convection only redistribute energy already within the atmosphere, and therefore give a sum total contribution of zero to the thermal energy contained in the atmosphere. I believe I explained this in one of my posts which the moderator removed.

    [snip]

    I think your blind spot is assuming that radiation in the CO₂ absorption band is absorbed and disappears somewhere within about 10 meters of the surface.

    No, that is not correct. I know that such thermal energy is somewhere within the atmosphere. It's simply a point that I haven't mentioned just yet since it is not relevant to solving the Schwartzschild equation. One thing worth pointing out, however, is that while adding massive amounts of CO₂ to the atmosphere does not increase the overall CO₂ temperature forcing, the entire radiated energy from the 15 micron band would be concentrated within just a few meters from the surface. From this, one might think that the surface would be too hot to touch! And that might be true except for one thing — convection. In addition to the surface being so hot, steep temperature gradients would form which would then result in steep pressure gradients. Then, according to the Navier-Stokes equation, the pressure gradient would drive a fluid velocity near the surface which carries away the excess heat. Anyway, I just wanted to make the point that I have not forgotten about that heat within 10 meters of the surface. It simply hasn't been a compelling issue just yet.

    Moderator Response:

    Leaving a portion of this intact. Once again, your assertion that no energy enters or leaves the atmosphere except by radiation is wrong. This is only true at the top of the atmosphere. It is not true at the surface. And this has been explained to you several times. Look at this diagram, once again.

    

61. CallItAsItIs at 16:05 PM on 6 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Charlie_Brown @825

    All right — This whole matter of Kirchoff's law seems trivially simple to me, so I guess I must be missing something.  Therefore, I seek your great wisdom in order to understand this law and its implications correctly.  Now, my understanding is that for each photon that is absorbed, an identical one is emitted, and vice-versa.  So, if a CO₂ molecule absorbes a photon and emits one exactly like it, how much of the energy from the absorbed photon is available as heat energy to warm the atmosphere?

    Moderator Response:

    I will leave this intact, even though it is not the numerical calculation we are asking for, but this is a prime example of how you continue to get things wrong.

    Kirchoff's Law does not say what you imply here.

62. Charlie_Brown at 11:53 AM on 6 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    CallItAsItIs @823

    Schwartzchild equation is correct. Beer's Law applies. Kirchhoff's Law applies. Conservation of energy applies. Planck Distribution Law applies. Stefan-Boltzmann Law applies. You need to figure out why your conclusion is not consistent with the fundamental laws of radiant energy. MA Roger certainly did not agree that any of those laws do not apply and did not concur that you have used the equation correctly.

    A good place for you to start would be to go back and re-read previous posts because the answers are there. Hint: Beer's Law applies to attenuation of the source photons. Kirchhoff's Law describes re-emission of those photons. CO2 molecules at a specified temperature absorb and emit photons equally, else internal energy would be accumulating and temperature would be changing. Forget about conserving only radiant energy and remember that conservation of energy includes conduction and convection. I think your blind spot is assuming that radiation in the CO2 absorption band is absorbed and disappears somewhere within about 10 meters of the surface. That would not be consistent with conservation of energy.

    Moderator Response:

    As you point out, the answers are all there in previous comments, if CallItAsIt is would bother to try to learn it.

63. CallItAsItIs at 10:21 AM on 6 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Philippe Chantreau @822

    [snip]

    I really do not see how it is anybody else's responsibility to help.

    Of course it is not anyone else's responsibility to help. I was hoping, however, that with this being a climate site, somebody here more knowledgeable in climate science than me would be anxious to help. This is how science progresses, and a true scientist would want issues and conflicts resolved as opposed to censoring the person who discovered it. But with the disrespect, unfair censoring, and just plain hostility shown me, I've obviously overestimated the "experts" at SkS and probably the entire AGW community.

    Textbooks have all the theory. Classes covering radiative transfer exist in many educational institutions. The LBLRTMs are physical models. The model predictions exist before the measurements to validate them take place. It takes a lot of painstaking work to build them but LOTRAN and MODTRAN are accessible to the public.

    Then what do we need scientists for!?

    Moderator Response:

    Still can't get it right.

64. CallItAsItIs at 10:17 AM on 6 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    MA Rodger @819

    [snip]

    So, you concur then that the Schwartzschild equation is the correct equation to solve in order to determine the spectral intensity I_λ. Furthermore, since this equation is a first order linear DE and the value of I_λ at s=0 is given, that solution is unique. Therefore, since this solution is not compatible with Kirchoff's law (unless we give up energy conservation), it means that Kirchhoff's law does not apply for this system. Thanks! You have been quite helpful.

    Well Moderators, it seems that MA Rodger has concurred that my model using the Schwartzschild equation is correct and I have the calculations ready. It turns out that if we double the current CO₂ concentration, the effect it would have on the CO₂ temperature forcing is, for all practical purposes, a big zilch. Therefore, I have completed your request so we can now stop blocking my posts.

    Moderator Response:

    Same incorrect conclusions, with no numerical result, deleted.

65. Doug Bostrom at 05:51 AM on 6 December 2024
    Sabin 33 #5 - Is solar energy worse for the climate than burning fossil fuels?
    

    Thank you for your thoughtful and productive critique, walschuler. 

    Sabin is actively maintaining this collection and we are delighted to help with that. We'll pass along your comments and work with Sabin to address them. 

    Published research literature will provide our improvements; if you have relevant references please do post them in this comment thread. As is said of software, with enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow. :-)

66. Philippe Chantreau at 05:03 AM on 6 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    I really do not see how it is anybody else's responsibility to help. Textbooks have all the theory. Classes covering radiative transfer exist in many educational institutions. The LBLRTMs are physical models. The model predictions exist before the measurements to validate them take place. It takes a lot of painstaking work to build them but LOTRAN and MODTRAN are accessible to the public.

67. CallItAsItIs at 21:32 PM on 5 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Philippe Chantreau @818

    I understand your concerns

    [snip]

    and I have had them too. We must realize, however, that in setting up a model, there are typically a bunch of unknown that must be pinned-down somehow. Normally, they are tweaked for best agreement with observation, and if good agreement is obtain over a wide range of data, then we say we have a good model. There is nothing "wrong" with that but we must realize its limitations. What works well now may not give such good results in a few years. This is why a "good" model must be "maintained" or "updated" every so often and may not be meaningful for long-term predictions.

    In my work, however, I am not building a model for comparison with observations. I am only trying to assess the effect of increased atmospheric CO₂ content on the total greenhouse forcing in order to establish whether this effect is saturated. Therefore, I only determine the CO₂ greenhouse forcing assuming that all essential inputs are given. The idea then is to keep this problem as simple as possible, solve it on a first-principles level, and then test the solution over a realistic range of input parameters.  I did not include convection in my analysis since it does not affect the amount of new heat entering the system, but only where it goes.  Also, since convection depends on fluid velocity, the model would need frequent updates and be more of a complication than what it is worth.  Therefore, a comparison of my results with observations and/or the Feldman et al (2015) paper isn't even possible. I attempted to point this out to the "moderator" in comment 815, but look back to this comment and see what happened! Their incompetence in understanding this has resulted in grossly unfair "snipping" of my comments.

    Now, just over the past few days, I had a breakthrough in my understanding of the alleged "rebuttal" to the CO₂ band saturation effect. It turns out that most everyone working on this CO₂ band saturation issue has religiously applied Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation even though this law applies only to systems in thermal equilibrium, and a warming atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium. Well, this week I showed that this application of Kirchoff's law implied that there could be no CO₂ greenhouse warming without violating energy conservation, and as you can see from the postings, this did not settle very well with several people on this page, especially the moderators. Despite the denials and ridicule, however, no one has disproved me.

    Finally, I should point out that I have reached out in 813 for individuals willing to help me trouble-shoot my approach and identify any misconceptions I may have that renders my methods invalid. To initiate this effort, I posted two questions that I believe should be easily answered, but thus far I got no response. Now, with the arrogance and hostility toward me that they have shown, I believe they would have torn me to pieces if they could. Well, perhaps they can't!

    [snip]

    Moderator Response:

    No, you clearly do not understand any of the objections that have been made. And these have been pointed out repeatedly.

    You need to provide numerical results and an explanation of how you arrived at them. In comment 800, you claimed "I have already done the math". Since then you've just made excuses, and continued to misinterpret and misunderstand much of what you read.

    Final Warning

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

68. CallItAsItIs at 20:34 PM on 5 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Bob_Loblaw @786

    If CallItAsItIs wants to continue to ignore Kirchoff's law when forming his arguments, he will need to provide a much stronger argument as to why it does not apply than to hand-wave it away with a statement such as "may well be compromised".

    Would violating energy conservation be a strong enough argument for you?  As Charlie_Brown as well as myself have already pointed out, Kirchoff's does not apply in non-equilibrium systems, and that includes LTE along with any system that is warming or cooling.

    Moderator Response:

    Another comment that fails to provide the requested numerical results of CallItASItIs's "theory" of atmospheric energy transfer.

69. MA Rodger at 20:29 PM on 5 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    CallItAsItIs @813,
    I'm not sure where you are going with this yea-or-nay stuff, mainly because it is all rather trivial.

    The Schwartzschild equation dI_λ/ds = nσ_λ[B_λ(t)-I_λ] tells us the spectral intensity I_λ at a temperature t will tend to the value determined by the Planck function B_λ(t), this a function of temperature t and familiar to us as the black body curve when plotted for the full spectrum.
    Thus, up towards the TOA, where the atmosphere becomes thin enough to allow IR in the 15 micron waveband to shoot off into space (and CO2 is well mixed way above), there will be altitudes with particular temperatures which define the emissions of a particular wavelength in that 15 micron waveband.
    
    This is why the IR spectrim from Earth is often annotated with blaclbody curves for differing emitting temperatures, these showing CO2 is blocking emissions through much of the 15 micron waveband below an altitude with temperature roughly 220K. Note the spike in the centre of the 15 micron waveband. This spike shows the population of more static non-spinning CO2 molecules (so n in Schwarzchild but not in Planck is greater) sees more 'blockage' such that the emissions to space occur above the tropopause where temperatures begin to rise again. The same phenomenon is seen in the 9.6 micron ozone waveband.

70. Philippe Chantreau at 06:37 AM on 5 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    The Feldman et al (2015) paper, published in Nature, shows the values obtained from modeling based on radiative transfer physics (which do not belong to anybody and can't be called "mine" or "theirs"), and it shows how that compares to actual measurements. They match.

    If CallItAsItIs argument is that everyone else gets the physics wrong, then the following questions arise:

    How do the "wrong" physics led to theoretically predicted values confirmed by measurements?

    Can we have references to papers published in serious journals that outline these correct, more complete physics?

    Are there LBLRTMs that integrate these "different' physics and produce usable results, the kind that the USAF would trust in their IR weapon guidance and other systems (like with MODTRAN and HITRAN)?

    What is producing the increased downwelling IR radiation?

    Without answers to these, I'm skeptical.

71. walschuler at 05:06 AM on 5 December 2024
    Sabin 33 #5 - Is solar energy worse for the climate than burning fossil fuels?
    

    This is a very important summary of information and extremely useful, but I think certain points need more emphasis or examination: First I think it ought to be emphasized that the co2 advantage of solar pvs and the other renewable tech is based on current average use of fossil energy to make them, a part of their current embodied footprint. If these energy sources become renewable, say PVs, then the advantage grows. In fact, all renewable equipment makers should be using their own or others' renewable equipment to make more of them- a zero carbon bootstrap. To make this bootstrap complete the renewables makers need to iron out fossil fuel use down their whole supply chain.

    Second, the statement below from the last reference posted above needs examination: "in addition to having smaller greenhouse gas emissions, solar power likewise outperforms fossil fuels in minimizing direct heat emissions. A 2019 Stanford publication notes that, for solar PV and CSP, net heat emissions are in fact negative, because these technologies “reduce sunlight to the surface by converting it to electricity,” ultimately cooling “the ground or a building below the PV panels.”4 The study found that rooftop and utility-scale solar PV have heat emissions equivalent to negative 2.2 g-CO2e/kWh-electricity, compared to the positive heat emissions associated with natural gas, nuclear, coal, and biomass."

    This statement is true in certain circumstances and not in others. In the case of PVs in the desert in Arizona, the blackness of the collectors absorbs more sunlight than the desert would absorb. It isn't as reflective as snow, but the difference is significant. Of the absorbed sunlight today's PVs convert about 20% to electricity. The other 80% heats the PVs and is either radiated to the sky and ground or convected to the air. This could lead to a net addition to solar input to the climate energy balance at such a site. If the PVs replace grass or trees, the reflectivity issue more or less goes away but so does the latter's co2 trapping. This is however still in favor of PVs with respect to carbon balance, as another of your posts makes clear. In the case of PVs on buildings, the provided shade lowers air conditioning loads which is a clear advantage along with generating carbon free energy, and the reflectivity for most roofs is low. If the roof is highly reflective before PVs are installed, a part of the advantage is lost.

    I think the last of your linked references is wrong in part. There we find:

    "Use solar panels with reflective coatings. These coatings can help to reflect sunlight away from the panels, reducing
    heat absorption.
    Plant vegetation around solar panels. Vegetation can help to shade the panels and keep them cool." The first point, unless it means use selective surface coatings that reflect IR solar wavelengths the the PV can't convert to electricity, makes no sense. The second makes no sense. If the vegetation shades the panels the panels lose access to sunlight. For maximum benefit the panels need unrestricted access to sunlight.

72. michael sweet at 23:06 PM on 4 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    this works for me.

    https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6_noSplash_b5903aebfe105b4071103e11197138f8.pdf

     

    Moderator: when i tried to hyperlink the link it didn't work, sorry

    Moderator Response:

    Fixed.

73. michael sweet at 23:02 PM on 4 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    callitasitis: a free copy of the paper is  located here.  Google Scholar located this copy in about 30 seconds.

    Moderator Response:

    [2024-12-5] Fixed this link, too. It looks like you have a Chrome extension that is garbling the links when you copy or paste them.

74. CallItAsItIs at 20:06 PM on 4 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Wonderful! 

    [snip]And the article is "paywalled" at $39.95 (USD).  Would SkS be willing to foot the bill?  Not only that, butwe are not working the same problem!  Please understand the problem yourself before claiming that my physics is wrong!  Now that we have that issue resolved, could we please move on and answer my questions from 813?

    Moderator Response:

    More excuses to not do your own work.

75. CallItAsItIs at 17:44 PM on 4 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    PS @808

    It is being left to CallitAsItis to define his/her physics and show that it conforms with observation.

    Just what "observation" is "his/her physics" supposed to conform with?  It wouldn't by any chance be observation predicted by "real physics".  I'm sorry I had to bring this up, but I simply don't trust "experts" who can be shown that their physics violates energy conservation, and all they do is deny it.  Please don't insult my intelligence any further!

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] The observation you need to match are the measurements of backradiation flux at surface, spectrum of that radiation, and the same as measured by satellites at TOA. Also the change in those measurements as CO2 increases. (eg https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240) These match the theoretical calculation which you believe break conservation of energy. Let's see you do the same.

76. CallItAsItIs at 14:43 PM on 4 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    PS @812

    All right, let's do a little trouble-shooting to find my physics mistake.  First, do we agree that temperature T, CO₂ density n, and the spectral intensity I_λ (in the upward direction) all exist as smooth functions of 3D space between the surface and TOA?  Next, do we agree that the Schwartzschild equation (posted in 804 and in Wikipedia) is a valid equation governing I_λ between the surface and TOA? We will start with those two questions and see what feedback I get.

77. CallItAsItIs at 11:19 AM on 4 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    PS @811

    Just show us your equivalent of the Ramanathan and Coakley equations for flux through a layer of atmosphere. 

    [Snip]

    I did.  It's the Schwartzschild equation shown along with its general solution in the Wikipedia article.  Bob Loblaw also posted this equation at 804. You can get the backradiation from the non-exponential term in the solution, evaluating the indicated integral numerically if necessary.  If you want actual number-crunching, I'll need a contract.

    Moderator Response:

    Wrong answer

78. CallItAsItIs at 04:40 AM on 4 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Moderator @809-810

    Yeh Sure!  By the time I get those codes up and functioning on my computer, we will already know for certain if any of the global warming that you predict takes place.  And even then I would have to figure out how to undo violations of energy conservation. No thank you!

    But look at the bright side.  You've made my Fear No Carbon lectures even more interesting when I show screenshots of this page.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Just show us your equivalent of the Ramanathan and Coakley equations for flux through a layer of atmosphere.

    But if your theory cannot accord with observations (specificially backradation, spectrum, changes in spectrum and backradation as CO2 increases) and standard physics does, then your model of reality is wrong. Do the calculations correctly and there is no violation of conservation of energy but with your mental model of reality, you seem incapable of understanding that.

79. Eclectic at 22:02 PM on 3 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    CallItAsItIs  @809  :-

    Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it is a usefully concise starting point in reviewing or broadening one's education.   For instance, education regarding 3 important effects ~ (A) the Motivated Reasoning Effect ; (B) the Dunning-Kruger Effect ; (C) the GreenHouse Effect.

    After giving deep consideration of these 3 matters, one is then justified in asking the question : Having proven to myself that I am right and all other scientists are wrong ~ why is it that the reputable scientific journals reject my scholarly paper demonstrating my findings?

    Persecution cannot be the explanation ~ for the most eminent journals are actually keen to publish novel groundbreaking concepts (e.g. Relativity ; Quantum Mechanics ; DNA Structure ).

    Each major journal welcomes iconoclastic breakthroughs : as does the Nobel Committee.

    Moderator Response:

    As previously stated, until such time as CallItAsItIs provides a proper mathematical description of how he thinks this should be done, along with numerical results, we would prefer that people not engage in further pointless discussion with his illusions.

80. CallItAsItIs at 17:59 PM on 3 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    I apologize for my reaction in comment 807, but you must see my frustration with the general attitude with which I have greeted on this site. When are the people on this page going to realize that Beer's equation (ie., the differential equation we solve to obtain Beer's Law) is not my physics? It's been around much longer than I have. Neither is Schwartzschild's equation. Also, when are they going to realize that I am only studying the CO2 band saturation issue and not necessarily trying to win some best climate model award? Finally, when are they going to realize that when we focus a particular issue, we do our best to isolate that issue so that others don't affect observations and conclusions. Sure it's important to keep the "Big Picture" in mind, but one error in any of the critical smaller pieces could render the entire picture meaningless.

    In regard to the Schwartzschild equation, I am already fully aware of everything stated in Bob Loblaw @804. In his comment, he quotes from the Wikipedia article titled Schwartzschild's equation for radiative transfer. In this article, the author describes a one-dimensional model in which the Schwartzschild equation is solved for the spectral density I_λ as a function of altitude s where the temperature T, CO₂ molecular density n, and absorption factor \sigma are assumed to be given functions of s. This along with the value of  I_λ at s=0 is all that is needed to solve the problem. Since the Schwartzschild equation is a first-order linear DE, its solution, generally involving integrals of known function which can be done numerically if necessary, has been "cut and dried" for well over a century. You can check this out for yourself, but I believe you will find negligible escape of energy for most any realistic input. Now, this approach may not be perfect, but isn't it more reliable than something that starts out by breaking the laws of thermodynamics?

    Moderator Response:

    You are still not getting the message. Until you show your math and provide full and complete numerical results, your comments will still be subject to strong moderation. None of your qualitative descriptions are correct.

    You have been provided with link to code sources, and you have been pointed to Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 https://ramanathan.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/460/2017/10/pr15.pdf, where you can read about how this is done by climate scientists.

81. MA Rodger at 01:46 AM on 3 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    The argument that was being made by commenter CallItAsItIs (with which he apparently now feels confident enough to present within lectures!!) is to suggest that the likes of Kirchoff's Law can be ignored because the atmosphere is warming and thus Kirchoff's Law and its ilk which apply in a state of equilibrium do not apply under AGW. Of course, that situation should mean you adapt the physics such that they do apply, an adaption which commenter CallItAsItIs feels is not required as he can instead happily applies his own nonsense as an alternative.

    The logical absence of an atmosphere in equilibrium under AGW has prompted me to set about calculating how large that out-of-equilibrium is under AGW and thus the significance of any deviation from equilibrium, this in a rough & wholly trivial manner. (I think I have managed to tame all the decimal points I've employed.)

    A 15 micron photon has an energy of 1.3e-20J. Air at 1bar has a Cp of roughly 0.0012J/cm^3/K and is today warming at some 0.02 K/y or 6.3e-10 K/s, this with ECS=3ºC multiplying the warming by three. So this would suggest 2.5e-13W of forced warming, so requiring 20 million photons/second in the 15 micron band for a cc of air at sea level under today's AGW.
    We can compare this roughly with the flux of such IR at average surface air temperatures, a flux of 400mW/m^2/cm^-1 in a band of width 170cm^-1 or 0.0068W/cm^2, roughly 500 quadrillion photons/second or 25 billion times the number of photons required for today's AGW.
    The atmosphere is, of course, a little taller than this 1cc packet of air, with about 1.2 million times the mass of a sea level cc in the full cm^2 column, the full column requiring warming. About half the 500 quadrillion photons emitted at the surface are measured escaping from the TOA into space, the remaining 250 quadrilion maintaining the GH-effect. The AGW warming of the full column of atmosphere would require (pro rata with the sea level cc) 25 quadrillion photons, so about 10% additional to the GH-effect and 5% of the surface flux. That seems about right for a ballpark figure.
    And while some may say that 10% is significant in terms of there being no equilibrium (and indeed AGW is significant), the statements of commenter CallItAsItIs are actually arguing inconsistently for/against the very existence of the 250 quadrillion photons/s/cm^2 required for a 33ºC GH-effect with an ECS=3ºC.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] It is being left to CallitAsItis to define his/her physics and show that it conforms with observation. CallItAsItIs believe that their interpretation of physics is correct and we are obviously wrong. That fact that real physics correctly predicts observation and I cant see how CallItAsItIs can possibly explain observation with their physics should be reason to examine assumptions but no. However, we can look again when/if CallItAsItis has produced results. I see no further value in current arguments.

82. AdriantheHistorian at 00:07 AM on 3 December 2024
    2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
    

    [Snip]You can NOT ‘Trust’ Government Controlled ‘Science’!
    The destruction of Science in America in the Name of Government Ordered, ‘Equality’!..Here is an Example.
    In 2007, Nobel Winning Scientist, Dr. James Watson, told the Times newspaper that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".
    “Equal?”.."people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true".
    The remarks prompted the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, where Watson was a director from 1968 to 1994, to sever its ties with the Nobel Prize winner. The private lab removed Watson’s honorary titles, saying his views are “reprehensible, unsupported by science,”
    In 2014, Watson became the first Nobel winner to sell his prize because, he said, the race remarks made him an “unperson,” and he lost all but his academic income after being fired from the boards of companies he sat on.
    But he wasn’t forgiven.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] This is nothing more than a political rant, explicitly against the sites Comments Policy. Please review the policy before commenting again.

    • No politics. Rants about politics, religion, faith, ideology or one world governments will be deleted. Occasional blogposts on Skeptical Science touch on issues intimately related to politics.  For those posts this rule may be relaxed, but only if explicitly stated at the end of the blogpost.

     

83. AdriantheHistorian at 23:44 PM on 2 December 2024
    2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
    

    As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!

    Funny as the ''Climate Craze'' back in the 1970's was the New Ice Age..... Yes ''they'' said that Pollution (partials) were being thrown up into the upper atmosphere and causing the suns light to be reflected back into space., This was causing a New Ice Age to destroy the earth.
    Today those same people (Rainmakers) are selling yet another climate ''Crises''.

    Note; To STOP this New Ice Age, the USA went 'seriously' into protecting the 'Environment' way back in the 1970's with President Nixon signing the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) into law.
    Today the USA only produces as much steel as it did in 1950, this is as an example of those EPA efforts.
    High Gas Prices?.. EPA will Not allow a New Oil refinery to be built in America.
    And this is also a major reason for the loss of Millions of very good paying jobs, I might add. 'clean', comes with a very steep 'price'.
    Even IF the ‘Clean’ is ONLY here and all that pollution was just Moved to China, along with all the Jobs.
    Good thing we don’t use the same Air as the Chinese. Otherwise it would ALL have been a waste of time and Money.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] This is nothing more than a political rant, explicitly against the sites Comments Policy. Please review the policy before commenting again.

    • No politics. Rants about politics, religion, faith, ideology or one world governments will be deleted. Occasional blogposts on Skeptical Science touch on issues intimately related to politics.  For those posts this rule may be relaxed, but only if explicitly stated at the end of the blogpost.

     

84. CallItAsItIs at 20:30 PM on 2 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    NO! --  You either re-post or respond to my satisfaction to my last comment (about violating the laws of thermodynamics) or we have nothing further to discuss.

    [Snip]

    Moderator Response:

    Moderation complaints are always off-topic. Following the instructions of moderators is not optional.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

85. CallItAsItIs at 18:06 PM on 2 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    PS @805

    Before making any rash decisions about ceasing further commentary with me, you might be interested in learning how the SkS claims about CO₂ greenhouse warming violates the first law of thermodynamics. First, Kirchoff's Law is used to claim that for every photon absorbed by a CO₂ molecule, a similar photon is emitted, and vice-versa. Now Kirchoff's Law applies only if the system is in thermal equilibrium, and a warming atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium. Nevertheless, two SkS climate "experts" insist on applying it, and the result is that the number of 15 micron photons and the number of energized CO₂ molecules never changes. This means that if there is any CO₂ greenhouse warming, each such molecule would have to absorb a photon, deliver thermal energy to the surrounding N₂ and O₂ molecules, and still have enough energy to emit a similar photon. That, I'm afraid, is a violation of energy conservation!

    Now, I know I have overstayed my welcome here, but you might want me around a little bit longer in case the "experts" have questions. Meanwhile, I will deliver my Fear No Carbon lectures if invited to do so, and they will include the issue I just raised.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] As far as most physicists are concerned, the only problem is your understanding of how to apply physical laws. No further discusssion till you present an alternative that can be tested against observation. That is how science works. I reiterate - present your equivalent of heat flux through a slice of atmosphere.
    
    https://github.com/atmtools/konrad and https://github.com/atmtools/arts have code you hack to remove what you consider is the flawed physics.

86. Bob Loblaw at 02:12 AM on 2 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    One more post for the moment. I alluded in my previous comment that to examining the effects of changing CO2 or other aspects of climate modelling, one needs to "combine the local aspects of Schwarzschild’s equation into a series of equations that links many layers of the atmosphere - and also includes other forms of energy transfer besides radiation".

    One such study was the work of Manabe and Strickler (1964). Their figure 1 provides a useful illustration of what goes on inside such a model:

    

    What we see is the results of four model runs, where atmospheric temperature changes over time. At the initial time, temperature is set to a somewhat arbitrary uniform temperature. Radiative transfer equations are used to evaluate the upward and downward fluxes (both IR and solar). At each altitude/layer in the model the energy balance is calculated, and the result is used to move to the next time step.

    • If the layer is gaining energy, it will warm.
    • This is a net change: energy coming in from or going out to the layers above and below.
    • If the layer is losing energy (net), it will cool.
    • The calculations continue until all layers show no further change. They have reached thermal equilibrium.
    • Just doing the radiative transfer calculations once is not enough - you have to look at how they change with height (layer to layer), and then determine how they change over time (warming, cooling).

    On the left, we see results if only radiative transfer occurs. There are two model simulations: one from a cold atmosphere, and one from a warm atmosphere. We see that it does not matter if the model started cold or warm - it converges on a common temperature profile.

    The diagram on the left produces a tropospheric temperature profile that is too steep - a profile that would lead to extreme convection and cannot be sustained in a fluid atmosphere. On the right, we see the results when convection is added in, limiting the temperature profile. In essence, convection increases energy movement from the surface upward, so less needs to be transferred via radiation. More efficient energy transfer leads to the same total energy moving along a smaller slope (T vs. h) in the temperature profile.

    What we also see on the right, is that such a model does a pretty good job of predicting global mean atmospheric temperature profiles. The model is verified by data.

    A very similar model was used by Manabe and Wetherald 1967. Earlier in this discussion, I included their figure 16:

    

    Notice that adding CO2 does not cause warming - oh oops, well, not at the top of the daigram. In the stratosphere, increasing CO2 leads to cooling. It's only when you get to the lower troposphere and surface that you see substantial warming.

    So, when CallItAsItIs claims he can prove that CO2 can't cause warming, he does this by completely ignoring most of the physics.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Since Callitasitis continues to argue alternative physics, I propose all further commentary with him/her cease until equations are produced. Then predictions can be compared to reality. Since conventional physics makes accurate predictions for both earth and satellite measurements of radiation spectrum, as well as accurately predicting change in backradiation as CO2 increases, then the burden of proof is on CallitAsitis.

87. Bob Loblaw at 01:27 AM on 2 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    CallItAsItIs continues to provide assertions with no evidence. And he is also saying "it's too hard!" when asked to show his math, and shouting "Wrong!" at anyone that points out his misunderstandings.

    MA Rodger is correct in comment 801, when he points out that this is grade-school level discussion. It's a continuation of CallItAsItIs's posts where he says things like "I cannot pack an entire radiometry textbook into this comment space". Long experience tells me that someone who pretends it is too complex or hard to explain things to me has reached a point where they are trying to hide their obvious lack of knowledge.

    What is also glaringly obvious is that when CallItAsItIs reads pretty much anything, the only part that makes it into his mental model is any small snippet that he thinks confirms his misunderstandings. Anything else is rejected as "irrelevant".

    More than once, I have referred to Schwarzschild’s equation, and linked to its discussion on Wikipedia. CallItAsItIs claims (in comment 791) "I have checked out every link and diagram that was posted, and only found two that were even remotely related to the problem I am addressing,"

    So, what has CallItAsItIs's reaction to Schwarzschild’s equation? It's in comment 796 (quoted in its entirety, for context):

    Wonderful! Now with your radiation expertise and Schwarzschild's equation, you surely see that the solution for spectral intensity has a term that accounts for thermal radiation (ie. blackbody) and an exponential term that vanishes at high altitudes, giving us the exact same result I have been claiming through all the ridicule. Yes, those photons are there but they are there to establish thermal equilibrium at the surrounding temperature and not for warming. I'm glad you finally see the light!.

    Amazing! CallItAsItIs has noticed that Schwarzschild’s equation includes both absorption and emission of radiation. But all he sees is the bit that he thinks confirms his "theory". For reference, here is equation, as posted on Wikipedia:

    

    If we read further, we'll note that Schwarzschild’s equation is not applied to the atmosphere as a whole, but over small volumes where local thermodynamic equilibrium applies. Reading even further, we get to a section on "Application to Climate Science" that starts with (emphasis added):
    

    If no other fluxes change, the law of conservation of energy demands that the Earth warm (from one steady state to another) until balance is restored between inward and outward fluxes. Schwarzschild's equation alone says nothing about how much warming would be required to restore balance.

    In other words, you need to combine the local aspects of Schwarzschild’s equation into a series of equations that links many layers of the atmosphere - and also includes other forms of energy transfer besides radiation. Once you have Schwarzschild’s equation, there is still work to be done. The very next sentence on Wikipedia starts this:

    When meteorologists and climate scientists refer to "radiative transfer calculations" or "radiative transfer equations" (RTE), the phenomena of emission and absorption are handled by numerical integration of Schwarzschild's equation over a path through the atmosphere.

    Further down, we even get a section titled "Saturation". What do we find in the first paragraph? (Again, emphasis added).
    

    In the absence of thermal emission, wavelengths that are strongly absorbed by GHGs can be significantly attenuated within 10 m in the lower atmosphere. Those same wavelengths, however, are the ones where emission is also strongest. In an extreme case, roughly 90% of 667.5 cm−1 photons are absorbed within 1 meter by 400 ppm of CO2 at surface density,[23] but they are replaced by emission of an equal number of 667.5 cm−1 photons. The radiation field thereby maintains the blackbody intensity appropriate for the local temperature. At equilibrium, Iλ = Bλ(T) and therefore dIλ = 0 even when the density of the GHG (n) increases.

    Near the bottom of the Wikipedia article we see:
    

    The radiative forcing from doubling carbon dioxide occurs mostly on the flanks of the strongest absorption band.

    There is more there that disagrees with CallItAsItIs's "reading", but his Morton's Demon is blocking that information. He does not see that Schwarzschild’s equation includes emission of radiation that he deems "irrelevant" or non-existent.  He does not see the information that should tell him that the local flux of IR radiation - including emissions - will be far more than just the IR radiation that has reached that altitude from the surface. He does not see that calculations of the effect of CO2 must look at more than just the strongest absorption band (and more than just radiation).

    ...but we have been trying to point all this out to CallItAsItIs for a week now.

    It's very, very simple. In order for CallItASItIs's "interpretation" to be correct, one must ignore huge swaths of basic physics and observations of the climate system. And CallItAsItIs has been very effective at maintaining that ignorance in his knowledge. There is a word for that.

88. Eclectic at 22:33 PM on 1 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    CallItAsItIs  @802  :

    Just to pick out one of your many errors :-

    In your penultimate paragraph you say:  "Namely we start with a CO2 molecule and a photon ... and in the end ... all in thermal equilibrium.  So how is it that we get any warming?"

    That comment of yours demonstrates your gross failure to understand the warming result from the so-called GreenHouse Effect.  And your failure to educate yourself at the many sources available on-line. 

    You have looked at a single "tree", a single cubic meter of air ~  and you turn a blind eye to the fact that the atmosphere becomes progressively thinner with altitude and progressively cooler with altitude (the temperature Lapse Rate of the troposphere, which provides the bulk of the GHE ).

    The question for your own introspection is:  Why would anyone [such as yourself] choose to ignore the many facts (including densities and lapse rate) that show the mechanism of GHE by CO2 , H2O etcetera?  Why would that person [such as yourself] choose to be so un-scientific?  ~ is the answer Motivated Reasoning, and/or some other embarrassing condition of the human brain?

    Look inwards, CallItAsItIs.

    As the sage said:  "Know Thyself".

    .

89. CallItAsItIs at 19:02 PM on 1 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Charlie_Brown @799

    1) He keeps referring to a single 15-micron band.

    Yes — It is common practice to approximate the entire absorption band from 14-16 microns as a band at wavelength 15 microns for the purpose of analyzing the CO2 greenhouse effect, and until now, no one has objected. So, why is it suddenly and issue when I do likewise?

    2) Once absorbed, near the surface or anywhere in the atmosphere, Kirchhoff’s Law applies, absorptance = emittance, ...

    It seems that you forgot something that you yourself included in comment 756, namely the at equilibrium part, and an atmosphere that is warming is not at equilibrium.

    There is more to CallItAsItIs’ misunderstandings, e.g., “Beer's Law is a linear equation.” No, it is exponential.

    I will acknowledge some confusion on my part when I made this statement.  At that time, I was thinking that Beer's Law was the first order linear differential equation that we solve to get exponential dependence of the spectral intensity on altitude.  Anyway, that statement did not affect any of my future arguments.

    Finally, lets consider your statement from comment 756

    It works like this: photon is absorbed by CO2. CO2 molecules collide with N2 and O2 to come to thermal equilibrium (i.e., same temperature). CO2 molecule emits photon. The net effect at equilibrium is a pass-through of energy unless there is a change that upsets equilibrium.

    From what you describe here, it seems to me that we end up with exactly the same system from which we started.  Namely, we started with a CO₂ molecule and a photon in thermal equilibrium, and in the end, we got the same CO₂ molecule in the same state with a similar photon, all in thermal equilibrium. So how is it that we get any warming?

    That's all for now, but I may have some more feedback when I have a chance to review your final paragraph some more.

90. MA Rodger at 16:23 PM on 1 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Bob Loblaw @797,
    Commenter CallItAsItIs @800 continues to demonstrate a schoolyard approach to this subject which is not appropriate to its scientific nature. If "one could probably show" something then why shouldn't 'one'. Oh, this is because "typesetting equations tends to be a long, grueling task" for him and "most likely" these equations would then be subject to rebuttal "over statements I did not make or that you misunderstood." I think I'd prefer "the dog ate my homework!!"

    While the commenter CallItAsItIs appears a lost cause and too far up his own nonsense to see any of his multivarious misconceptions, it would be correct here to ask him to explain his comment @796 and show where exactly it is within Schwarzschild's equation there is "an exponential term that vanishes at high altitudes" and demonstrate from that how it is this would obtain "the exact same result (he has) been claiming through all the ridicule."

91. CallItAsItIs at 14:04 PM on 1 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Bob Loblaw @797

    Yes, I see the light. You simply cannot conceive of the idea that adding CO2 changes the temperature at which the atmosphere reaches "thermal equilibrium".

    Wrong! Whether adding CO₂ changes the equilibrium temperature remains to be seen.  I should note, however, that with the absorption strength of CO₂ on the 15 micron band, one could probably show that band saturation occurs over a pretty wide temperature range.

    Do the actual math. Your handwaving achieves nothing other than making you look like a fool.

    I have already done the math but am not posting it here.  Typesetting equations tends to be a long, grueling task for me and not worth the effort in view of the fact that you and your AGW comrades would most likely discredit it over statements I did not make or that you misunderstood.  Attend my Fear no Carbon lectures if you want to learn something more about the mathematics of this band saturation effect.

92. Charlie_Brown at 11:22 AM on 1 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    CallItAsItIs has three fundamental blind spots that he does not understand, despite our addressing them several times. 1) He keeps referring to a single 15-micron band. Actually, as shown @788, there are thousands of absorptance/emittance lines for CO2 in the spectrum. Some are weak and some are strong, and Beer’s Law applies to each of them individually. 2) Once absorbed, near the surface or anywhere in the atmosphere, Kirchhoff’s Law applies, absorptance = emittance, and an equal number of photons are absorbed and emitted, although they are not the same identical photons. They do have the same intensity and wavelength. 3) Therefore, energy loss to space is determined by the uppermost radiating layer that “sees” space. The maximum value of emittance is 1.0. If a line reaches a value of 1.0, there will be more molecules above that altitude. If a line is less than 1.0 at the top of the troposphere, there will be more molecules at a lower altitude that is thicker and warmer. If the altitude reaches 0 km before the emittance reaches 1.0, then the remaining emitted energy will come from the surface.

    There is more to CallItAsItIs’ misunderstandings, e.g., “Beer's Law is a linear equation.” No, it is exponential. And “their arguments against C02 band saturation violate the laws of thermodynamics.” No, they do not. But let’s get those first three blind spots resolved first. Continued repetition of misunderstandings without taking the time to study our explanations is not a sign of respect.

    CallItAsItIs needs to do some self-study before he posts again, and certainly before he tries to teach this stuff. MA Roger @792 provides Dr. Sabine Hossennfelder’s summary Figure. Sabine also has a great entertaining video. My only quibble with her material is that she does not emphasize the strong and weak absorptance/emittance lines but refers to an average or effective altitude for all lines. I recommend again that CallItAsItIs studies the spectrum using the link that has already been provided twice for instruction and guidance. He needs to resolve the changing spectra with the step-by-step exercises. If he cannot resolve the results with his thinking, then he needs to think again before making more repetitive posting. Meanwhile, I have submitted another guest post that is in the review process. It describes the mechanism of warming that is similar to Sabine’s material, but it emphasizes the absorptance/emittance lines with upsetting and restoring the overall global energy balance.

93. Eclectic at 07:58 AM on 1 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    CallItAsItIs  ~ may I humbly suggest that you present your New Physics at the WUWT website ["WattsUpWithThat"] .

    At WUWT  you would find a gratifyingly-large number of readers (and commenters) who will welcome your novel insights into the nature of Space-Time & the Universe in toto.

    True, there will be some carping criticisms from WUWT-ites at the more educated end of the spectrum there.  But on the whole, you will receive a very warm welcome from the majority of the spectrum ~ they are ever-ready to applaud anything which could seem to give a poke-in-the-eye to boring conventional mainstream science.

    # But a warning, CallItAsItIs.   Be quick to lap up the praise there . . . because, very soon, the loons crackpots and wingnuts at WUWT  will wish to move on to the next pseudo-science-du-jour that promises to soothe the typical WUWT  ego.

    [ Loons crackpots and wingnuts . . . have I omitted anyone of the WUWT  regulars ?  . . . Wait, yes, there's a handful of actual scientific thinkers in the comments columns there, who post to enjoy tweaking the collective nose of the WUWT-ites . ]

94. Bob Loblaw at 03:23 AM on 1 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    CallItAsItIs @ 796:

    Wonderful. Now "establishing thermal equilibrium" has nothing to do with "warming".

    Yes, I see the light. You simply cannot conceive of the idea that adding CO2 changes the temperature at which the atmosphere reaches "thermal equilibrium".

    Do the actual math. Your handwaving achieves nothing other than making you look like a fool.

95. CallItAsItIs at 03:07 AM on 1 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Bob Loblaw @784 and 795

    Wonderful! Now with your radiation expertise and Schwarzschild's equation, you surely see that the solution for spectral intensity has a term that accounts for thermal radiation (ie. blackbody) and an exponential term that vanishes at high altitudes, giving us the exact same result I have been claiming through all the ridicule. Yes, those photons are there but they are there to establish thermal equilibrium at the surrounding temperature and not for warming.  I'm glad you finally see the light!.

96. Bob Loblaw at 00:21 AM on 1 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    I'll also respond to this bit from CallItAsItIs:

    Now, I would be glad to further discuss this with you if you can respond in a non-insulting professional manner.

    You mean a non-insulting, professional manner such as:

    I hate to disappoint you...

    Wrong!

    Come on, Bob! Learn some physics!

    Now that we have (hopefully) gotten it straight...

    And how do they get this extra energy? — from Maxwell's Demons! (LOL)

    Now, if this is unclear to you, please understand that I cannot pack an entire radiometry textbook into this comment space.

    I should warn you, however, this book does assume that you already recognize that...

    I should also point out that I am not using any tricks that are not already used by you and your AGW believing comrades.

    Frankly, your attitude since you got here has been condescending, confrontational, and tiresome. You have severe delusions of adequacy. Not only are there huge gaps in your knowledge, but much of what you think you know is just plain wrong.

    Many of your blustering tactics may work in a group setting where people do not know the science, but here there are a few of us that do. You can find out more about me by looking at the "Team" menu item under "About" in the main masthead, but you are arguing with someone that has been studying climate for 45 years, took radiation transfer theory as a grad student 40 years ago, used to teach undergrad and grad climate courses as a professor, and spent a dozen years observing radiation at a climate research station.

    The idea that you have something to teach me about radiation is laughable.

97. Bob Loblaw at 00:01 AM on 1 December 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    Oh, my. CallitAsitIs is doubling (tripling? quadrupling?) down on his misunderstandings of physics.

    @ 789:

    Let's keep it straight as to what problem I am working and what problems I am not. And balanced terrestrial energy flows is one that I am not working on. Therefore, your chart is irrelevant.

    Now there's your problem. Balanced terrestrial energy flows are completely relevant to the greenhouse effect, the role of CO2 warming, global climate, etc.

    Continuing in comment 790, in response to my pointing out that he continues to ignore 15um radiation in the upper atmosphere:

    I never said those 15 micron photons didn't exist.

    Let's see. In your very first post, On Nov. 24 (#722) (emphasis added):

    Above this altitude, there is no more upward-bound IR energy that CO2 molecules can absorb. Essentially, the entire 15 micron band has been absorbed...

    Your second post, the same day (#723):

    As I understand it, the greenhouse effect is saturated for a particular GHG if there is an altitude at which the absorption bands for that GHG have all been depleted (from the upwelling IR radiation) through absorption at lower altitudes.

    Your third post (Nov 25, # 726):

    Above the extinction altitude of the 15 micron band, CO2 can still emit IR radiation (at any wavelength) but can no longer absorb within this band. The fact that CO2 can no longer absorb within this band means that it has zero greenhouse forcing at this altitude and above for the simple reason that there is no more 15 micron radiation that can be absorbed.

    Your fourth post (Nov 25, #730) says it three times:

    The extinction altitude of an absorption band of a GHG is the altitude at which the upwelling radiation with the band becomes negligible according to the Beer-Lambert law and the absorption coefficient of the band. For CO2, the absorption band is 14-16 microns and the extinction altitude is about 10 meters. This means the upwelling IR radiation absorbed by CO2 at the top of the credible atmosphere is pretty miniscule. Above that, of course, it is zero.

    Regarding the CO2 molecule at 50000m, it most certainly can absorb the 15 micron IR photons — if you bring an IR source up there. The reason there is no absorption at that altitude is because all 15 micron IR has already been absorbed at lower altitudes.

    Your fifth post (Nov 25, # 740):

    This, in turn, corresponds to an altitude of about 70 km, above which there isn't much of an atmosphere. Therefore, for the 15 micron band, the detectors are only picking up some thermal radiation from the TOA. Any upwelling radiation from this band has already been completely absorbed at lower altitudes.

    You then managed to make a few comments without repeating your error, but then it returns on Nov 26 in comment 751:

    It should be noted that convection is important for the CO2 greenhouse effect to work since the 15 micron absorption band of CO2 is strong enough to pack the thermal radiation from the entire band into a layer at the surface just a few tens of meters thick.

    ...and then on Nov 27, in comment 765:

    And, as indicated in previous posts, intensity contributions within the 15 micron band become pretty miniscule at altitudes well below the TOA.

    On Nov 28:

    Now that we know that Beer's Law applies to the 15 micron absorption band, we see that this band is attenuated to insignificant values well below the TOA,

    Finally, on Nov 29, CallItAsItIs took a day off, but on Nov 30, he is back saying:

    The problem I am working on is in determining how much of the 15 micron absorption band of CO2 is extinguished on its way from the surface to the TOA. And from what I have found, that figure is darn close to 100% regardless of the numbers on your diagram.

    So, your claim that you "never said that those 15um photons didn't exist", is refuted by your daily claims that it either didn't exist ("there is no more", "have all been depleted"), or is insignificant/negligible/minuscule.

    I particularly like the last part of that last statement I quoted: "...regardless of the numbers on your diagram." CallItAsItIs thinks that his fantasy fizziks trumps observations.

    In short, CallItAsItIs dismisses huge amounts of relevant, critical, significant, and important theory and observations related to radiation transfer, global energy balances, and CO2-induced greenhouse warming by a wave of his hands, calling it "irrelevant".

    If the facts disagree with CallItAsItIs's "theory", they must be disposed of.

     

     

     

98. Eclectic at 17:59 PM on 30 November 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    In addition to MA Rodgers's comment above :-

    CallItAsItIs  @789 :

    Sorry for the Home Truth . . . but your comments are becoming more bizarre  ~  you are implying that solar radiation penetrating to the lower atmosphere (see Trenberth's diagram with solar EMR being absorbed by dust, etc )  is somehow not warming the air at these lower altitudes.   And in addition, you are implying that the CO2-related IR emitted/absorbed at the 0 - 10 meter altitude is incapable of warming the remainder of the atmosphere by means of kinetic motion and/or re-radiation.

    and @790 :

    You can apply "conservation of energy principles to individual frequencies" [unquote] and also you can apply COE principles to bands of frequencies . . . and indeed to all sorts of individual "trees"  ~  but to get valid and useful results, you need to apply COE principles to the "forest"  (i.e. the total atmosphere).   If you do not do that total assessment, then you will fail to understand terrestrial climate.

    and @791 :

    Yes : "self-contradictory assertions" by the score.

    If you blame readers "who misunderstood me" , then the fault is either your poor explanation of your New Physics of Climate . . . or that your New Physics is simply wrong.

    ( Though perhaps the Nobel Prize Committee will one day recognize & acclaim a third possibility,eh ! )

99. MA Rodger at 16:51 PM on 30 November 2024
    CO2 effect is saturated
    

    CallItAsItIs @789,

    There are three CO2 absorption/emission bands for IR (although it can get more complicated with massive rising CO2). At the temeratures found ion Earth, the 2.7 micron and 4.3 micron bands is too energetic to be anything more than an absorption band. And the 4.3 micron band is so weak from the sun that it is ignorable while the 2.7 micron band is strong enough to have a measurable dip in the incoming solar IR, but it is tiny.

    More of a cooling influence from increasing CO2 is the central 15 micron wavelengths as these are not emitted into space until up in the stratosphere where temperature rises with altitude. But such central-15 micron cooling is far outweighed by the edges of the band's warming.

    I noticed a chart from the science blogger Sabine Hossenfelder which you may find useful in describing the greenhouse effect (something which is not usually done well). The one word I would change is to substitute "impeded" for "trapped" in the 'grand description' line.

    

100. CallItAsItIs at 16:34 PM on 30 November 2024
     CO2 effect is saturated
     

     PS @783

     CallItAsItIs you are ducking and avoiding the germaine questions and still apparently refuse to read refutations or clarifications.

     What do you mean "still apparently refuse to read refutations or clarifications"? I have checked out every link and diagram that was posted, and only found two that were even remotely related to the problem I am addressing, and even those did not change my stand any concerning CO₂ band saturation. The rest were either old, irrelevant, or just plain nonsense. For example, Eclectic's spiel about "Motivated Reasoning" or trying to psychoanalyze me can be skipped. In general, the other participants in this have been quite unprofessional in their communications regarding my postings. They have been sarcastic and insulting. They have accused me of self-contradictory assertions when it was they themselves who misunderstood me. They have stone-walled my arguments by claiming I didn't justify certain mathematical steps that have long been standard procedure in radiometry (See 784). Additionally, they accuse me of being "wrong" by bringing up material that is not relevant to the issue I am resolving, and then claiming I failed to include such material (see 772).

     It gets quite interesting when I show them that their arguments against C0₂ band saturation violate the laws of thermodynamics, and I get no material response. Just so that you are aware, I am saving screen shots of this webpage from my first posting onward, and they may be used in a lecture series I am pulling together called Fear No Carbon. These lectures would explain this AGW non-science at both the scientist and layperson levels. So far, SkS has been my best source!

     Now, I am still willing to correspond with the other participants on this webpage if they can do so in a professional manner. This means no insults or sarcasm, no psychoanalysis, and no accusations of evasion when I decline to respond to questions and inputs that are irrelevant or not applicable to my specific research topic. In the last paragraph of comment 787, Charlie_Brown asked me to show respect if I have further questions, and I intend to comply with his request.  But I expect the same from others on this webpage. Otherwise, we have nothing further to discuss.

     Moderator Response:

     [PS] No, you manage to ignore the substance. Your arguments make no sense to me because you appear to ignore applying relevant bits of physics that contradict your view, and that applies in spades to other commentators. There is only way out of this - make predictions from your understanding of theory and compare with observations. I repeat - state your equation for energy flux through a layer of the atmosphere. Further discussison of photons are moot until you do so. As I understand your ideas, you would have considerable difficulties explaining observations like this: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next