Climate science discussion

[nonentropic]

I don't see a pressure dependent test of radiation absorption or emission as what happens.

Air with a H2O or CO2 content has a different IR radiation absorption curve than an atmosphere with only O2 and N2. I think this is strongly established and if I am right you are dismissing as not being the case.

Is that right Finwino?

to be clear.

[nonentropic]

I think the saturation of bandwidths of various gases is where the bulk of the debate relating to CAGW discussion is focused.

If you are discussing the atomized water content of clouds operating in a different regime to the pure radiation model then I think the central mechanism of the emergent phenomena as proposed by WE is key.

That is what defines the feedback being reduced to a modest level by many luke warmers like myself, it's a materiality discussion.

This also I would suggest is supported by the obvious reality that the world is not burnt up now or historically.

[ratty]

Aug 14, 2024 22:20:33 GMT nonentropic said:

I don't see a pressure dependent test of radiation absorption or emission as what happens.

Air with a H2O or CO2 content has a different IR radiation absorption curve than an atmosphere with only O2 and N2. I think this is strongly established and if I am right you are dismissing as not being the case.

Is that right Finwino?

to be clear.

Then there is Nikolov and Zeller and Robert Holmes, both confusing the issue.

[finewino]

Aug 14, 2024 22:20:33 GMT nonentropic said:

I don't see a pressure dependent test of radiation absorption or emission as what happens.

Air with a H2O or CO2 content has a different IR radiation absorption curve than an atmosphere with only O2 and N2. I think this is strongly established and if I am right you are dismissing as not being the case.

Is that right Finwino?

to be clear.

I do not understand your question. From my perspective I don’t see anything in it related to our work. Have you read the essay or watched our presentation? If you could provide context to a specific point in our work it would be helpful.

[finewino]

Aug 14, 2024 22:35:38 GMT nonentropic said:

I think the saturation of bandwidths of various gases is where the bulk of the debate relating to CAGW discussion is focused.

If you are discussing the atomized water content of clouds operating in a different regime to the pure radiation model then I think the central mechanism of the emergent phenomena as proposed by WE is key.

That is what defines the feedback being reduced to a modest level by many luke warmers like myself, it's a materiality discussion.

This also I would suggest is supported by the obvious reality that the world is not burnt up now or historically.

We do not discuss clouds and I’m not sure what your point is regarding saturation. We also do not discuss feedbacks. Again, context of your questions relative to the work would be helpful.

[finewino]

Aug 15, 2024 0:25:06 GMT ratty said:

Aug 14, 2024 22:20:33 GMT nonentropic said:

I don't see a pressure dependent test of radiation absorption or emission as what happens.

Air with a H2O or CO2 content has a different IR radiation absorption curve than an atmosphere with only O2 and N2. I think this is strongly established and if I am right you are dismissing as not being the case.

Is that right Finwino?

to be clear.

Then there is Nikolov and Zeller and Robert Holmes, both confusing the issue.

As I alluded to in my initial post, it is not possible to construct a model that refutes the GHE within the context of the GHE. As such, much of the terminology you may be accustomed to is not relevant here. Our model is supported by measurements of the behavior of so-called “GHG”s in mixture with N2 and O2. References cited in the work.

The atmosphere of earth is dominated by strong convection. That is why we have weather. Radiative transfer not possible in a connecting atmosphere. The assumptions required are not valid in our atmosphere, though the climate science mainstream has relied on it for decades.

[duwayne]

Aug 14, 2024 21:29:57 GMT acidohm said:

The way, as I understand it, that CO² is proposed to cause warming is.

Outward bound IR contacts CO² molecule, is absorbed by the molecules covalent bond, then released in a random direction at a lower energy state (wavelength?)

Obviously a proportion travels in a surface bound direction, where this IR wave negates a portion of net cooling of the surface.

I use the term cooling as an understanding the surface is trying to lose heat against incoming solar radiation.

Acidohm, that's the same way I understand it.    The IR (Infrared Radiation) emitted by CO2 gas is "Thermal Radiation" of a specific wavelength (IR).

If there is one thing we can measure, it is that CO2 gas emits Thermal Radiation.

When a poster favorably links to an article which early on claims as a premise that "Thermal Radiation is a property of condensed matter, i.e., solids and liquids. Gases do not emit thermal
radiation.", see if you can find if anyone of note who agrees with that premise.  

 

[finewino]

Aug 15, 2024 0:59:40 GMT duwayne said:

Aug 14, 2024 21:29:57 GMT acidohm said:

The way, as I understand it, that CO² is proposed to cause warming is.

Outward bound IR contacts CO² molecule, is absorbed by the molecules covalent bond, then released in a random direction at a lower energy state (wavelength?)

Obviously a proportion travels in a surface bound direction, where this IR wave negates a portion of net cooling of the surface.

I use the term cooling as an understanding the surface is trying to lose heat against incoming solar radiation.

Acidohm, that's the same way I understand it.    The IR (Infrared Radiation) emitted by CO2 gas is "Thermal Radiation" of a specific wavelength (IR).

If there is one thing we can measure, it is that CO2 gas emits Thermal Radiation.

When a poster favorably links to an article which early on claims as a premise that "Thermal Radiation is a property of condensed matter, i.e., solids and liquids. Gases do not emit thermal
radiation.", see if you can find if anyone of note who agrees with that premise.  

 

A very good example of the confusion around this issue.

The surface of the earth emits Thermal Radiation in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. In the case of the earths surface, all of the emitted radiation of consequence is in the Infrared band. Some of that Thermal Radiation can be absorbed by CO2 in the 15 micron wavelength band. It is common to confuse and conflate the terms “Infrared Radiation” and “Thermal Radiation” in this context.

Sadly, within the context of “climate science” this is done purposefully in the case of radiative transfer models which do not represent the true process of energy transport in the atmosphere.

A CO2 molecule can emit a photon of Infrared radiation, but it is not Thermal radiation within the traditional formalism. That many are sloppy about this does not make it correct, and muddiles the understanding of processes.

[acidohm]

The confusion is probably because at the temperatures we experience on earth, the heat we feel is almost entirely due to IR.

Personally I see a possible flaw in that a photon of IR emitted from a CO² molecule after receiving it from the earth's surface must be at a lower energy state due to its interaction with the CO² molecule.

Effectively, it's returning back to the surface where higher energy state photons are being continuously emitted.

Hence we get into the science of cooling/warming blackbodies.

Now if we accept a cool and a warm body are trying to achieve equilibrium, the transfer of IR from the cooler to warmer swings that balance to a warmer equilibrium I think is where we end up.

[missouriboy]

Cycles as per David Dilley.

[finewino]

Aug 15, 2024 5:00:18 GMT acidohm said:

The confusion is probably because at the temperatures we experience on earth, the heat we feel is almost entirely due to IR.

Personally I see a possible flaw in that a photon of IR emitted from a CO² molecule after receiving it from the earth's surface must be at a lower energy state due to its interaction with the CO² molecule.

Effectively, it's returning back to the surface where higher energy state photons are being continuously emitted.

Hence we get into the science of cooling/warming blackbodies.

Now if we accept a cool and a warm body are trying to achieve equilibrium, the transfer of IR from the cooler to warmer swings that balance to a warmer equilibrium I think is where we end up.

Insofar as the CO2 molecules near the surface are concerned, of those that absorb the surface thermal radiation, only 1 in 50,000 will emit a photon spontaneously. The remaining 99.998% will be thermalized by collisions with mostly O2 and N2, converting the vibrational energy into sensible heat in the pool of atmospheric gas raising its temperature. The same process occurs for all so-called “greenhouse gas” molecules.

This, and the following processes that drive heat transport in the atmosphere are explained in part 1 of our work.

It would appear that there is little interest here in exploring an alternative model that does not require the “greenhouse effect.” One cannot understand this model in the context of the “greenhouse effect” because it does not exist in this model.

I will continue to monitor this thread. If a question arises that comes from an actual examination of our work, I will be happy to address it. Please reference the specific content from the work so that I will know how to answer.

I’m also happy to respond to questions via PM under the same conditions, though sharing on the forum might benefit others.

[duwayne]

ChatGPT.....

In Earth's atmosphere, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation (IR) and then re-emits it. This process is a key component of the greenhouse effect, which warms the planet.

The percentage of absorbed IR radiation that CO2 re-emits as IR is essentially 100%.

[Sigurdur]

H2O vapor.

[Sigurdur]

Aug 12, 2024 21:29:58 GMT finewino said:

Greetings, all.

I was not very active on the old board and this will be my first post here. In semi-retirement I’ve had time for other pursuits. My colleague, Markus Ott and I have been busy for the last 18 months or so debunking the “Greenhouse Effect”

I know that sounds far fetched, but for those who are interested I invite you to review our work which is quite compelling unless you have been captured by the GHE religion.

You can download our essay at:

tomn.substack.com/api/v1/file/f08770ad-92c4-4884-890b-f969794b1a26.pdf

The essay is the most detailed. There is also a video version on Tom Nelson’s channel at:



While the rest of the world has been arguing about “how much” warming is caused by CO2, we have been single-minded about showing that the “GHE” is impossible in the Earth’s atmosphere.

There will be a new video released on Tom Nelson’s YouTube channel this week expanding on the details from a thermodynamic perspective, and another one in process looking from the quantum perspective.

To fully appreciate what we present, one needs to suspend one’s belief in the “Greenhouse effect” model. One cannot refute the GHE within the context of the GHE.

Needless to say there is great resistance to this from both sides of the issue, for many reasons. I hope that you will give it a look.

Good evening. H20 vapor is a gas. It most definitely emits thermal radiation.

[Sigurdur]

Aug 12, 2024 21:29:58 GMT finewino said:

Greetings, all.

I was not very active on the old board and this will be my first post here. In semi-retirement I’ve had time for other pursuits. My colleague, Markus Ott and I have been busy for the last 18 months or so debunking the “Greenhouse Effect”

I know that sounds far fetched, but for those who are interested I invite you to review our work which is quite compelling unless you have been captured by the GHE religion.

You can download our essay at:

tomn.substack.com/api/v1/file/f08770ad-92c4-4884-890b-f969794b1a26.pdf

The essay is the most detailed. There is also a video version on Tom Nelson’s channel at:



While the rest of the world has been arguing about “how much” warming is caused by CO2, we have been single-minded about showing that the “GHE” is impossible in the Earth’s atmosphere.

There will be a new video released on Tom Nelson’s YouTube channel this week expanding on the details from a thermodynamic perspective, and another one in process looking from the quantum perspective.

To fully appreciate what we present, one needs to suspend one’s belief in the “Greenhouse effect” model. One cannot refute the GHE within the context of the GHE.

Needless to say there is great resistance to this from both sides of the issue, for many reasons. I hope that you will give it a look.

What is the temperature of the thermosphere?