There is no doubt at all that the “Greenhouse Effect” is operating.

Feldman and others measured infrared radiation that was reflected in the atmosphere by greenhouse gas molecules and sent back to the surface. This was measured over some years and after adjusting to remove the effect of water vapor (also a greenhouse gas (GHG)) showed the relationship between CO2 concentration and the amount of IR sent back to the surface on the north slope of Alaska (NSA:)

https://skepticalscience.com//pics/FeldmanGrowingRF.png

Notice there was a number of years of observations during the course of which CO2 concentration increased. Within each year we have the carbon cycle changing the CO2 content in the atmosphere. What is measured is not temperature but the amount of infrared. Since we know CO2 is a GHG what we see is not correlation = causation as roach keeps tiresomely crapping on about, it is cause and effect: increase GHGs you increase IR received back at the earth.

It will come as no surprise that spectrometers on satellites detect decreasing amounts of IR at the spectral locations in the IR band relating to each GHG: more IR cannot leave the earth, warming it.

This graph, incidentally, shows JoNova lied saying only the first 20% of CO2 caused warming.  JoNova and all professional AGW deniers are frauds.

Alright, let us look at the radiation that comes in (overwhelmingly from the sun) and what is radiated back by earth as part of the process of cooling by the surface of the planet.


Quote:

The electromagnetic spectrum covers a wavelength range of about 24 orders of magnitude, from the shortest, most energetic, high frequency gamma rays to the longest, very low energy, low frequency radio waves). The range of interest for climate science and atmospheric warming is approximately in the middle of this spectrum from about 0.1 to 100 μm (10–1 to 102 μm). This includes the visible region of the spectrum (0.4 to 0.7 μm) and the adjacent higher energy (shorter wavelength) near ultraviolet (UV) and lower energy (longer wavelength) infrared (IR), including much of the “thermal infrared”. Incoming solar radiation is in the shorter wavelength (higher energy) part of this range from UV through near IR, between about 0.1 to 4 μm. Radiation from the warmed Earth is mainly in the thermal IR region between 4 and 30 μm.

OK, let us look at this again:

Quote:

Incoming solar radiation is. . .in near IR, between about 0.1 to 4 μm. Radiation from the warmed Earth is mainly in the thermal IR region between 4 and 30 μm.

The higher energy part of the solar radiation, visible light, some UV etc, warms the earth, exciting the molecules forming the surface. This sees IR, infrared or heat if you like, being radiated by the molecules making up the surface, the soil, rocks, water, manmade structures etc.

So, how does this IR emanating from the surface and heading away from it get reflected back to the surface?


Quote:

Molecular vibrations and some energetic rotations have energy level spacings that correspond to energies in the IR region of the electromagnetic spectrum (most rotations are in the microwave range which runs between thermal IR and radio wavelengths). Thus IR radiation absorbed by molecules causes increased vibration. Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature. Conversely, molecules that emit IR radiation lose their vibrational energy and their collisions with other molecules decrease the average thermal energy and lower the temperature.

So GHG molecules can absorb IR causing the molecules to speed up, which is heat. When they lose the IR, re-emit it, they go back to the previous lower energy state (sounding a bit like silly Aqua here  ;D ) So how does this happen.


Quote:

All molecules have positive (nuclei) and negative (electron clouds) regions, A molecule is dipolar and has a permanent dipole moment, if the averaged centers of its positively and negatively charged regions do not coincide. If a vibrational motion of the molecule disturbs these averages, its dipole moment can change and an appropriate energy of IR radiation can be absorbed to cause this molecular vibration.

Molecules of oxygen and nitrogen, which make up most of the atmosphere, have a more or less uniform density of electrons around them and are not GHGs. It is what deniers call “trace gases”  :) that are the GHGs and they have three of more atoms in each molecule: water vapor H2O, carbon dioxide CO2, CH4 (methane) and N2O (nitrous oxide) plus CFCs we put there and ozone (O3.)

A GHG molecule as we have seen has parts of the molecule with a lower density of electrons (the H2 of H2O) and a somewhat positive charge while other parts have a higher electron density and a somewhat negative charge. So we have positive and negative areas, bipoles. We can write CO2 as OCO and see the molecule has two dipoles. CH4 has four such dipoles.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties/jcr:content/articleContent/columnbootstrap_2/column0/image_14.scale.xsmall.jpg/1380122062642.jpg

Let us have a look at water vapor:
Cont’d

Quote:

The atmosphere is, of course, actually “wet” and may contain several percent water vapor, as well as liquid and solid water in clouds, from the natural water cycle (evaporation-condensation-precipitation). Water vapor also has strong absorptions in the IR, as shown in the schematic diagram. The majority of atmospheric warming is due to these absorptions by water vapor that occur at both ends of the thermal IR region. Note that there is a “window” in the water vapor spectrum from about 8 to 15 μm where there is little IR absorption and hence little contribution to atmospheric warming. The strong absorption by CO2 at the long wavelength end of this region narrows this window a bit and adds to the warming effect. Radiation from the Earth that is in this window region passes through the atmosphere with little absorption and contributes little to atmospheric warming. Other gases that absorb in this window region or in other narrower window regions of the thermal IR (where water vapor and CO2 do not absorb appreciably) can make significant relative contributions to atmospheric warming by absorbing energy that would otherwise be lost to space.

So even gases in even tinier concentrations than CO2 can have “significant . . . contributions to atmospheric warming. . . .” Trace gases matter!

We can measure the gradual increase in the atmosphere of CO2, CH4 and N2O (the CFCs will be there a loooong time but at least are not being added to much anymore) but water vapor changes from vapor to liquid and the liquid part may precipitate out as rain, hail or snow. So AGW science concentrates on the non–condensing GHGs, the CO2 etc.

So the GHG molecules can absorb IR, be excited and spin more rapidly etc then re-emit this IR photon. When it re-emits the IR it can emit it in any direction and will emit it downwards as readily as upwards. That is how GHGs cause the globe to warm. We put the extra CO2 into the atmosphere as isotopic analysis shows, hence the warming is anthropogenic, AGW.

Read up more of the science of GHGs:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html

Ah, yes, temperature. From the above link we get:

Quote:

Temperature is a measure of the average energy of molecular motion in a sample of matter: to and fro translation, intramolecular vibration (and lattice vibration in solids), and rotation (both entire molecules and intramolecular portions). The sum of these motions’ energies can be described as the “thermal energy” of the sample. Thermal energy and, hence, temperature can change as various forms of energy, including electromagnetic (light/photons), interact with the sample and change the average energy of motion.

We remember that IR is absorbed by GHGs and that this excites them meaning they move faster, spin faster etc and impart some of the motion with neighboring molecules they bump into. So we expect the lower atmosphere to be warmer and the upper atmosphere, stripped of a lot of IR that would otherwise be passing through it be cooler if AGW theory is correct. That is just what we do find. AGW theory is sound, well supported by evidence.

A study by Harries et al using a satellite based spectrometer to measure IR reaching near space from the surface. The chart below shows a decrease in black body temperature over time as GHG concentrations increase. This means it measures decreases in the amounts of IR reaching space:

https://skepticalscience.com/images/harries_radiation.gif

We see CO2 and methane as the main GHGs. There is another GHG, nitrous oxide, N2O, that is starting to accumulate in the atmosphere: nitrous oxide has 300 times more GHG power than CO2. Methane is 30 times more powerful than CO2 as a GHG.


So we see that the AGW theory has the evidence to support it: the structure of the GHG molecules and that it has energy states corresponding to thermal energy limes in the IR spectrum. This is all stuff that can be determined in the lab.

AGW theory is supported by measurements in the field and in space showing that more thermal IR is trapped on the surface and lower atmosphere and less thermal IR is radiated to space. This causes the warming that we have seen.

Wocka Wocka Wocka  more WAD eh Monk.
How many times will you repost this crap?
We all know about the Greenhouse Effect.

We all know without it there would be no life as we know it.

It's a good thing, YOU need to recognise that fact and stop conflating it with Catastrophic Warming for a change.

And indeed the world is warming:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/side_image/public/thumbnails/image/2016temperature.png

This warming is due to the greenhouse effect as described above, not as you might think due to the sun getting warmer:

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2017/08/gw-science-variation-sun-energy.jpg


Quote:

Figure 1. Approximately two and a half solar cycles of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), also called 'solar constant', in power (watts) per square meter. These annual, average TSI measurements were compiled by the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium / World Radiation Center (PMOD), and the Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium (RMIB).

Diagram from: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/effect-of-sun-on-climate-faq.html

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 1:41am:

The chart below shows a decrease in black body temperature over time as GHG concentrations increase.

Now you remember telling us about the "small" IR window in which these GHG's occur?

Wavenumber (which is not the same as wavelength, as previously described by you), is from 600 to approximately 1300.

According to https://www.ape-berlin.de/en/page/calculator

A wavenumber of 600 is equivalent to 17987547.48 MHz (about 18,000GHz)
A wavenumber of 1300 is equivalent to 38973019.54 MHz (about 39,000GHz)

That is really a small window NOT.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 1:41am:

This is all stuff that can be determined in the lab.

And the world's atmosphere is not a lab. ;)

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties/jcr:content/articleContent/columnsbootstrap/column0/image.scale.large.jpg/1374181229106.jpg

The whole IR band is but a small window.

Requoting from my post above:


Quote:

Note that there is a “window” in the water vapor spectrum from about 8 to 15 μm where there is little IR absorption and hence little contribution to atmospheric warming. The strong absorption by CO2 at the long wavelength end of this region narrows this window a bit and adds to the warming effect

8 to 15 µm is the window left by water vapor.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 12:11pm:

8 to 15 µm is the window left by water vapor.

Oh Only 18GHz wide. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You have managed to shrink the window by about a whole 3GHz. ;)

It is not a large window.

You are the only person I know of to say it is a large window. Keep going with that.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 1:15pm:

It is not a large window. You are the only person I know of to say it is a large window. Keep going with that.

It is claimed it is not a large window. Have they verified it is "not a large window"? What parameters did they use to define window size? ;)

Just keep saying “large window” and all will be fine  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 1:19pm:

Just keep saying “large window” and all will be fine  ;)

Or you small window and you can crap your pants some more.

Hello again Monk.

I found a shortcut for you....

Just post...

Quote:

There is no doubt at all that the “Greenhouse Effect” is operating.

Because we all agree on that and all know how it works FFS.
Wan't me to start posting pretty pictures about it for you again? :D

Grendel wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 9:34am:

Wocka Wocka Wocka  more WAD eh Monk. How many times will you repost this crap? We all know about the Greenhouse Effect. We all know without it there would be no life as we know it. It's a good thing, YOU need to recognise that fact and stop conflating it with Catastrophic Warming for a change.

How the Greenhouse Effect works is explained.

That it is causing warming cannot be denied, except by cowards, idiots and the like.

In the Ice Watch thread is a 10 minute video in which a scientist working in the fields of glaciers, ice sheets and so on describes how AGW is destabilising two of he world’s largest ice sheets, Greenland and West Antarctica.

He speaks calmly, factually and I strongly urge members here to watch it.

lee wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 1:00pm:

Oh Only 18GHz wide. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I read your posts and it is clear you find the GHz thing very impressive. But a big number does not necessarily mean a big result.

ahhh you know what, wallow in your ignorance. Maybe one day you'll enrol in an adult course at TAFE to do basic physics.

There is no way I, or anyone else can teach you Uni level knowledge via a web forum...  :(

That is why I told him to keep saying large window, should do wonders for his credibility  :)

Moriaty wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 11:50pm:

I read your posts and it is clear you find the GHz thing very impressive. But a big number does not necessarily mean a big result.

Except of course if it "proves" AGW. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Babbling again, Lees.

Grendel wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 9:34am:

Wocka Wocka Wocka  more WAD eh Monk. How many times will you repost this crap? We all know about the Greenhouse Effect. We all know without it there would be no life as we know it. It's a good thing, YOU need to recognise that fact and stop conflating it with Catastrophic Warming for a change.

It is not the sun causing the warming:


Quote:

So, how strongly does the sun currently influence the climate? What is known is that Earth has become warmer by around one degree Celsius over the past 100 years. In the last 30 years alone, temperatures have increased at a rate not seen during the last 1000 years. It is another fact that the carbon dioxide concentration has increased by 30 percent since industrialization began in the mid-18th century. During this entire period, the sun has been subject to periodic fluctuations in activity. And there has certainly been no increase in the brightness of the sun over the past 30 or 40 years, rather a slight decrease. This means that the sun cannot have contributed to global warming. In fact, the temperature increase noted in recent decades cannot be reproduced in models if only the influence of the sun or other natural sources are taken into account (for example volcanic eruptions). Only when anthropogenic, that is human-driven, factors are incorporated in the climate data, do they agree with the observational and measured data. The researchers thus arrive at the conclusion that the increase in global temperatures since the 1970s cannot be explained by the sun. The observed temperature trend over the past three decades is linear – if it is a result of the increasing greenhouse gas concentration. In brief: the human influence on the climate is orders of magnitude greater than that of the sun. On the other hand, the opinion of some scientists that the current decrease in solar activity will counteract global warming, does not stand up to a close examination, as global warming is a fact—and continues to advance. In contrast, it does appear possible that the sun influences the climate in the long term. The exact extent and precise mechanisms remain unclear, however.

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-sun-current-global-temperature.html

The warming since 1970 cannot be explained by the sun. It is only anthropogenic factors that have caused the warming since the end of the 1970s.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 12:51am:

It is not the sun causing the warming: Quote: So, how strongly does the sun currently influence the climate? What is known is that Earth has become warmer by around one degree Celsius over the past 100 years. In the last 30 years alone, temperatures have increased at a rate not seen during the last 1000 years. It is another fact that the carbon dioxide concentration has increased by 30 percent since industrialization began in the mid-18th century. During this entire period, the sun has been subject to periodic fluctuations in activity. And there has certainly been no increase in the brightness of the sun over the past 30 or 40 years, rather a slight decrease. This means that the sun cannot have contributed to global warming. In fact, the temperature increase noted in recent decades cannot be reproduced in models if only the influence of the sun or other natural sources are taken into account (for example volcanic eruptions). Only when anthropogenic, that is human-driven, factors are incorporated in the climate data, do they agree with the observational and measured data. The researchers thus arrive at the conclusion that the increase in global temperatures since the 1970s cannot be explained by the sun. The observed temperature trend over the past three decades is linear – if it is a result of the increasing greenhouse gas concentration. In brief: the human influence on the climate is orders of magnitude greater than that of the sun. On the other hand, the opinion of some scientists that the current decrease in solar activity will counteract global warming, does not stand up to a close examination, as global warming is a fact—and continues to advance. In contrast, it does appear possible that the sun influences the climate in the long term. The exact extent and precise mechanisms remain unclear, however. https://phys.org/news/2017-08-sun-current-global-temperature.html The warming since 1970 cannot be explained by the sun. It is only anthropogenic factors that have caused the warming since the end of the 1970s.

Wrong.
Energy in the System is created by the Sun...  there is no other source.

You seem to also fail to remember that YOU ALARMISTS first spoke of Warming then Cooling then Warming then Dimming then Warming and then gave up completely and Called it Climate Change since then. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I have only used AGW.

The sun oscillates over decades between more and less active states. The warming we have seen since the 1970s occurred when the sun was in a less active state. The warming is not due to the sun [being more active.]

What will happen in a couple decades when the sun gets more active?


Is the above language simple enough for you to understand, roach, or do I need to use smaller words and even simpler concepts?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 12:51am:

The observed temperature trend over the past three decades is linear – if it is a result of the increasing greenhouse gas concentration.

Good point. Of course we do know the effects of CO2 are logarithmic NOT linear. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So, Lees?? You now say CO2 does have an effect.

Can you advise why the effect of CO2 seems linear tho you say the effect is logarithmic?

.

One reason could be that the oceans absorb a lot of the heat. However, there is a more direct reason.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 2:31pm:

So, Lees?? You now say CO2 does have an effect. Can you advise why the effect of CO2 seems linear tho you say the effect is logarithmic?

Your comprehension issues again. I was quoting part of the paper you posted.

Theoretically CO2 does have an effect. How much?

No, if CO2 seems to have a linear effect when it grows logarithmically how can that be?

The logarithmic effect of CO2


http://i65.tinypic.com/2r47o5i.jpg

Quote:

Below are some of the key user-friendly (non-technical) points from Dr. Reinhart’s paper entitled Infrared absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide. A summarizing conclusion from the calculations may be that if we doubled today’s concentration (400 ppm) to 800 ppm, the consequent temperature response would be less than 1/4th of a degree Celsius.  Even with a ten-fold increase in today’s CO2 concentration (400 ppm) to 4,000 ppm, the resulting temperature change would amount to just 0.8°C https://iowaclimate.org/2017/07/17/page/2/

60 Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity

Florides and Christodoulides, 2009 (2X CO2 = ~0.02°C
Newell and Dopplick, 1979 (2X CO2 = ~.0.25°C )
Idso, 1998 (2X CO2 = ~0.4°C)
Chylek et al., 2007 (2X CO2 = 0.39°C)
Gates et al., 1981 (2X CO2 = 0.3°C)
Gray, 2009 (2X CO2 = ~0.4°C)
Harde, 2014 (2X CO2 = 0.6°C)
Ollila, 2012 (2X CO2 = 0.51 °C)
Zdunkowski et al., 1975., 1975 (2X CO2 = 0.5°C)
Idso, 1980 (2X CO2 = ≤ 0.26°C )
Schuurmans, 1983 (2XCO2 = ~0.3°C )
Weare and Snell, 1974 (2X CO2 = 0.7°C )
Lindzen and Choi, 2011 (2X CO2 = 0.7°C)
Kimoto, 2015  [full] (2X CO2= ~0.16°C)
Ollila, 2014 (2X CO2 = ~ 0.27°C)
Harde, 2016 (2X CO2 = 0.7°C)
Bates, 2016  (2X CO2 = ~1°C)
Evans, 2016 (2X CO2 = <0.5°C)
Gervais, 2016 [full]  (2X CO2  = <0.6°C)
Soon, Connolly, and Connolly, 2015 [full] (2X [400 ppm] CO2 = 0.44°C)
Reinhart, 2017 (2X [400 ppm] CO2 = 0.24°C)
Balling Jr, 1994  (2XCO2 = <1.0°C)
Bellamy, 2007  (2XCO2= <1.0°C)
Chillingar, 2009
Miskolczi, 2010
Möller, 1963
Singer, 2006
Willett, 1974
Sagan and Mullen, 1972
Oliver, 1976
Clark, 2010  (full paper)
Ramanathan et al., 1989
Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2006  (full)
Newell and Dopplick, 1970
Manabe and Möller, 1961
Libby, 1970
Gervais, 2014
Rasool and Schneider, 1971
Chilingar et al., 2014
Ludwig et al., 1973
Singer, 1976
Kauppinen et al., 2014
Lightfoot and Mamer, 2014
Arrak, 2011
Kahl et al., 1993
Robock, 1979
Fang et al., 2011
Hertzberg et al., 2017
Sawyer, 1972
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009
Miskolczi, 2014
Ollila, 2013
Dyson, 1977
Hertzberg and Schreuder, 2016
Avakyan, 2013
Zhao, 2011
Choudhury and Kukla, 1979
Idso, 1984
Ellsaesser, 1984  (full)
Bryson and Dittberner, 1976
Schmithüsen et al., 2015

http://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/#sthash.gQZR0TyB.dpbs

Alright, stay a coward then Ajax, had expected better from you but, oh well.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 3:16pm:

Alright, stay a coward then Ajax, had expected better from you but, oh well.

Oh dear. Doesn't even bother to deny the science. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 9:38am:

I have only used AGW. The sun oscillates over decades between more and less active states. The warming we have seen since the 1970s occurred when the sun was in a less active state. The warming is not due to the sun [being more active.] What will happen in a couple decades when the sun gets more active? Is the above language simple enough for you to understand, roach, or do I need to use smaller words and even simpler concepts?

typical crap....  don't address the issue.

Just as with Ajax and with science you simply dismiss (everything you don't understand or cant refute or doesn't fit in with your zealotry) you dismiss it...out of hand.

No debate, no engagement, no factual refutation just ignorance and outright running away.  Then you repost some shyte we have already been over. :D :D :D :D :D

Ajax does not present science, just denialist crap.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 12:44pm:

Ajax does not present science, just denialist crap.

So 60 peer-reviewed papers is not science, just crap?

What a senile old fool. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Monk the stuff alarmists like you call denialist crap is science too you know...  and as the History of AGW will attest there is no concensus and scientists are still learning and debating the issue.

Unlike zealots of the true believer church like yourself.

60 or 600 denialist crap does not prove a case.

1.2°C rise in temperatures shows temperatures have increased. Measurements of IR shows the greenhouse effect is real. THAT is the science.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 12:50pm:

60 or 600 denialist crap does not prove a case. 1.2°C rise in temperatures shows temperatures have increased. Measurements of IR shows the greenhouse effect is real. THAT is the science.

Now quantify the AGW component.

So why are increasing temperatures linear? ;)

Who said temperature is increasing linearly?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 1:05pm:

Who said temperature is increasing linearly?

You quoted it, Don't you read what you quote?


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 12:51am:

The researchers thus arrive at the conclusion that the increase in global temperatures since the 1970s cannot be explained by the sun. The observed temperature trend over the past three decades is linear

Past 3 decades.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:

Past 3 decades.

Yes. A rather confused paper.

"It is another fact that the carbon dioxide concentration has increased by 30 percent since industrialization began in the mid-18th century."

So 280ppm plus 30% = 364ppm That was about 1997-98.

So who knows what time period he includes in his last three decades?

"The researchers thus arrive at the conclusion that the increase in global temperatures since the 1970s cannot be explained by the sun. The observed temperature trend over the past three decades is linear –"

Another fun fact - "Temperatures during the period spanning 2001 to 2010, for example, were around 0.2 degrees Celsius higher than the previous decade."

And yet changing Stevenson Screens for an increased 0.54ºC annually is statistically insignificant. ;)

The paper you cited mentioned the insignificance.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 7:51pm:

The paper you cited mentioned the insignificance.

yes. So if 0.54ºC annually is insignificant, how about 0.2ºC over a decade? ;)

Way to go misrepresenting what was said in your own quote.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 8:05pm:

Way to go misrepresenting what was said in your own quote.

You seemed to be confused. Not unusual.

The 0.2ºC is the figure your quote provided for the change in global average temperatures 2001-2010 compared to the previous decade.

"Temperatures during the period spanning 2001 to 2010, for example, were around 0.2 degrees Celsius higher than the previous decade."

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-sun-current-global-temperature.html#jCp

So if 0.54ºC annually is insignificant, a change of 0.2ºC over a decade must be way down in the noise. ;)

That .54 only occurs on some days, drongo. That is why they said not statistically significant.

We have moved a long way from “How does the greenhouse effect work?”

GHG molecules, which have three or more atoms, have energy states which match frequencies in the thermal IR band.

Water vapor is the main GHG but its concentration changes due to evaporation-condensation-precipitation. It leaves a small (Cpl Lees thinks it is large, we will let him say that and laugh at him behind his back  ;) ) window which the other GHGs narrow further.

A GHG molecule can absorb a photon of IR and become excited, vibrating faster and bumping into other gas molecules in the atmosphere, warming the atmosphere. Some molecules will re-emit the IR photon, as likely downwards as upwards, warming the surface.


Can we concentrate discussion on that, please?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 9:13pm:

That .54 only occurs on some days, drongo. That is why they said not statistically significant.

Hey drongo. Reading comprehension issues again?

"The results show that the medium-sized Stevenson screen tended to overheat daily maximum air temperatures (0.54 ∘ C on yearly average) and also air temperatures recorded at 1300 UTC. "

"The differences on daily minimum air temperatures were negligible (−0.11 ∘ C on yearly average)"

"The bias appeared throughout the whole year but in particular during the warm season from May through October."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication


Daily maximum air temperatures by 0.54ºC yearly average
Daily minimum air temperatures by -0.11ºC yearly average
Throughout the whole year.

Are you on the sauce again?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 9:27pm:

Some molecules will re-emit the IR photon, as likely downwards as upwards, warming the surface.

All IR photons will be re-emitted. GHG's merely delay the IR photon. To say that they "trap" IR photons is a misnomer.

When the IR photons are re-remitted they are as likely to go in any direction.

No, not all IR photons will be re-emitted.

When a GHG molecule absorbs an IR photon it gets excited and moves faster. It can “bump” into other molecules of gas, imparting some of its energy to those molecules, warming the atmosphere. In this case the photon would not be emitted.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 9:13pm:

That .54 only occurs on some days, drongo. That is why they said not statistically significant.

NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT....  the amount of WARMING over the last 18 years... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ask the IPCC.

Back on ignore roach goes.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 3:38am:

No, not all IR photons will be re-emitted. When a GHG molecule absorbs an IR photon it gets excited and moves faster. It can “bump” into other molecules of gas, imparting some of its energy to those molecules, warming the atmosphere. In this case the photon would not be emitted.

Citation needed. ;)

The paper talking about the HUGE IR window.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 3:07pm:

The paper talking about the HUGE IR window.

But you said the HUGE window doesn't exist. Must be like your reference. ;)

You were the one talking GHz, large window and all that bullshit.

THAT paper.

And commonsense: a molecule that bumps into another molecule and shares its extra energy with it loses that energy.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 1:26pm:

Back on ignore roach goes.

Won't help you I'll still post facts.
IPCC the Pause or Hiatus.
The IPCC
1 Recognise the pause is real
2 Admit their models never predicted it
3 State that the movement in temperatures during it are STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.

Ignore the FACTS all you like Monk, it just shows how much credibility YOU lack.

Oh and another reason YOU should never Mod... is because you'll have everyone on ignore. :D :D :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 3:24pm:

You were the one talking GHz, large window and all that bullshit. THAT paper. And commonsense: a molecule that bumps into another molecule and shares its extra energy with it loses that energy.

And so having lost its energy loses its sense of direction? ;)

Ah, so you mean Harries et al?

Sorry to disappoint but it doesn't say anything about trapping CO2.

BTW - Found this piece from CO2 science org in realtion to Harries.

"What was done
Hoping to detect "changes in the earth's greenhouse effect," the authors analyzed the difference between the spectra of outgoing longwave radiation obtained by two orbiting spacecraft that looked down upon the earth at periods of time separated by a span of 27 years: NASA's Nimbus 4 spacecraft, which carried an Infrared Interferometric Spectrometer (1970), and Japan's ADEOS satellite, which carried an Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases instrument (1997).  The data utilized were obtained over a specific area in the central Pacific (10°N-10°S, 130°W-180°W) and a "near-global" area of the planet (60°N-60°S).  The data were further constrained by masking out land/island areas and areas believed to contain clouds."

"What it means
The conclusion as stated is somewhat misleading.  It does not provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in earth's greenhouse effect.  It does so only for the cloud-free part of the atmosphere located over a portion of the planet's oceans.  And for such circumstances, the authors' results are exactly what we would expect: over the 27 years in question, measured increases in the atmospheric concentrations of the gases mentioned should indeed have increased the greenhouse effect of the pristine cloudless atmosphere.

This finding, however, tells us nothing about earth's climatic response to the inferred increase in radiative forcing, which is what the climate change debate is all about, i.e., trying to evaluate the competing effectiveness of various positive and negative feedbacks that come into play when there is a small change in the radiative properties of the cloudless atmosphere.  In fact, the authors' finding is so rudimentary as to be essentially meaningless.  Assuming, for example, that their handling of their data is correct - and this is a huge assumption they spend over half their paper discussing - they have simply verified the definition of the greenhouse effect!"

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N12/C1.php

Ahahahahaha Cpl Lees accepts AGW but still looks for stuff to denigrate it.

Harries: less IR reaching space
Feldman: more IR redirected back to the surface.

That seems pretty good.

Yes, weather and climate and its measurement is complicated, but the theory of AGW is sound and is well supported by evidence.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 7:38pm:

Ahahahahaha Cpl Lees accepts AGW but still looks for stuff to denigrate it.

Nope. I'm waiting for you to QUANTIFY it. ;)

So you didn't find the reference for where the IR photon is "trapped"?

Do try not reaching Booby levels of stupidity Lees.

Grendel wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 3:41pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 28th, 2017 at 1:26pm: Back on ignore roach goes. Won't help you I'll still post facts. IPCC the Pause or Hiatus. The IPCC 1 Recognise the pause is real 2 Admit their models never predicted it 3 State that the movement in temperatures during it are STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. Ignore the FACTS all you like Monk, it just shows how much credibility YOU lack. Oh and another reason YOU should never Mod... is because you'll have everyone on ignore. :D :D :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 8:57pm:

Do try not reaching Booby levels of stupidity Lees.

You do understand "quantify"? For instance  - You take a temperature reading and parse it into its component parts. Natural Variation and AGW. You need at least one to quantify the other. A = B + C. C = A - B? ;)

And when I post such a treatment—you will pick fault with some irrelevant passage just so you don’t have to deal with the conclusions reached.

We see temperatures and sea levels rising. We see measurements of IR supporting the AGW theory.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 9:27pm:

And when I post such a treatment—you will pick fault

Well try to post relevant stuff, not your imaginings.


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 9:27pm:

We see temperatures and sea levels rising.

We don't see sea levels rising in the tide data. Why not?

We see temperatures rising. They are now using smaller Stevenson Screens which put a warming bias of 0.54ºC in the temperature "data" (averaged over the year). We see homogenisation where they can adjust temperatures up to 250Km². The adjustments have to rely on "expert judgment". As such the adjustments are not replicable and therefore not science.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 1:40am:

There is no doubt at all that the “Greenhouse Effect” is operating. Feldman and others measured infrared radiation that was reflected in the atmosphere by greenhouse gas molecules and sent back to the surface. This was measured over some years and after adjusting to remove the effect of water vapor (also a greenhouse gas (GHG)) showed the relationship between CO2 concentration and the amount of IR sent back to the surface on the north slope of Alaska (NSA:) https://skepticalscience.com//pics/FeldmanGrowingRF.png Notice there was a number of years of observations during the course of which CO2 concentration increased. Within each year we have the carbon cycle changing the CO2 content in the atmosphere. What is measured is not temperature but the amount of infrared. Since we know CO2 is a GHG what we see is not correlation = causation as roach keeps tiresomely crapping on about, it is cause and effect: increase GHGs you increase IR received back at the earth. It will come as no surprise that spectrometers on satellites detect decreasing amounts of IR at the spectral locations in the IR band relating to each GHG: more IR cannot leave the earth, warming it. This graph, incidentally, shows JoNova lied saying only the first 20% of CO2 caused warming.  JoNova and all professional AGW deniers are frauds. Alright, let us look at the radiation that comes in (overwhelmingly from the sun) and what is radiated back by earth as part of the process of cooling by the surface of the planet. Quote: The electromagnetic spectrum covers a wavelength range of about 24 orders of magnitude, from the shortest, most energetic, high frequency gamma rays to the longest, very low energy, low frequency radio waves). The range of interest for climate science and atmospheric warming is approximately in the middle of this spectrum from about 0.1 to 100 μm (10–1 to 102 μm). This includes the visible region of the spectrum (0.4 to 0.7 μm) and the adjacent higher energy (shorter wavelength) near ultraviolet (UV) and lower energy (longer wavelength) infrared (IR), including much of the “thermal infrared”. Incoming solar radiation is in the shorter wavelength (higher energy) part of this range from UV through near IR, between about 0.1 to 4 μm. Radiation from the warmed Earth is mainly in the thermal IR region between 4 and 30 μm. OK, let us look at this again: [quote]Incoming solar radiation is. . .in near IR, between about 0.1 to 4 μm. Radiation from the warmed Earth is mainly in the thermal IR region between 4 and 30 μm.

The higher energy part of the solar radiation, visible light, some UV etc, warms the earth, exciting the molecules forming the surface. This sees IR, infrared or heat if you like, being radiated by the molecules making up the surface, the soil, rocks, water, manmade structures etc.

So, how does this IR emanating from the surface and heading away from it get reflected back to the surface?


Quote:

Molecular vibrations and some energetic rotations have energy level spacings that correspond to energies in the IR region of the electromagnetic spectrum (most rotations are in the microwave range which runs between thermal IR and radio wavelengths). Thus IR radiation absorbed by molecules causes increased vibration. Collisions between these energized molecules and others in the sample transfer energy among all the molecules, which increases the average thermal energy and, hence, raises the temperature. Conversely, molecules that emit IR radiation lose their vibrational energy and their collisions with other molecules decrease the average thermal energy and lower the temperature.

So GHG molecules can absorb IR causing the molecules to speed up, which is heat. When they lose the IR, re-emit it, they go back to the previous lower energy state (sounding a bit like silly Aqua here  ;D ) So how does this happen.


Quote:

All molecules have positive (nuclei) and negative (electron clouds) regions, A molecule is dipolar and has a permanent dipole moment, if the averaged centers of its positively and negatively charged regions do not coincide. If a vibrational motion of the molecule disturbs these averages, its dipole moment can change and an appropriate energy of IR radiation can be absorbed to cause this molecular vibration.

Molecules of oxygen and nitrogen, which make up most of the atmosphere, have a more or less uniform density of electrons around them and are not GHGs. It is what deniers call “trace gases”  :) that are the GHGs and they have three of more atoms in each molecule: water vapor H2O, carbon dioxide CO2, CH4 (methane) and N2O (nitrous oxide) plus CFCs we put there and ozone (O3.)

A GHG molecule as we have seen has parts of the molecule with a lower density of electrons (the H2 of H2O) and a somewhat positive charge while other parts have a higher electron density and a somewhat negative charge. So we have positive and negative areas, bipoles. We can write CO2 as OCO and see the molecule has two dipoles. CH4 has four such dipoles.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties/jcr:content/articleContent/columnbootstrap_2/column0/image_14.scale.xsmall.jpg/1380122062642.jpg

Let us have a look at water vapor:
Cont’d[/quote]

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 1:40am:

Quote: The atmosphere is, of course, actually “wet” and may contain several percent water vapor, as well as liquid and solid water in clouds, from the natural water cycle (evaporation-condensation-precipitation). Water vapor also has strong absorptions in the IR, as shown in the schematic diagram. The majority of atmospheric warming is due to these absorptions by water vapor that occur at both ends of the thermal IR region. Note that there is a “window” in the water vapor spectrum from about 8 to 15 μm where there is little IR absorption and hence little contribution to atmospheric warming. The strong absorption by CO2 at the long wavelength end of this region narrows this window a bit and adds to the warming effect. Radiation from the Earth that is in this window region passes through the atmosphere with little absorption and contributes little to atmospheric warming. Other gases that absorb in this window region or in other narrower window regions of the thermal IR (where water vapor and CO2 do not absorb appreciably) can make significant relative contributions to atmospheric warming by absorbing energy that would otherwise be lost to space. So even gases in even tinier concentrations than CO2 can have “significant . . . contributions to atmospheric warming. . . .” Trace gases matter! We can measure the gradual increase in the atmosphere of CO2, CH4 and N2O (the CFCs will be there a loooong time but at least are not being added to much anymore) but water vapor changes from vapor to liquid and the liquid part may precipitate out as rain, hail or snow. So AGW science concentrates on the non–condensing GHGs, the CO2 etc. So the GHG molecules can absorb IR, be excited and spin more rapidly etc then re-emit this IR photon. When it re-emits the IR it can emit it in any direction and will emit it downwards as readily as upwards. That is how GHGs cause the globe to warm. We put the extra CO2 into the atmosphere as isotopic analysis shows, hence the warming is anthropogenic, AGW. Read up more of the science of GHGs: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html Ah, yes, temperature. From the above link we get: [quote]Temperature is a measure of the average energy of molecular motion in a sample of matter: to and fro translation, intramolecular vibration (and lattice vibration in solids), and rotation (both entire molecules and intramolecular portions). The sum of these motions’ energies can be described as the “thermal energy” of the sample. Thermal energy and, hence, temperature can change as various forms of energy, including electromagnetic (light/photons), interact with the sample and change the average energy of motion.

We remember that IR is absorbed by GHGs and that this excites them meaning they move faster, spin faster etc and impart some of the motion with neighboring molecules they bump into. So we expect the lower atmosphere to be warmer and the upper atmosphere, stripped of a lot of IR that would otherwise be passing through it be cooler if AGW theory is correct. That is just what we do find. AGW theory is sound, well supported by evidence.[/quote]

We have moved well away from the subject of the thread.

Grendel wrote on Aug 24^th, 2017 at 9:34am:

We all know about the Greenhouse Effect. We all know without it there would be no life as we know it. It's a good thing,

That's right, if it wasn't for those greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere the earth would be too cold to sustain life. Every night it would drop to below -170 degrees C like it does on Mercury.

So what do you think would happen if we started to increase the concentrations of those greenhouse gasses?

Correlation = Causation, that is likely what roach will reply.

Oh—and Australia has droughts and flooding rains, apparently.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 10:27pm:

Correlation = Causation, that is likely what roach will reply. Oh—and Australia has droughts and flooding rains, apparently.

Not that you'd know...
and you do believe in the former. :D :D :D :D :D

oh and for barnacle Bill...  Earth's Climate Systems are much more complicated than CO2. :D :D :D :D :D

I have never once said or implied that correlation = causation to “prove” AGW.

I have a feeling you glanced at a graph (the Feldman one I reckon) didn’t look at it carefully and jumped to that conclusion.

Then you just repeat it ad infinitum so you don’t have to engage in real discussion.

"This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation."

http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
Consulting Geologist

That was good for a giggle.

Cites Plimer  :D :D :D

Does not mention Harries or Feldman and similar.

Rubbish!

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 31^st, 2017 at 7:03pm:

That was good for a giggle. Cites Plimer  :D :D :D Does not mention Harries or Feldman and similar. Rubbish!

Yes. He is as uneducated as you. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Does not cite actual experiments, Sounds like a paper written to order.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 7:01am:

Does not cite actual experiments, Sounds like a paper written to order.

Reading between the lines again. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Not at all.

No experimental evidence offered at all, just fancy mathematics. Other denialist papers use the same technique. The author is a consulting geologist, will take on any task that pays enough $$$.

Nah, not a real scientific document at all.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 12:19pm:

Not at all. No experimental evidence offered at all, just fancy mathematics. Other denialist papers use the same technique. The author is a consulting geologist, will take on any task that pays enough $$$. Nah, not a real scientific document at all.

Heaven forbid we use mathematics in "Climate Science". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BTW - Don't statistics use "fancy" mathematics. ;)