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



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.

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 9:27pm:


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.

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

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

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



Citation needed.

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



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

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

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.

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