[Truth To Power]

delete

[Truth To Power]

Again, you seem to be making an error or something is unckear.

The only thing that is unclear is how you prevent yourself from understanding clear, simple, grammatical English.

You claimed the CO2 and water vapour in the air at the surface of the planet only absorbed a certain amount of infrared radiation and then stopped.

I.e., all of it. Right. It is not possible for CO2 and water vapor to absorb more than all of the IR radiation from the earth's surface. Maybe on Planet Zondo, where you appear to be living, it is possible for more than all of something to be absorbed.

Now you are claiming that the CO2 and water vapour in the air at the surface of the planet stops receiving radiation because the water vapour and CO2 already present in typical sea-level atmospheric air has already absorbed it and is therefore blocking new radiation from coming in.

Not quite. When IR radiation from the earth's surface is absorbed by water vapor and CO2, it is re-emitted very quickly in a random direction, and re-absorbed. The fraction -- roughly half -- that is re-emitted downward warms the earth's surface, which then re-emits it. The fraction that is re-emitted upward is also absorbed and re-emitted. Eventually, the re-emission occurs so high in the atmosphere that there is no water vapor or CO2 molecule above it to reabsorb it, and it makes its final escape to outer space. This happens at an altitude -- typically 7-9km, but it depends on latitude and season -- above where effectively all the water vapor has condensed out because it is so cold; so most of the final emissions are from CO2. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the altitude and thus reduces the characteristic temperature of the final emission. That is the cause of the "stratospheric cooling" that is incorrectly claimed to be evidence for the CO2-controls-surface-temperature narrative.

The atmosphere is many kilometers deep, so absorption and re-emission happen many times before the final emission. The significance of Angstrom's experiment is that even over the short length of his experimental tubes, IR absorption was effectively complete, with or without added CO2, so adding CO2 to the atmosphere just increases the number of IR emissions and re-absorptions before the final emission to outer space, mainly above the altitude where water vapor condenses out.

But that seems to be saying that sea level air is being blocked by sea level air.

In a sense. The water vapor and CO2 already present in natural sea-level air block all the IR radiation from the earth's surface in a few meters. It is then re-emitted, reabsorbed, etc. many times on its way to outer space. The air 5m, 10m, or 20m above sea level is still pretty much at sea level, but it has already had IR radiation from the earth's surface blocked by the water vapor and CO2 below it.

[Truth To Power]

Please clarify exactly how this lab experiment disproved ACC.

It showed that adding CO2 to typical sea-level atmospheric air has no significant effect on its IR transmission/absorption properties, a fact that can be confirmed by any competent physics undergrad using ordinary university lab equipment.

[Pants-of-dog]

The only thing that is unclear is how you prevent yourself from understanding clear, simple, grammatical English.

I.e., all of it. Right. It is not possible for CO2 and water vapor to absorb more than all of the IR radiation from the earth's surface. Maybe on Planet Zondo, where you appear to be living, it is possible for more than all of something to be absorbed.

Not quite. When IR radiation from the earth's surface is absorbed by water vapor and CO2, it is re-emitted very quickly in a random direction, and re-absorbed. The fraction -- roughly half -- that is re-emitted downward warms the earth's surface, which then re-emits it. The fraction that is re-emitted upward is also absorbed and re-emitted. Eventually, the re-emission occurs so high in the atmosphere that there is no water vapor or CO2 molecule above it to reabsorb it, and it makes its final escape to outer space. This happens at an altitude -- typically 7-9km, but it depends on latitude and season -- above where effectively all the water vapor has condensed out because it is so cold; so most of the final emissions are from CO2. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the altitude and thus reduces the characteristic temperature of the final emission. That is the cause of the "stratospheric cooling" that is incorrectly claimed to be evidence for the CO2-controls-surface-temperature narrative.

The atmosphere is many kilometers deep, so absorption and re-emission happen many times before the final emission. The significance of Angstrom's experiment is that even over the short length of his experimental tubes, IR absorption was effectively complete, with or without added CO2, so adding CO2 to the atmosphere just increases the number of IR emissions and re-absorptions before the final emission to outer space, mainly above the altitude where water vapor condenses out.

In a sense. The water vapor and CO2 already present in natural sea-level air block all the IR radiation from the earth's surface in a few meters. It is then re-emitted, reabsorbed, etc. many times on its way to outer space. The air 5m, 10m, or 20m above sea level is still pretty much at sea level, but it has already had IR radiation from the earth's surface blocked by the water vapor and CO2 below it.

The lab experiment did not look at different levels of atmosphere and their interactions.

Are we no longer discussing the lab experiment?

It showed that adding CO2 to typical sea-level atmospheric air has no significant effect on its IR transmission/absorption properties, a fact that can be confirmed by any competent physics undergrad using ordinary university lab equipment.

When I asked how, you eventually started discussing different levels of atmosphere.

The lab experiment does not seem to look at that.

[Truth To Power]

The lab experiment did not look at different levels of atmosphere and their interactions.

Of course not. It measured the effect on IR transmission of adding CO2 to typical sea-level atmospheric air.

Are we no longer discussing the lab experiment?

You don't seem to understand that the purpose of lab experiments is to find out something that is applicable to the broader world, not just in the lab. I'm not sure how a person could come to so utterly misunderstand the scientific method.

When I asked how, you eventually started discussing different levels of atmosphere.

Foolishly, I assumed that you wanted to understand how the experiment was relevant to the atmosphere and the effect of CO2 on global surface temperature.

The lab experiment does not seem to look at that.

If you want to leave a better world for your children, stop being so deliberately obtuse.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Let us begin again.

Rather than ask you on e again to describe clearly and specifically how the experiment disproved ACC, I am going to ask you to confirm the following:

Angstrom let an infrared beam pass through a tube filled with CO2 and measured the emerging light intensity. Upon reducing CO2 concentration in the tube, only a tiny difference could be found and he concluded that very few CO2 molecules are enough to completely absorb the IR beam. The conclusion was that a CO2 increase could not matter.

Is this correct?

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Let us begin again.

Rather than ask you on e again to describe clearly and specifically how the experiment disproved ACC, I am going to ask you to confirm the following:

Angstrom let an infrared beam pass through a tube filled with CO2 and measured the emerging light intensity. Upon reducing CO2 concentration in the tube, only a tiny difference could be found and he concluded that very few CO2 molecules are enough to completely absorb the IR beam. The conclusion was that a CO2 increase could not matter.

Is this correct?

Angstrom may have done such an experiment, but the relevant one was conducted, I believe, by his assistant Koch, and involved adding CO2 to ordinary atmospheric air in a similar tube.

Again, if there is any doubt about what Angstrom did or the results, it would be a trivial matter for any competent physics undergrad to conduct the experiment again, and determine how much difference adding CO2 to ordinary atmospheric air makes to its IR transmission properties.

[ingliz]

if there is any doubt about what Angstrom did or the results

Does that matter? He was wrong, and his measurements and arguments had fatal flaws.

Human beings are now carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future.

— Revelle and Suess (1957)

See: The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

[Pants-of-dog]

Angstrom may have done such an experiment, but the relevant one was conducted, I believe, by his assistant Koch, and involved adding CO2 to ordinary atmospheric air in a similar tube.

Again, is this the experiment to which you are referring? it is the same one posted here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183684&start=100#p15287417

Yes or no?

[Truth To Power]

Does that matter? He was wrong,

No, he was indisputably correct, and that fact can be verified by any competent physics undergrad with access to ordinary university physics lab equipment.

and his measurements and arguments had fatal flaws.

No they didn't, which is why they can be reliably replicated by any competent physics undergrad with access to ordinary university physics lab equipment.

Human beings are now carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future.

— Revelle and Suess (1957)

See: The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

We've been doing such "experiments" for thousands of years, and there is no credible empirical evidence -- none -- that CO2 emissions from using fossil fuels could possibly cause a significant increase in global surface temperature.

[Truth To Power]

Again, is this the experiment to which you are referring? it is the same one posted here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183684&start=100#p15287417

Yes or no?

Yes, that's the one I posted, the only one I could find in English on the Internet.

[ingliz]

Blah blah blah

Don't you get bored posting the same shite over and over?

Ångström was wrong.

The science has moved on.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, that's the one I posted, the only one I could find in English on the Internet.

So we agree that the lab experiment does not include any look at convection at all, and so any discussion about convection does not support the conclusion of the experiment.

Now, are you aware that a later experimental showed how convection proves this. experiment is inapplicable to atmospheric conditions?

[Steve_American]

The heat may not kill you, but the global food crisis might! Just Have a Think
just 14 min.

New data of sea temps has caused the experts to predict a "very strong El Nino" from now until at least spring 2024.
The experts say that this is very likely to increase your food prices, because of the effects of heat, drought, or flooding on crop yields and total harvests. I predict that the El Nino will last for the next 12 months, maybe for years.

This seems like a new climate era.

Remove the [==] to see the video.
https://www.you[==]tube.com/watch?v=kQkyouPOrD4&list=TLPQMjIwOTIwMjOPrm5iey569g&index=14

.

[Truth To Power]

So we agree that the lab experiment does not include any look at convection at all,

That is correct, because convection is irrelevant to the claimed effect of CO2 on global surface temperature.

and so any discussion about convection does not support the conclusion of the experiment.

Correct. Similarly, any discussion about dog training, Texas chili recipes, Miley Cyrus, and the decimal expansion of pi does not support the conclusion of the experiment.

Now, are you aware that a later experimental showed how convection proves this. experiment is inapplicable to atmospheric conditions?

No, I am aware of the fact that that cannot be the case.

[Truth To Power]

The heat may not kill you, but the global food crisis might! Just Have a Think
just 14 min.

[b][size=120]New data of sea temps has caused the experts to predict a "very strong El Nino" from now until at least spring 2024.
The experts say that this is very likely to increase your food prices, because of the effects of heat, drought, or flooding on crop yields and total harvests.

No, no expert says that, because all experts are aware of the fact that as atmospheric CO2 has increased, so have average per-hectare yields of all food crops.

[Truth To Power]

Don't you get bored posting the same shite over and over?

I am wearied beyond the rich resources of the English language to express of posting the same indisputable facts over and over, and noting no change in the refusal to know them.

Ångström was wrong.

The science has moved on.

Angstrom was right, as any competent physics undergrad can confirm using the ordinary apparatus of a university physics lab. The science has moved on, but it hasn't changed the facts.

[Steve_American]

No, no expert says that, because all experts are aware of the fact that as atmospheric CO2 has increased, so have average per-hectare yields of all food crops.

That is only true if all other things are kept the same. That is in a controlled experiment.

Other controlled experiments that just increase the temps show reduced yields.
Also, if temps and CO2 are increased, yields are reduced.
For wheat this happens because each kernel is smaller.

So, you are wrong. And the experts did say that in peer reviewed papers and reports.
.

[Steve_American]

delete duplicate post

[Pants-of-dog]

Correct.

So I will ignore that whole tangent on convection that you supplied as an explanation for the lab experiment.

Now, would you like to discuss how convection works in the atmosphere and makes the lab experiment irrelevant?

https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10 ... ev.38.1876

From the known amounts of the various gases of the atmosphere from sea level to about 20 km, from the observed light absorption coefficients of the gases and from the albedo of the earth's surface the temperature of the atmosphere in radiative equilibrium is calculated on the assumption that the sunlight is the only source of energy. The calculation is perhaps more rigorous than has hitherto been attempted, although it contains a number of approximations. The sea level temperature comes out to be about 19° above the observed world-wide average value 287°K, and the temperature above about 3 km falls many degrees below the observed temperatures. The temperature gradient in levels from 3 to 6 km is greater than that of convective equilibrium and hence the atmosphere would not be dynamically stable if radiation equilibrium prevailed. Therefore air currents take place to bring about convective equilibrium. Continuing the calculation it is found that only when the convective region extends to about 12 km (as is observed), with radiative equilibrium above 12 km (as is observed), does the atmosphere satisfy the conditions of dynamic stability and thermal equilibrium with the received solar energy. For this case the calculated sea level temperature is 290°K in good agreement with the observed value 287°K. Calculation shows that doubling or tripling the amount of the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere increases the average sea level temperature by about 4° and 7°K, respectively; halving or reducing to zero the carbon dioxide decreases the temperature by similar amounts. Such changes in temperature are about the same as those which occur when the earth passes from an ice age to a warm age, or vice versa. Thus the calculation indicates that the carbon dioxide theory of the ice ages, originally proposed by Tyndall, is a possible theory.

Received 9 October 1931

So, Angstrom was correct that the air quickly became unable to absorb any more infrared, but his lab experiment did not account for convection, as you just pointed out.

When convection is applied, we see that convection moves the air around and this then mixes the air and spreads the heat around for the first 12 km above sea level.

So when discussing anthropogenic climate change, it is not relevant to discuss what is happening in the first 12 km. Instead, we need to look at the heat interactions above that level.