[BeesKnee5]

<yawn> Take your own advice. Neither of those references disputes what I said.

Ok bud

[BeesKnee5]

They could do the experiment, but they don't.

You mean like Feldman 2015?

[ingliz]

You mean like Feldman 2015?

Feldman, R., et al. (2015) Observational Determination of Surface Radiative Forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature, 519, 339-343.

[Truth To Power]

You mean like Feldman 2015?

No.

[Truth To Power]

Ok bud

<yawn> And...?

[BeesKnee5]

<yawn> And...?

What altitude in the Hadley cell do you think the air is descending from?

[Truth To Power]

What altitude in the Hadley cell do you think the air is descending from?

It doesn't matter, because there is enough mixing and surface evaporation to make it a lot wetter by the time it gets to the surface again. When the actual water vapor content of actual surface air is measured, it is almost never less than 2000ppm, or nearly five times the amount of CO2.

[BeesKnee5]

It doesn't matter, because there is enough mixing and surface evaporation to make it a lot wetter by the time it gets to the surface again. When the actual water vapor content of actual surface air is measured, it is almost never less than 2000ppm, or nearly five times the amount of CO2.

It certainly does matter and you have just ruined your own argument that the air replacing the warmer air rising has similar water vapour content as the rising air at the equator has something in the order of 20,000 ppm.

[Truth To Power]

It certainly does matter and you have just ruined your own argument that the air replacing the warmer air rising has similar water vapour content as the rising air at the equator has something in the order of 20,000 ppm.

Nope. Wrong again. The difference between 2000ppm H2O and 20,000ppm doesn't make any substantial difference to the effect of additional CO2 on IR absorption. Whether there are 10 H2O blankets on the bed or 100 doesn't affect the fact that adding one more cotton CO2 blanket to the stack won't make the guy in the bed noticeably warmer.

[BeesKnee5]

[ the fact that adding one more cotton CO2 blanket to the stack won't make the guy in the bed noticeably warmer.

Here is a visualisation of the measured effect rising CO2 is having on the atmospheres energy balance.

All you have left is assertion which is disproved by the evidence.

[Truth To Power]

Here is a visualisation of the measured effect rising CO2 is having on the atmospheres energy balance.

No it isn't. It is merely the same old post hoc fallacy.

All you have left is assertion which is disproved by the evidence.

Nothing I have said has been disproved by evidence because fallacies are not evidence. And I also have the fact that actual physical events continue to prove me right and you wrong.

[BeesKnee5]

No it isn't. It is merely the same old post hoc fallacy.

Nothing I have said has been disproved by evidence because fallacies are not evidence. And I also have the fact that actual physical events continue to prove me right and you wrong.

Which is why every single scientific establishment agrees with you.

Sorry my mistake, they don't.

They see the evidence and are unsurprised that the observed changes in the atmosphere radiative balance match the spectrum of CO2.

Multiple papers have confirmed Feldmans observations since. There is a reason why you are called a denier, it's because you think you know better than the world's scientific bodies and deny the evidence they present rather than consider you might be wrong.


The most recent defence by fossil fuel companies in a US lawsuit are interesting. The effects were so obvious we didn't think we needed to tell people about it
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploa ... PLAINT.pdf

[Truth To Power]

Which is why every single scientific establishment agrees with you.

Sorry my mistake, they don't.

I couldn't care less, as long as the facts agree with me. Which they do.

They see the evidence and are unsurprised that the observed changes in the atmosphere radiative balance match the spectrum of CO2.

Multiple papers have confirmed Feldmans observations since. There is a reason why you are called a denier, it's because you think you know better than the world's scientific bodies and deny the evidence they present rather than consider you might be wrong.

The effect of CO2 on the radiative balance at emission altitude is very different from its effect at the surface because there is so little water vapor up there. Adding another blanket to a stack of 20 has a large effect on the second last blanket; just not on the guy in the bed.

The most recent defence by fossil fuel companies in a US lawsuit are interesting. The effects were so obvious we didn't think we needed to tell people about it
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploa ... PLAINT.pdf

What a load of nonscience.

[BeesKnee5]

The facts don't agree with you, the scientific bodies don't agree with you and the fossil fuel industry doesn't agree with you.

Who does agree with you?

The mistake you appear to be making is that the extra blanket raises the effective emission height at which IR radiates into space, further slowing the loss of energy and therefore raising temperatures at ground level. Now you can argue that it's not linear and each blanket needs to be twice the thickness of the previous one to have the same effect, but what of it? That is what the scientists agree on.

Hausfather has written an interesting article on the research and expectations of today's climate scientists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/opin ... -2023.html

[Truth To Power]

The facts don't agree with you,

The facts most definitely and indisputably agree with me: there is no climate "crisis" or "emergency," and there never will be one caused by human emissions of CO2 from use of fossil fuels. That is absolutely certain.

the scientific bodies don't agree with you and the fossil fuel industry doesn't agree with you.

Who does agree with you?

Only honest, intelligent, informed and rational realists. So yes, it's lonely being right.

The mistake you appear to be making is that the extra blanket raises the effective emission height at which IR radiates into space, further slowing the loss of energy and therefore raising temperatures at ground level.

Just like the extra blanket on the stack of 20. It just doesn't raise the surface temperature noticeably. You seem to be congenitally unable to comprehend the fact that if doubling CO2 would raise surface temps by >3C, that would indeed be a problem and you would be right; but because it would only raise them by <0.3C, that is not a problem and I am right. In both cases, CO2 is raising surface temperature -- we agree on that -- but the implications are completely different.

Now you can argue that it's not linear and each blanket needs to be twice the thickness of the previous one to have the same effect, but what of it? That is what the scientists agree on.

No they don't. The whole anti-CO2 narrative is based on ASSUMING wildly unrealistic positive water vapor feedback that we KNOW cannot be correct as it would have made the earth's climate unstable -- and would make literal greenhouse temperatures inconveniently unstable, too (hint: it doesn't).

Hausfather has written an interesting article on the research and expectations of today's climate scientists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/opin ... -2023.html

Hausfather is one of the Usual Suspects.

[BeesKnee5]

. So yes, it's lonely being right.

You are no Galileo

Hausfather is one of the Usual Suspects.

Yes, someone who knows what they are talking about.

[Truth To Power]

You are no Galileo

It doesn't take a Galileo to see the holes in the CO2 narrative. But it does take honesty, independence, courage, intelligence, scientific knowledge, logic and common sense, qualities sorely lacking in those who promote it.

Yes, someone who knows what they are talking about.

No, he is one of the dozen or so climate "scientists" who reliably toe the CO2 narrative line, and consequently are reliably featured and cited in the mainstream media.

[BeesKnee5]

No, he is one of the dozen or so climate "scientists" who reliably toe the CO2 narrative line, and consequently are reliably featured and cited in the mainstream media.

You mean the ones who accept the evidence you have been presented with. 13,000 scientists contributed to the IPCC AR6 report.

I'd call that more than a dozen.

[Pants-of-dog]

You don't seem to understand the physical situation. The "new" air is also coming from a place where it was absorbing IR radiation from the ground. It's just doing it in a different place. The only reason it can absorb more energy than the rising air it replaces is that it is cooler, not because its composition or IR absorption is any different.

No one made any claim about the air having a different composition.

However, the air coming in has to have significantly less heat than the rising air.

No, because that can be affected by many factors such as cloud cover, and thinking of it as one layer removes a large part of the complexity of the interactions.

All scientific models and descriptions necessarily reduce complexity.

Note that Angstrom reduced the complexity even further than I did.

So what? Angstrom proved adding CO2 to ordinary atmospheric air has no discernible effect on its IR absorption properties. That conclusively refutes the CO2 narrative.

No, it is convection that is not relevant to added CO2's lack of effect on IR absorption.

Which is irrelevant to the fact that adding CO2 to ordinary atmospheric air does not noticeably affect its IR absorption properties.

Wrong again. If the heat source is above, like O3's absorption of UV, it will not drive convection.

Yes; do you agree that that does not affect its IR absorption?

You claimed that Angstrom disproved ACC because “The new air has the same CO2 content, and usually very similar water vapor content. So moving it around has no effect on its IR absorption”

Provide evidence for this new claim.

[BeesKnee5]

The sun did it.