Evidence that the climate scam is collapsing

[Lord of Planar]

Correct but greenhouse gases can only change the longwave spectrum.

There is still absorption of the shortwave and infrared by water vapor. Enough to consider. CO2, not so much.

 

[George50]

This is a problem I have with how studies end up being used. There is no complete conclusion for the feedback mechanism, but an activist will use such a study as proof of a higher positive feedback than is realistic. The capture of more solar power by more H2O will warm the atmosphere more, with all its effects increased up and down. But at the same time, the negative feedback also exists of less solar power heating the surface. Another negative feedback not considered.

I understand your concern, but the study presents new information that was not previously known. If it was not possible for the researchers to separate the two sources that created the downward flux should the new information be kept secret or the study not be performed because of your fears?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I understand your concern, but the study presents new information that was not previously known. If it was not possible for the researchers to separate the two sources that created the downward flux should the new information be kept secret or the study not be performed because of your fears?

I am fine with new information. I think it is great. Again, I am one who understands that the fear is still alive because punudits lie about what papers actually represent.

 

[longview]

There is still absorption of the shortwave and infrared by water vapor. Enough to consider. CO2, not so much.

That's true, water vapor does have bands below the traditional 4 um boundary between shortwave and longwave radiation.

 

[longview]

Do you have a source for that?

Physics!
If you excite a CO2 molecule with a 15 um photon, the only output/outputs will be less than or equal to 15 um! Energy cannot be created!

 

[longview]

No, what you do is cherry-pick the data.

What data do you think I am ignoring?

 

[longview]

This is a problem I have with how studies end up being used. There is no complete conclusion for the feedback mechanism, but an activist will use such a study as proof of a higher positive feedback than is realistic. The capture of more solar power by more H2O will warm the atmosphere more, with all its effects increased up and down. But at the same time, the negative feedback also exists of less solar power heating the surface. Another negative feedback not considered.

An interesting point, an excited H2O molecule in the stratosphere would likely emit photons before colliding with another atom or molecule, those emissions towards earth would be less than 50%, because in the stratosphere there is more sky and less earth visible.

 

[George50]

What you are missing is that there has to be an increase in the LONGWAVE energy imbalance for added greenhouse gases to cause warming,

Are you saying that greenhouse gases have suddenly stopped increasing warming? What makes you think that the greenhouse effect is no longer working?

We can also get warming from increased insolation.

Are you saying that all the warming is now coming from increased insolation?

 

[longview]

Are you saying that greenhouse gases have suddenly stopped increasing warming? What makes you think that the greenhouse effect is no longer working?


Are you saying that all the warming is now coming from increased insolation?

We do not know if the greenhouse gases have ever worked as claimed, perhaps at lower concentrations, but we have no way of knowing.
As for as the greenhouse effect, the presents of an atmosphere at this pressure would retain heat.

We are warming because of increased ASR, which does include surface insolation, but subtracts shortwave reflection. This is what the satellite data is showing.

 

[George50]

We do not know if the greenhouse gases have ever worked as claimed, perhaps at lower concentrations, but we have no way of knowing.

We do know that the “greenhouse effect” is huge and amounts to approximately 159 Wm-2, stopping about 40% of surface emissions.

As for as the greenhouse effect, the presents of an atmosphere at this pressure would retain heat.

We also know that nitrogen, oxygen and argon represent about 98.92% of the atmosphere and that they are transparent to longwave radiation.

So which of the remaining 1.08% of gases in the atmosphere are stopping the 159 Wm-2 of thermal radiation emitted from the surface that constitutes the greenhouse effect?

We are warming because of increased ASR, which does include surface insolation, but subtracts shortwave reflection. This is what the satellite data is showing.

And what is causing the increased ASR?

Also note that unless ALL of the increased ASR goes to surface insolation some of it will end up as thermal radiation emitted by the surface and thus add about 40% of that increased radiation to the greenhouse effect.

 

[longview]

We do know that the “greenhouse effect” is huge and amounts to approximately 159 Wm-2, stopping about 40% of surface emissions.


View attachment 67579481

We also know that nitrogen, oxygen and argon represent about 98.92% of the atmosphere and that they are transparent to longwave radiation.

So which of the remaining 1.08% of gases in the atmosphere are stopping the 159 Wm-2 of thermal radiation emitted from the surface that constitutes the greenhouse effect?



And what is causing the increased ASR?

Also note that unless ALL of the increased ASR goes to surface insolation some of it will end up as thermal radiation emitted by the surface and thus add about 40% of that increased radiation to the greenhouse effect.

Except that we do not know how warm Earth would be with just nitrogen and oxygen and water vapor, CO2 levels may not be doing much of anything, and there is no experiment that would validate CO2 contribution.

 

[George50]

Except that we do not know how warm Earth would be with just nitrogen and oxygen and water vapor, CO2 levels may not be doing much of anything, and there is no experiment that would validate CO2 contribution.

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and do not contribute to warming. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas but its concentration increases in the atmosphere when temperature increases and thus requires something to warm the planet before an increase in water vapor occurs. Thus water vapor is not a reasonable explanation for why temperatures have risen since preindustrial times.

You need to find something else to explain the warming that has occurred since preindustrial times.

There is plenty of evidence of the CO2 contribution. For example:

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Zhong-Haigh-2013.pdf

You are correct that we are currently seeing some warming due to increased ASR (also as I described previously this adds to the greenhouse effect) but you didn’t answer the question:

What is causing the increased ASR?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and do not contribute to warming.

Yes they do. When you have the heat conduct to the air, you no longer have a solid black body surface radiating heat. The heat is reduced and much of it held in the atmosphere. Even in an optically clear atmosphere, you will gain heat. The surface losing heat to the atmosphere will not be as hot relative to the incoming heat, and radiate less heat outward. The total heat in the system will increase until we have balance. It is calculated that the earth would be -18C average with no atmosphere compared to about 15C with the atmosphere as we know it. therefore, the claim is 33 degrees of a greenhouse effect, but that is wrong for several reason, including this one. Clouds hold in heat, but are not part of the greenhouse effect. Between this sensible heat and clouds, how much remains for the greenhouse effect? It is much less than the touted 33 degrees.

You are correct that we are currently seeing some warming due to increased ASR (also as I described previously this adds to the greenhouse effect) but you didn’t answer the question:

What is causing the increased ASR?

Two things that I am aware of. Both because of aerosols. This is where we should continue studies regarding that phenomena.

The coverage of ice is reduced reducing the earth albedo. Hence more ASR.

Aerosols also affect cloud seeding and precipitation. It is now recorded data in some studies that our cloud cover has diminished, hence more ASR.

 

[longview]

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and do not contribute to warming. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas but its concentration increases in the atmosphere when temperature increases and thus requires something to warm the planet before an increase in water vapor occurs. Thus water vapor is not a reasonable explanation for why temperatures have risen since preindustrial times.

You need to find something else to explain the warming that has occurred since preindustrial times.

There is plenty of evidence of the CO2 contribution. For example:

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Zhong-Haigh-2013.pdf

You are correct that we are currently seeing some warming due to increased ASR (also as I described previously this adds to the greenhouse effect) but you didn’t answer the question:

What is causing the increased ASR?

Sorry you misunderstand what I am saying, any planet with an atmosphere of any makeup would be warmer than
a planet without an atmosphere. While nitrogen and Oxygen are not greenhouse gases, they do in fact have shortwave absorption
spectrum, and will capture incoming radiation.
Our warming since preindustrial times (Really since 1978) is from our clearing the skies of earlier air pollution.
We only started measuring Surface insolation in any detail about 1960, but the records show substantial change in
the energy reaching the surface.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface

These studies report a general decrease of sunlight over land surfaces on the order
of 6 to 9 W m-2 from the beginning of the measurements in about 1960 until 1990,
corresponding to a decline of 4% to 6% over 30 years.

We have no idea how much it decreased before 1950!
and then the brightening, as air pollution laws took effect globally.

Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth
reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22)

Consider for a second how much the greenhouse gases were thought to contribute between 1992 and 2001?
NOAA AGGI
1992 433 ppm CO2-eq
2001 456 ppm CO2-eq
Forcing 5.35 X ln(456/433) = 0.277 W m-2.
So which do you think had a greater effect, A measured increase of 6 W m-2, or a hypothetical increase of 0.277 W m-2?
I know which side the scientific method would fall, and that is on the observed data!

 

[George50]

Yes they do. When you have the heat conduct to the air, you no longer have a solid black body surface radiating heat. The heat is reduced and much of it held in the atmosphere.

You are talking about air and atmosphere. I was talking specifically about oxygen and nitrogen as per my statement you are responding to:

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and do not contribute to warming.

They only hold a tiny amount of heat:

The effect of collision-induced absorption by molecular oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of the Earth's atmosphere has been quantified. We have found that on global average under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2by 0.11 Wm−2 and due to N2 by 0.17 Wm−2.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051409

The heat is held by other components of the atmosphere.

Even in an optically clear atmosphere, you will gain heat. The surface losing heat to the atmosphere will not be as hot relative to the incoming heat, and radiate less heat outward. The total heat in the system will increase until we have balance. It is calculated that the earth would be -18C average with no atmosphere compared to about 15C with the atmosphere as we know it. therefore, the claim is 33 degrees of a greenhouse effect, but that is wrong for several reason, including this one. Clouds hold in heat, but are not part of the greenhouse effect. Between this sensible heat and clouds, how much remains for the greenhouse effect? It is much less than the touted 33 degrees.

Two things that I am aware of. Both because of aerosols. This is where we should continue studies regarding that phenomena.

The coverage of ice is reduced reducing the earth albedo. Hence more ASR.

Of course reduced ice coverage is a feedback to warming as well as black carbon from burning fossil fuels.

Aerosols also affect cloud seeding and precipitation. It is now recorded data in some studies that our cloud cover has diminished, hence more ASR.

True. Unfortunately, we don’t have a good handle on the relative contributions to the reduced cloud cover. Theories are some combination of internal variability, reduced aerosol concentrations, or a possibly emerging low-cloud feedback. Of course reducing aerosols is just undoing what we have done.

As far as more studies, you are correct. Hopefully we can get a better handle on these. Lots of work is being done. Unfortunately, in the US that work is often being stopped.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You are talking about air and atmosphere. I was talking specifically about oxygen and nitrogen as per my statement you are responding to:

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and do not contribute to warming.

And I did not refer to them as greenhouse gasses, though Longview is correct in that they capture energy from the sun.

My point is we do not have the extreme hot and cold as the earth rotates when we have an atmosphere. Any atmosphere, even one completely transparent to longwave energy, will increase moderate the temperature extremes as it changes the blackbody dynamics. In doing so, the atmosphere warms and increases the planet with a greenhouse effect. Just sensible heat. Therefore, our greenhouse effect is not the 33 degrees as claimed. It is less.

 

[longview]

You are talking about air and atmosphere. I was talking specifically about oxygen and nitrogen as per my statement you are responding to:

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and do not contribute to warming.

They only hold a tiny amount of heat:

The effect of collision-induced absorption by molecular oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of the Earth's atmosphere has been quantified. We have found that on global average under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2by 0.11 Wm−2 and due to N2 by 0.17 Wm−2.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051409

The heat is held by other components of the atmosphere.





Of course reduced ice coverage is a feedback to warming as well as black carbon from burning fossil fuels.


True. Unfortunately, we don’t have a good handle on the relative contributions to the reduced cloud cover. Theories are some combination of internal variability, reduced aerosol concentrations, or a possibly emerging low-cloud feedback. Of course reducing aerosols is just undoing what we have done.

As far as more studies, you are correct. Hopefully we can get a better handle on these. Lots of work is being done. Unfortunately, in the US that work is often being stopped.

I do not think you understand how much greater the energy states of nitrogen are than CO2.
Nitrogen is used in a CO2 laser to excite the CO2, the collision energy transfer is downhill.
Nitrogen's energy states are between 10 and 24 eV, whereas the 15 um CO2 level is 0.1eV,
and there is a LOT more nitrogen out there!

 

[George50]

Sorry you misunderstand what I am saying, any planet with an atmosphere of any makeup would be warmer than
a planet without an atmosphere. While nitrogen and Oxygen are not greenhouse gases, they do in fact have shortwave absorption
spectrum, and will capture incoming radiation.

As far as I know the role of nitrogen and oxygen is primarily that of stopping X-ray, UV and gamma radiation in the thermosphere. While this makes it very hot in the thermosphere the atmosphere in that layer is so thin that there is no significant heat transfer and lower layers are not affected.

Our warming since preindustrial times (Really since 1978) is from our clearing the skies of earlier air pollution.
We only started measuring Surface insolation in any detail about 1960, but the records show substantial change in
the energy reaching the surface.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface

We have no idea how much it decreased before 1950!
and then the brightening, as air pollution laws took effect globally.

Consider for a second how much the greenhouse gases were thought to contribute between 1992 and 2001?
NOAA AGGI
1992 433 ppm CO2-eq
2001 456 ppm CO2-eq
Forcing 5.35 X ln(456/433) = 0.277 W m-2.
So which do you think had a greater effect, A measured increase of 6 W m-2, or a hypothetical increase of 0.277 W m-2?
I know which side the scientific method would fall, and that is on the observed data!

You are only looking at half of what happened in your calculations.

First it says:

These studies report a general decrease of sunlight over land surfaces on the order of 6 to 9 W m-2 from the beginning of the measurements in about 1960 until 1990,

Next it says:

Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe

So as best we can tell from the cited study we lose sunlight then we gain it back. These impacts are largely due to aerosols being added and then taken away. That should have resulted in more or less a net of nothing from 1960 to 2001 in terms of the change in Wm-2.

However, the temperature did rise significantly from 1960 to 2001.

Your citation ends with:

Whereas the decline in solar energy could have counterbalanced the increase in downwelling longwave energy from the enhanced greenhouse effect before the 1980s (10), this masking of the greenhouse effect and related impacts may no longer have been effective thereafter, enabling the greenhouse signals to become more evident during the 1990s

In other words, the greenhouse effect was increasing throughout the entire period from 1960 to 2001 but its impact on temperature was masked during the dimming period.

Using the graph in the NASA citation the numbers would be:

1960 350 ppm CO2-eq
2001 456 ppm CO2-eq

Forcing 5.35 x ln(456/350) = 1.415 W m-2. Multiply that by feedbacks (which you will probably complain about) and you have a pretty decent number to explain the temperature rise from 1960 to 2001.

 

[George50]

I do not think you understand how much greater the energy states of nitrogen are than CO2.
Nitrogen is used in a CO2 laser to excite the CO2, the collision energy transfer is downhill.
Nitrogen's energy states are between 10 and 24 eV, whereas the 15 um CO2 level is 0.1eV,
and there is a LOT more nitrogen out there!

See 543.

 

[Buster Keaton]

Manmade global warming is about politics, not science

 

[George50]

And I did not refer to them as greenhouse gasses, though Longview is correct in that they capture energy from the sun.

My point is we do not have the extreme hot and cold as the earth rotates when we have an atmosphere. Any atmosphere, even one completely transparent to longwave energy, will increase moderate the temperature extremes as it changes the blackbody dynamics. In doing so, the atmosphere warms and increases the planet with a greenhouse effect. Just sensible heat. Therefore, our greenhouse effect is not the 33 degrees as claimed. It is less.

I would agree that it is more appropriate to say that the 33 degree number would apply to the earth with no atmosphere at all compared to the existing atmosphere.

 

[George50]

Manmade global warming is about politics, not science

The idea that manmade global warming is about politics, not science is about politics not science.

 

[Desert Storm]

Manmade global warming is about politics, not science

And raising taxes too

 

[longview]

As far as I know the role of nitrogen and oxygen is primarily that of stopping X-ray, UV and gamma radiation in the thermosphere. While this makes it very hot in the thermosphere the atmosphere in that layer is so thin that there is no significant heat transfer and lower layers are not affected.


You are only looking at half of what happened in your calculations.

First it says:

These studies report a general decrease of sunlight over land surfaces on the order of 6 to 9 W m-2 from the beginning of the measurements in about 1960 until 1990,

Next it says:

Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe

So as best we can tell from the cited study we lose sunlight then we gain it back. These impacts are largely due to aerosols being added and then taken away. That should have resulted in more or less a net of nothing from 1960 to 2001 in terms of the change in Wm-2.

However, the temperature did rise significantly from 1960 to 2001.

Your citation ends with:

Whereas the decline in solar energy could have counterbalanced the increase in downwelling longwave energy from the enhanced greenhouse effect before the 1980s (10), this masking of the greenhouse effect and related impacts may no longer have been effective thereafter, enabling the greenhouse signals to become more evident during the 1990s

In other words, the greenhouse effect was increasing throughout the entire period from 1960 to 2001 but its impact on temperature was masked during the dimming period.

Using the graph in the NASA citation the numbers would be:

1960 350 ppm CO2-eq
2001 456 ppm CO2-eq

Forcing 5.35 x ln(456/350) = 1.415 W m-2. Multiply that by feedbacks (which you will probably complain about) and you have a pretty decent number to explain the temperature rise from 1960 to 2001.

The vast majority of the observed warming is the brightening releasing slow natural warming.

The temperature did rise between 1960 and 2001, but did not between 1960 and ~1977, so all the warming
between 1960 and 2001, happened between 1978 and 2001.
Also keep in mind the forcing number is pure assumption, there is no way to validate a particular level of forcing from added CO2,
The 5.35 log multiplier comes from the assumption that 2XCO2 = 3.708 W m-2.
That assumption is based on the assumption that CO2 accounts for 20% of the total 150 W m-2 greenhouse effect
to pre industrial times (280 ppm). 20% of 150 is 30 W m-2, counting up doublings from 1 ppm to 280 ppm, is 8.09 doublings.
30 W m-2/ 8.09 doublings, gives a per doubling value of 2.708 W m-2 per doubling.
I have said this before but while coincidences do happen in Physics, they seldom happen out to 3 decimal places!

The forcing from brightening measured was MUCH greater than the hypothetical forcing from added greenhouse gases over the same time period!

 

[bythoughts]

The reason to reject global warming activism is not a matter of weather. It's a matter of people giving up on rights, freedoms, principles, laws ... and knowing that any dot out of place on a form or a nasty sentence from twenty years ago could be reason to send them to a concentration camp to be in misery. Even as brand new AI overseers are being given wings every day, and those in power pioneer new methods of putting microchips in people's brains.

You won't live a life of endless misery, every moment a desperate prayer to the Beast that is forever, that counts only your slights and omissions and never credits anything you do ... if it is three hundred and fifty degrees in the shade (Celsius).

So let's stand with Trump and the fossil fuel industry and get this done!