[Rancid]

Looks like all the pofo experts are coming out of the woodwork.

[Pants-of-dog]

Nope. Flat wrong. Please try to understand: you do not know anything about this topic, while I do.

Then it must be frustrating for you to see me explain things to you about convection.

The transfer of the energy from absorbed IR radiation to the surrounding air is kinetic, not radiative. It occurs by physical contact of the excited GHG molecules with atmospheric N2 and O2 molecules. The IR radiated by excited GHG molecules, by contrast, is absorbed by other GHG molecules unless it is emitted high enough in the atmosphere to escape to outer space, or low enough to be reabsorbed by the earth's surface. That is why Angstrom's experiment empirically refuted the CO2 narrative.

Again, this is all irrelevant. All you are doing is describing the mechanism by which the bottom 12 km try to attain convectional equilibrium.

No, they are already mixed. The heat spreads when IR radiation energy is converted into heat energy via physical contact of excited GHG molecules with air molecules.

Yes and no.

The important thing is that the air moves and the absorption of that particular unit of air becomes irrelevant since new air has moved in.

No. That is just absurd nonscience with no basis in fact. The bottom few km are effectively all that matter for surface temperature and climate.

Yes and no.

What matters is the overall energy balance of the bottom few km.

And in that respect, the top (where the energy is absorbed and radiated) layer and its interactions with the air above are very important.

No. All that matters for climate is what happens in the bottom few km of the troposphere. Everything above that is irrelevant. That is why Angstrom is the central fact, and all the BS about the stratosphere is irrelevant.

I have read Hulburt. He didn't understand the climate system any better than you do.

No, what you are claiming is that the bottom 12 km can absorb more energy from the layers above than it emits, and that this magically does not change climate.

This violates basic thermodynamics.

[Truth To Power]

Then it must be frustrating for you to see me explain things to you about convection.

No, it's just tiresome and slightly amusing, like listening to a 12-year-old explain marriage.

Again, this is all irrelevant.

No, it proves you wrong.

All you are doing is describing the mechanism by which the bottom 12 km try to attain convectional equilibrium.

No, convectional equilibrium is irrelevant to the IR absorption properties of ordinary atmospheric air.

Yes and no.

No, only yes.

The important thing is that the air moves and the absorption of that particular unit of air becomes irrelevant since new air has moved in.

No, that's just more absurd nonscience from you. You don't know anything about atmospheric physics, and you refuse to learn.

Yes and no.

No, only yes,

What matters is the overall energy balance of the bottom few km.

Which, as Angstrom's experiment showed, is not perceptibly affected by additional CO2.

And in that respect, the top (where the energy is absorbed and radiated) layer and its interactions with the air above are very important.

No. It's like adding a blanket to a stack of 20 blankets: it affects the top few layers, but has no effect on how warm the sleeper feels.

No, what you are claiming is that the bottom 12 km can absorb more energy from the layers above than it emits, and that this magically does not change climate.

No it isn't. You simply made that up, as is your wont.

This violates basic thermodynamics.

The $#!+ you make up does, sure.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, it's just tiresome and slightly amusing, like listening to a 12-year-old explain marriage.

No, it proves you wrong.

No, convectional equilibrium is irrelevant to the IR absorption properties of ordinary atmospheric air.

Maybe, but who cares?

We are talking about the relevance of Angstrom’s experiment to atmospheric physics, not whether or not atmospheric physics is relevant to Angstrom’s experiment.

And you do not seem to have nay argument about that.

No, only yes.

No, that's just more absurd nonscience from you. You don't know anything about atmospheric physics, and you refuse to learn.

No, only yes,

Which, as Angstrom's experiment showed, is not perceptibly affected by additional CO2.

No. It's like adding a blanket to a stack of 20 blankets: it affects the top few layers, but has no effect on how warm the sleeper feels.

No it isn't. You simply made that up, as is your wont.

The $#!+ you make up does, sure.

This is just sentence fragments that make no point.

You are assuming that the experiment disproves the entire issue of energy imbalance in the bottom 12 km. It does not.

And the reason is convection. Well, that and how CO2 absorbs light.

[Truth To Power]

Maybe, but who cares?

I and anyone else who cares about the truth.

We are talking about the relevance of Angstrom’s experiment to atmospheric physics, not whether or not atmospheric physics is relevant to Angstrom’s experiment.

Huh? Run that one by me again.

And you do not seem to have nay argument about that.

Except the fact that adding CO2 to ordinary atmospheric air does not appreciably affect its IR absorption properties.

This is just sentence fragments that make no point.

Wrong.

You are assuming that the experiment disproves the entire issue of energy imbalance in the bottom 12 km.

Wrong. It just shows that adding CO2 to ordinary atmospheric air cannot have any such effect as is claimed in the CO2 narrative.

And the reason is convection. Well, that and how CO2 absorbs light.

No, convection is effectively irrelevant to the effect of additional CO2 on the absorption of IR radiation by atmospheric air.

[Pants-of-dog]

Huh? Run that one by me again.

Seriously?

Are you not clear on what this whole discussion is about?

The one that you started?

[Truth To Power]

Seriously?

Are you not clear on what this whole discussion is about?

The one that you started?

I am, you aren't.

[BeesKnee5]

Looks like all the pofo experts are coming out of the woodwork.

Maybe they should publish their research .



Seriously, to believe now that every scientific body has been duped does seem rather far fetched.

Far more likely that they do understand GHG and how it relates to changes in the earths climate.

As an aside a researcher well known for doubting that Humans have a noticeable effect through greenhouse emissions made a bit of an admission
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/ou ... published/
"we get an effective climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of around 1.9 deg. C. "

Whilst their dataset went off the charts
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/ua ... -90-deg-c/


Meanwhile the Pope has gone all sciency
https://press.vatican.va/content/salast ... 1004a.html


And the British institute of actuaries have decided we've got our maths wrong on the risks
https://actuaries.org.uk/media/qeydewmk ... heissue.io

[Pants-of-dog]

I am, you aren't.

Okay.

Then please tell me exactly what your argument was.

[Truth To Power]

Then please tell me exactly what your argument was.

Angstrom's experiment was about atmospheric physics -- the physics of infrared radiative energy transfer in the atmosphere -- so any notion that atmospheric physics is not relevant to it, or vice versa, is nothing but absurd and disingenuous gaslighting.

[Pants-of-dog]

Angstrom's experiment was about atmospheric physics -- the physics of infrared radiative energy transfer in the atmosphere -- so any notion that atmospheric physics is not relevant to it, or vice versa, is nothing but absurd and disingenuous gaslighting.

Then when you claimed that atmospheric physics was not relevant to Angrstom’s experiment, you were involved in “absurd and disingenuous gaslighting”.

Sure, but this self criticism is not useful.

Can we agree that we were discussing the relevance of Angstrom’s work to atmospheric physics?

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

The atmosphere cannot simply be treated as a tube full of gas: it has multiple layers, each with its properties, and how these layers interact is important.

[Truth To Power]

Seriously, to believe now that every scientific body

"Every"? Really?

has been duped does seem rather far fetched.

Not when you understand how every economics body has been duped by neoclassical liars to advance the policy agenda of rich, greedy, privileged parasites.

Far more likely that they do understand GHG and how it relates to changes in the earths climate.

We know that's not true, as their GHG-based climate models do not make reliably accurate predictions -- even when they are dishonestly tweaked to do so, and the data systematically falsified to agree with them.

As an aside a researcher well known for doubting that Humans have a noticeable effect through greenhouse emissions made a bit of an admission
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/ou ... published/
"we get an effective climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of around 1.9 deg. C."

You (surprise!) disingenuously deleted the first part of the sentence to completely change its meaning, a typical exercise in deceit that is normal, routine, and expected from those pushing the anti-science, anti-truth CO2 narrative. Here is the whole thing: "If we assume ALL *observed* warming of the deep oceans and land since 1970 has been due to humans, we get an effective climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of around 1.9 deg. C." And as it is indisputable that there was an internal cyclical cooling trend ~1940-70, we know for a fact that not all the warming since 1970 can be due to humans.

Whilst their dataset went off the charts
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/ua ... -90-deg-c/

What do you mean, "off the charts"? The combination of a strong El Nino and extremely -- and very unexpectedly -- high solar activity over the last year and a half pushed temperature fractionally higher than the El Nino peaks of 1998 and 2016. As solar activity was at a sustained, multi-millennial high in the 20th century, it is not surprising that temperatures have recovered to something more like the normal Holocene level following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years -- which disingenuous anti-fossil-fuel propagandists deceitfully call the "pre-industrial" temperature level.

Meanwhile the Pope has gone all sciency
https://press.vatican.va/content/salast ... 1004a.html

Which should tell you something.

And the British institute of actuaries have decided we've got our maths wrong on the risks
https://actuaries.org.uk/media/qeydewmk ... heissue.io

Likewise.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

The atmosphere cannot simply be treated as a tube full of gas:

It can when the question is how adding CO2 to it affects its absorption of infrared radiation.

it has multiple layers, each with its properties, and how these layers interact is important.

Yes, of course; but if those layers and properties have no discernible effect on how additional CO2 affects IR absorption -- which they do not -- then CO2 is irrelevant to IR absorption. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way of explaining that fact of scientific inference to you.

[Pants-of-dog]

but if those layers and properties have no discernible effect on how additional CO2 affects IR absorption -- which they do not --

This seems incorrect.

Provide evidence for this claim.

[Truth To Power]

Then when you claimed that atmospheric physics was not relevant to Angrstom’s experiment,

I did not make any such claim, which is why you have not quoted me making it, but have merely made it up and falsely attributed it to me, as is your wont. I stated that convection is not relevant to Angstrom's experiment, because it isn't.

you were involved in “absurd and disingenuous gaslighting”.

More accurately, I would have been, if I had actually made the claim that you falsely and disingenuously claim I made.

Sure, but this self criticism is not useful.

Disgraceful and despicable. Thus, not surprising.

Can we agree that we were discussing the relevance of Angstrom’s work to atmospheric physics?

Yes: specifically, to the physics of additional CO2's effect on infrared radiative energy transfer in the lower troposphere, which is how CO2 from fossil fuel use is falsely claimed to have a powerful determining effect on the earth's surface temperature and climate.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes: specifically, to the physics of additional CO2's effect on infrared radiative energy transfer in the lower troposphere, which is how CO2 from fossil fuel use is falsely claimed to have a powerful determining effect on the earth's surface temperature and climate.

Okay.

And we agree that Angstrom did not address convection in his experiment.

Yes or no?

[Truth To Power]

This seems incorrect.

No. It both seems and is objectively correct, and I will thank you to remember it.

Provide evidence for this claim.

Convection operates through differences in the temperature and density of fluids, not their composition, and the composition of atmospheric air in a given convective cell does not vary enough to measurably affect its IR absorption. The only discernible effect on radiative energy transfer occurs at altitude, when convective cooling causes water vapor to condense out as cloud droplets, which reflect electromagnetic radiation in the relevant visible and infrared wavelengths. But that has nothing to do with CO2.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

I asked you to provide evidence.

Your explanation about what you believe is happening is not evidence.

Since you are not providing evidence, there is every possibility that you are simply incorrect.

Now, do you agree that Angstrom did not account for convection?

Yes or no.

[Truth To Power]

And we agree that Angstrom did not address convection in his experiment.

Yes or no?

Yes, that is correct. He also did not address a substantial number of your other favored irrelevancies, including contortion of logic, conflation of unrelated terms, confusion of physical principles, conversion of red herrings into fallacies, convenient neglect to provide direct quotes of claimed statements, concatenation of nonscience and contention without substance.