- 20 Sep 2023 17:42
#15287778
delete
Last edited by Truth To Power on 20 Sep 2023 17:44, edited 1 time in total.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you seem to be making an error or something is unckear.
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.
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.
But that seems to be saying that sea level air is being blocked by sea level air.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please clarify exactly how this lab experiment disproved ACC.
Truth To Power wrote: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.
Truth To Power wrote: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 wrote:The lab experiment did not look at different levels of atmosphere and their interactions.
Are we no longer discussing the lab experiment?
When I asked how, you eventually started discussing different levels of atmosphere.
The lab experiment does not seem to look at that.
Pants-of-dog wrote:@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 wrote:if there is any doubt about what Angstrom did or the results
Truth To Power wrote: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.
ingliz wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:Blah blah blah
Truth To Power wrote:Yes, that's the one I posted, the only one I could find in English on the Internet.
Pants-of-dog wrote: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 wrote: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.
ingliz wrote:Don't you get bored posting the same shite over and over?
Ångström was wrong.
The science has moved on.
Truth To Power wrote: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 wrote:Correct.
^ this is the continuation of the pre-1948 confli[…]
Well if you arrest people for not approving of is[…]
A millennial who went to college in his 30s when […]