Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
In order to make their hypothesis that human CO2 is causing global warming work, a small group at or associated with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) used the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to ignore or rewrite data, create false mechanisms, misuse science and the scientific method. One sign of malfeasance is if the claim is made from computer model output. A second sign is a design to overthrow an existing explanation without adequate proof it is inadequate. An almost guaranteed sign is a combination of both. They are aided and abetted by people acting for a variety of reasons but rarely with understanding of climatology. Usually they study one part of the complex, dynamic, open system that is global climate out of context.
Challenging Existing Monsoon Theory
Two recent articles by Willis Eschenbach here and here speak to the massive energy transfer from the surplus region of the atmosphere to the deficit region (See Figure 1(A). Even a small change in this energy transfer swamps a human caused CO2 warming signal. Monsoons are a major part of that transfer. They also cause scientific and therefore political grief for the IPCC and their associates. Typically, scientific gyrations to avoid identifying anything that challenges the hypothesis only serve to undermine it.
The traditional explanation of monsoons is provided later in this article and centres on differential heating of land and water. A 2008 article by Tapio Schneider and Simona Bordoni proposed
“an overhaul of a theory about the cause of the seasonal pattern of heavy winds and rainfall that essentially had held firm for more than 300 years.”
This was achieved as follows.
The duo used a computer-generated, water-covered, hypothetical earth (an “aquaplanet”) to simulate monsoon formation and found that differences in heat capacities between land and sea were not necessary.
They claimed that,
Monsoons arise instead because of an interaction between the tropical circulation and large-scale turbulent eddies generated in the atmosphere in middle latitudes.
This shows inadequate understanding of what is happening because it implies the monsoons are just large scale mid-latitude cyclones. It is like saying a hurricane is a mid-latitude cyclone.
The IPCC And Monsoons
Why are Schneider and Bordoni doing this? The likely answer is the monsoons are major mechanisms in global climate that alone can explain what is wrong with the IPCC climate models and why their predictions (projections) fail. They don’t know how to include them so they try to suggest the traditional explanation is invalid.
Chapter 8 of the IPCC 2007 Report identifies the issues and severe limitations associated with the computer models used to make their projections. It is a litany of why the models don’t work and in stark contradiction to the certainties claimed in the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM) that guides all governments. The list is long and includes major mechanisms. Omission or inadequacy of understanding of any one would cause model simulation of the atmosphere to fail. Most troubling for them is all of them vary sufficiently annually to swamp any possible human input. Monsoons are just one example.
Many associate the name monsoon with the Indian subcontinent because they are most dramatic and critical to agriculture there. Monsoons, defined as the seasonal reversal of winds and accompanying distinct wet and dry seasons, occur in many other regions. They are a major mechanisms for transferring energy and moisture around the globe, but the IPCC tell us that,
In short, most AOGCMs (Atmosphere – Ocean General Circulation Models) do not simulate the spatial or intra-seasonal variation of monsoon precipitation accurately.
In Chapter 11 another comment underscores the limitations of the models.
Monsoon rainfall simulations and projections vary substantially from model to model, thus we have little confidence in model precipitation projections for northern Australia. More broadly, across the continent summer rainfall projections vary substantially from model to model, reducing confidence in their reliability.
Similar, failures occurred in a study of model predictions of monsoons in Africa. (Waiting For The Monsoon, Science, VOL 313, August 4 2006)
Climate scientists cannot say what has delayed the monsoon this year or whether the delay is part of a larger trend. Nor do they fully understand the mechanisms that govern rainfall over the Sahel. Most frustrating, perhaps, is that their prognostic tools— computer simulations of future climate— disagree on what lies ahead. “The issue of where Sahel climate is going is contentious,” says Alessandra Giannini, a climate scientist at Columbia University. Some models predict a wetter future; others, a drier one. “They cannot all be right.”
The IPCC statement is bizarre. They cannot know if their model simulates the pattern accurately because they don’t have the data to recreate the pattern. The Sahel study explains,
One obvious problem is a lack of data. Africa’s network of 1152 weather watch stations, which provide real-time data and supply international climate archives, is just one-eighth the minimum density recommended by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Furthermore, the stations that do exist often fail to report.
Climate models only have validity if they are verified, but as Vincent Gray pointed out originally and more recently this has never been done with IPCC models. Verification involves the ability to replicate past climate conditions. Tweaking the model until it approximates those conditions is not verification. The conundrum is that without data you cannot create an accurate model or verify it; maybe a classic scientific Catch 22?
Regions of Surplus and Deficit Energy
The role of monsoons in regional and global climate is to move surplus energy to a deficit region. Conditions over the Indian Ocean prior to onset of the Indian Monsoon are ideal for maximum evaporation; water and air temperatures are high and wind blowing toward the land transfer enormous volumes of moisture and latent heat. This is added to the transfer of energy from the global area of surplus to the deficit area. On a global scale the difference is illustrated in (Figure 1 (A) (B)). The cross over point in the two-dimensional diagram becomes a line on the map of zero energy balance (ZEB) that in each hemisphere separates the surplus energy of
the tropical region from the deficit of the polar region.
Figure 1 (A) (B) Source: Smithson, Briggs and Ball
The average latitude of the ZEB in Figure 1(A) is 38°N and 40°S. The hemispheric difference is caused by the different land/water ratio. Figure 1 (B) shows the seasonal shift of the ZEB for the Northern Hemisphere with average latitudes of 65° in summer and 35° in winter. The ZEB is coincident with major climate boundaries such as the snow line, the Polar Front, the Jet Stream, and the northern and southern limits of the Boreal Forest.
Monsoon as Continental Sea and Land Breezes: The Traditional Explanation.
Schneider and Bordoni base their argument for a need for new explanation on the rapidity with which the Monsoon develops and reverses. They imply the major and traditional explanation of differential heating of land and water driving the monsoon wind reversal is implausible. The rate of seasonal change is remarkable and easily exploited as a fear factor among the public who don’t understand or never see the numbers involved in any natural phenomenon. For example, Few know that every summer approximately 10 million square kilometres of Arctic sea ice melt in approximately 145 days – a rate of approximately 69,000 square kilometres every day, an area larger than West Virginia.
This is the same mechanism of differential heating that creates the 24 hour cycle of wind reversals near water known as Sea and Land breezes. Land heats and cools more easily and rapidly than water. During the day the land heats more than nearby water creating Low pressure. Air pressure over the cooler water is a relative High pressure, so wind blows from the water to the land – a Sea breeze. At night the reverse occurs as the land cools more rapidly, the pressure pattern reverses and the wind reverses creating a Land breeze.
The Asian monsoon is a form of Sea/Land breeze on an annual and continental scale that combines with imbalance of global energy to create a massive horizontal
movement of energy and moisture (Figure 2)
Figure 2: General schematic of monsoonal wind directions.
Source; The author.
During the winter central Asia cools creating high pressure relative to the warmth and low pressure over the Indian Ocean. Dry air blows out of central Asia and is heated significantly adiabatically as it descends from the Tibetan Plateau. It blows across the Indian subcontinent and surrounding areas as a very hot, dry desiccating wind (Blue arrows). This makes the summer monsoon so important because soil moisture is reduced to the wilting point and is usually insufficient for seed germination.
In the summer central Asia warms rapidly and low pressure forms relative to the high pressure over the Indian Ocean. Warm wet winds blow toward Asia that create heavy rain through daily buildup of convective clouds or even heavier rain when orographically lifted by first the Ghat Mountains then more dramatically by the Himalaya Mountains (Red arrows). Data for Cherrapunji (approximately located near the “Low” in Figure 2) illustrates the impact. Precipitation records for 1971-1990 show July the wettest month with 3,272 mm and January the driest with 11 mm.
Inadequate Data Guarantees Inadequate Understanding
A factor in the monsoon is the relationship of the ZEB with the Polar Front and the Jet stream. It is another climate mechanisms about which little is known. As recently as 2001 Wang noted;
“It was pointed out some decades ago that the jet stream migration was a prominent phenomenon associated with the seasonal change of the general circulation. It was also noted that there have (sic) two stages of the jet stream migration within the system of the Asian monsoon. However, the relationship of jet stream migration and the onset of the Asian summer monsoon are not that clear.”
Normally it moves north of the Himalayas by the end of May. If it is delayed, such as apparently can occur with an El Nino, the monsoon flow of air to the interior of Asia is delayed. People climbing Mt Everest know the season is determined by when the Jet stream moves north and climbing becomes possible.
Things the Schneider/Bordoni article illustrate beyond the determination to validate the IPCC hypothesis are; inadequacy of the data; very limited understanding of the major mechanisms of weather and climate; and the continued political nature of climate science. The latter involves manufacturing the science to prove the IPCC/CRU hypothesis that human CO2 is virtually the sole cause of warming and climate change.
Kevin Kilty says:
January 4, 2014 at 12:57 pm
“But I don’t understand what is silly about the coupled feedback of CO2 and water vapor. Increasing temperature from elevated CO2, in turn, increases water vapor and that, in turn, increases temperature. ”
————————–
Kevin K, first you have to understand what the term “ppm” means.
Which is, …. “parts per million”. Or, the number of molecules of a specific gas (CO2) that exists within every 1 million molecules of atmospheric gasses. It is the percentage of each gas in the atmosphere expresses in “number of molecules”. Ref: http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/pdf/airgas.pdf
Kevin, the atmospheric contains 20.95% Oxygen (O2) …. which is equal to 209,500 ppm of O2 … or 209,500 molecules of O2 per 1,000,000 molecules of air.
The atmosphere contains 0.0398% Carbon Dioxide (CO2) … which is equal to 398 ppm of CO2 … or 398 molecules of CO2 per 1,000,000 molecules of air.
But now Kevin, in the earth’s Temperate and Tropical Zones, where 80+% of all Solar heating occurs, the atmosphere contains an average of 2% to 4% Water vapor (H2O) …. which is equal to 20,000 ppm to 40,000 ppm, respectively, … or 20,000 to 40,000 molecules of H2O (water) per 1,000,000 molecules of air.
Now I ask you Kevin, just how much of a “coupled feedback” of thermal energy can 398 molecules of CO2 ….. have on 20,000 to 40,000 molecules of H2O vapor?
Given the FACT that both molecule types are absorbing and emitting IR energy, I really don’t think those 398 molecules of CO2 are helping much with that “coupled feedback” thingy.
As a matter of FACT, … if you increased the CO2 ppm by 402 to a total of 800 ppm ….. if would have no more affect on the air temperature than it would if you increased the H2O vapor by 402 ppm to a total of 20,402 ppm.
And ps, 20,402 ppm of H2O vapor (humidity) is little more than a moderately humid July 4th day in New Jersey, PA or where ever you might be.
Kevin Kilty says:
January 4, 2014 at 12:57 pm
“I do not know what value the global variation of column water vapor has, but it is surely far more variable than the equivalent measure for the items on Mosher’s list. This is why I said water vapor is fundamentally different than the others.”
————————–
You simply don’t understand. The proponents of CAGW …… EXCLUDE the atmospheric H2O vapor (humidity) from that “list” simply because the inclusion of it would NEGATE all their “junk science” claims about CO2. It is an “out of sight, out of mind” thingy.
===============
Kevin Kilty says:
January 4, 2014 at 1:13 pm
“In fact, most places in the West cool quickly at night because the air is dry.”
————————–
Well, ….. surprise, surprise, Kevin K, …. just how is it possible for the air to “cool quickly at night” ….. given the FACT that the night time air contains the same 398 ppm of CO2 as does the daytime air?
I betcha iffen you increased the CO2 to 800 ppm it would still “cool just as quickly at night”, …… right, Kevin K?
So what does that tell you about the “increased anthropogenic warming effect” as a result of an increase in atmospheric CO2?
It tells me that the “effect” is so miniscule that it can not be measured.
Not only are the proponents of CAGW guilty of “hijacking” the Interglacial Warming from 1870 to present and attributing all said warming to their “junk science” claims about CO2, …. but they are also guilty of “hijacking” the warming effects of atmospheric H2O vapor (humidity) to justify those same “junk science” claims about CO2.
Samuel C Cogar says:
January 5, 2014 at 7:24 am
Kevin Kilty says:
January 4, 2014 at 12:57 pm
“But I don’t understand what is silly about the coupled feedback of CO2 and water vapor. Increasing temperature from elevated CO2, in turn, increases water vapor and that, in turn, increases temperature. ”
————————–
Kevin K, first you have to understand what the term “ppm” means.
Which is, …. “parts per million”. Or, the number of molecules of a specific gas (CO2) that exists within every 1 million molecules of atmospheric gasses. It is the percentage of each gas in the atmosphere expresses in “number of molecules”. Ref: http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/pdf/airgas.pdf
Kevin, the atmospheric contains 20.95% Oxygen (O2) …. which is equal to 209,500 ppm of O2 … or 209,500 molecules of O2 per 1,000,000 molecules of air.
The atmosphere contains 0.0398% Carbon Dioxide (CO2) … which is equal to 398 ppm of CO2 … or 398 molecules of CO2 per 1,000,000 molecules of air.
But now Kevin, in the earth’s Temperate and Tropical Zones, where 80+% of all Solar heating occurs, the atmosphere contains an average of 2% to 4% Water vapor (H2O) …. which is equal to 20,000 ppm to 40,000 ppm, respectively, … or 20,000 to 40,000 molecules of H2O (water) per 1,000,000 molecules of air.
Now I ask you Kevin, just how much of a “coupled feedback” of thermal energy can 398 molecules of CO2 ….. have on 20,000 to 40,000 molecules of H2O vapor?
Given the FACT that both molecule types are absorbing and emitting IR energy, I really don’t think those 398 molecules of CO2 are helping much with that “coupled feedback” thingy.
As a matter of FACT, … if you increased the CO2 ppm by 402 to a total of 800 ppm ….. if would have no more affect on the air temperature than it would if you increased the H2O vapor by 402 ppm to a total of 20,402 ppm.
And ps, 20,402 ppm of H2O vapor (humidity) is little more than a moderately humid July 4th day in New Jersey, PA or where ever you might be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Samuel:
The thing to remember about the GHE is that all LWIR has to exit at the TOA (top of atm).
So adding more GHG to the high atmosphere will mean that emission is transferred yet a little higher – to a colder zone – meaning less efficiency in that emission.
You have to think of the path-length of the radiation (analogous to putting on thicker insulation).
Temperate zones contains a lot of (relatively) dry air – within sub-tropical highs at 30 N/S and over desert, so indeed additional GHG is significant.
http://climatechange1.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/tat-rad-july.jpg
LWIR= Microwaves
Man uses microwaves for communications and remote sensing . The ERP for american TV transmitter is 100.000 watts . Why is the wireless electronic industry allowed to use the atmosphere as part of their inforstructure when they know the result is heat .
TB says:
January 5, 2014 at 11:56 am
“So adding more GHG to the high atmosphere will mean that emission is transferred yet a little higher – to a colder zone – meaning less efficiency in that emission.”
—————-
You musta meant “high troposphere“, …. not atmosphere. But who cares about “less efficiency” at that altitude because the temperature there is like -60C (-76F). Like the winter surface temperature in Antarctica.
Take a look-see here: http://www.weather-climate.org.uk/02.php
“You have to think of the path-length of the radiation (analogous to putting on thicker insulation).”
—————-
Bad analogy. The higher the altitude the lower the air pressure. And the lower the air pressure means the lesser number of air molecules and the farther the distance between them. Thus your “thicker insulation” would be like putting a fishnet on top of your bed covers to keep you warmer.
And don’t be forgeetin that those GHG molecules absorb the LWIR from a “point source” and re-radiates it in all directions, thus very little of it is radiated directly back toward the earth’s surface. Like a light bulb that absorbs its energy from a “point” source (electric wire) and re-radiates it in all directions as “visible light”.
“Temperate zones contains a lot of (relatively) dry air – within sub-tropical highs at 30 N/S and over desert, so indeed additional GHG is significant.”
—————-
No they don’t. Temperate zones contains a lot of (relatively) moist air …. thus indeed additional H2O vapor (humidity) is a significant factor. The other GHGs would have to be above 15,000 ppm before they would become a significant factor. CH4 maybe a little less.
TB, think of the atmosphere and the transfer of IR energy between GHG molecules …. like watching the “action” of the “flashing lights” of a Pinball Machine when you “shoot” all five (5) steel balls out at the same time.
Samuel C Cogar says:
January 6, 2014 at 5:02 am
TB says:
January 5, 2014 at 11:56 am
“So adding more GHG to the high atmosphere will mean that emission is transferred yet a little higher – to a colder zone – meaning less efficiency in that emission.”
—————-
You must a meant “high troposphere“, …. not atmosphere. But who cares about “less efficiency” at that altitude because the temperature there is like -60C (-76F). Like the winter surface temperature in Antarctica.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No I did mean High atmosphere – to include the Stratosphere – which is exhibiting cooling as it’s at the region (TOA) where emission is greatest. And Low temps is vitally important because the Earth cant hold onto the LWIR – it just has to let it go or we’d really be in trouble (no livable planets actually). Because the IR is emitted from GHG molecules which are at a lower temp, which is less efficient and therefore has a greater “insulation” effect.
“Take a look-see here: http://www.weather-climate.org.uk/02.php”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Err – read a little lower please.
“You have to think of the path-length of the radiation (analogous to putting on thicker insulation).”
“Bad analogy. The higher the altitude the lower the air pressure. And the lower the air pressure means the lesser number of air molecules and the farther the distance between them. Thus your “thicker insulation” would be like putting a fishnet on top of your bed covers to keep you warmer.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Correct analogy – wrong conception:
You are thinking of density when you say “fishnet on top of your bed”. What the effect is, is increasing the distance (path-length) that any IR photon has to navigate through GHG absorbing molecules BEFORE exiting to space
“And don’t be forgeetin that those GHG molecules absorb the LWIR from a “point source” and re-radiates it in all directions, thus very little of it is radiated directly back toward the earth’s surface. Like a light bulb that absorbs its energy from a “point” source (electric wire) and re-radiates it in all directions as “visible light”.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No they don’t absorb from a point source – just as they radiate to all directions, they absorb photons similarly from all directions (but mostly from below as they get higher in the atm). A predictable proportion of those photons are redirected downwards, and not “very little” since anything below the horizontal includes a downwards vector.
“Temperate zones contains a lot of (relatively) dry air – within sub-tropical highs at 30 N/S and over desert, so indeed additional GHG is significant.”
“No they don’t. Temperate zones contains a lot of (relatively) moist air …. thus indeed additional H2O vapor (humidity) is a significant factor. The other GHGs would have to be above 15,000 ppm before they would become a significant factor. CH4 maybe a little less.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Err, they most certainly do – sorry to pull rank – but I’m a retired Meteorologist (same as Anthony’s profession) .
Look at this:
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/gifs/LWALL6.GIF
Shows max LWIR emission (Analogous to dry/warm ) just where I said – concentrated within the Sub-Tropical High pressure belts and over N Africa. You do know that the descending arm of Hadley Cells dry out to a vast extent to form the belts of HP?
“TB, think of the atmosphere and the transfer of IR energy between GHG molecules …. like watching the “action” of the “flashing lights” of a Pinball Machine when you “shoot” all five (5) steel balls out at the same time.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A better analogy is one of those Japanese pin-ball machines (Pachinko) that drop down and they collide with pins on the way down thus slowing/diverting their path. If the “depth” of the pins was greater they’d take longer to reach the bottom.
Photon release is the result of valence electron interaction between inner and outer shells. Temperature = electrical potential at work
TB says:
January 6, 2014 at 9:40 am
“No I did mean High atmosphere – to include the Stratosphere – which is exhibiting cooling as it’s at the region (TOA) where emission is greatest. ”
—————-
Of course the TOA is where emission (into space) is greatest. It’s the only place the emission of LWIR into space occurs.
But the greatest emission of LWIR occurs at/from the surface of the earth. And the 2nd greatest emission of LWIR occurs where ever the greatest amount of atmospheric H2O vapor exists.
TB says: “And Low temps is vitally important because the Earth cant hold onto the LWIR – it just has to let it go …..”
—————-
And the GHG gas molecules can’t hold onto the LWIR either – they just have to let it go …
TB says: “Because the IR is emitted from GHG molecules which are at a lower temp, which is less efficient and therefore has a greater “insulation” effect.”
—————-
Now that is called “weazelwording”. It matters not a “twit” what the temperature of the GHG molecules are. If they contain IR energy then they will be emitting IR energy and cooling down in the process. But if they are absorbing more IR energy than they are emitting then their temperature will increase.
TB says: “You are thinking of density when you say “fishnet on top of your bed”. What the effect is, is increasing the distance (path-length) that any IR photon has to navigate through GHG absorbing molecules BEFORE exiting to space”
—————-
DUH, what do you think density means? The color of the GHG molecules or the color of of those IR photons, per chance?
TB says: “No they don’t absorb from a point source – just as they radiate to all directions, they absorb photons similarly from all directions (but mostly from below as they get higher in the atm). ”
—————-
The photons are a point source. And “yes”, GHGs can or will absorb photons from all directions … but only IF and when one of those photons strikes a GHG molecule. And the higher up in the atmosphere those GHG molecules are, …. the less chance there is of them being struct by a photon.
TB says: “A predictable proportion of those photons are redirected downwards, and not “very little” since anything below the horizontal includes a downwards vector.”
—————-
“YUP”, ….. but the higher up in the atmosphere those GHG molecules are, ….. the smaller n’ smaller the “target” for that downward vector becomes. Even at the surface with a flat area to the horizon there is less than a 50% chance of the emited IR striking the surface. And it decreases exponentially the higher in altitude the GHG molecules are.
TB says: “Err, they most certainly do – sorry to pull rank – but I’m a retired Meteorologist ”
—————-
That’s OK, I’m a retired computer design engineer and I have an AB Degree in Physical and Biological Science so ya best be careful how you … jerk on my chain …. because “rank” means nothing to me. Degree or no degree, only your ability to apply your learned knowledge matters to me.
TB says: “Look at this: ….. Shows max LWIR emission (Analogous to dry/warm ) ”
—————-
“Analogous” means nothing to me other than “weazelworded” rhetoric.
TB says: “You do know that the descending arm of Hadley Cells dry out to a vast extent to form the belts of HP?”
—————-
A vast extent??? More of the same, HUH? Iffen you don’t know how much H2O vapor ppm is in that air then you don’t know diddly. But I’ll bet you a cold beer that the H2O vapor content is greater than 5,000 ppm (0.5%). Which is 12.5 times greater than the 398 ppm of CO2.
TB says: “A better analogy is one of those Japanese pin-ball machines (Pachinko) that drop down and they collide with pins on the way down thus slowing/diverting their path. If the “depth” of the pins was greater they’d take longer to reach the bottom.”
—————-
That was a tad better analogy, ….. but no Cupie doll winner for you …. because it doesn’t simulate the density of the GHG molecules in the atmosphere.
You will have to decrease the pin “density” (remove them) as the “depth” of the pins increases …. to actually simulate the atmosphere. And when you do that the “pin-balls” will reach the bottom a lot quicker.
And that is exactly what happens to those “hot” daytime desert temperatures just as soon as the Sun goes down. Due to the extremely low H20 vapor ppm in desert locales, the IR collisions are greatly reduced …. and thus the IR quickly escapes to outer space …… and the temperature “drops like a rock”. From 100+F down to freezing (32F) or below in just a couple hours or so. And that is a FACT, whether or not you want to embrace it.
OOPS, miskeyed my “edit” characters in that last paragraph.
Samuel C Cogar says:
January 7, 2014 at 8:11 am
TB says:
January 6, 2014 at 9:40 am
“No I did mean High atmosphere – to include the Stratosphere – which is exhibiting cooling as it’s at the region (TOA) where emission is greatest. ”
“Of course the TOA is where emission (into space) is greatest. It’s the only place the emission of LWIR into space occurs.
But the greatest emission of LWIR occurs at/from the surface of the earth. And the 2nd greatest emission of LWIR occurs where ever the greatest amount of atmospheric H2O vapor exists.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, incorrect appreciation of radiative transfer re reference to point of exit from the system.
All LWIR has to exit at TOA – Whether WV stops it being “captured” by CO2 in the lower Troposphere or not. The point of exit “the outside door” is at TOA. It is therefore vitally important in the transference of LWIR to space. No matter what happens below that level, if there is a greater vertical depth of GHG molecules aloft then IR will be slowed.
It is also NOT up for dispute that large areas of the Sub-Tropics belts are HP cells. Under the descent arm of the Hadley Cells. And therefore dry apart from shallow CuSc (convective cloud) forming in the Trades over ocean. Therefore there exists a large low humidity pathway for terrestrial LWIR to space.
TB says: “And Low temps is vitally important because the Earth cant hold onto the LWIR – it just has to let it go …..”
And the GHG gas molecules can’t hold onto the LWIR either – they just have to let it go …
TB says: “Because the IR is emitted from GHG molecules which are at a lower temp, which is less efficient and therefore has a greater “insulation” effect.
“Now that is called “weazelwording”. It matters not a “twit” what the temperature of the GHG molecules are. If they contain IR energy then they will be emitting IR energy and cooling down in the process. But if they are absorbing more IR energy than they are emitting then their temperature will increase.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not “weazelwording” at all – Just basic radiative (S-B) physics – look it up in text books (or re-read) and also try Beer-Lambert for an explanation if the logic of it evades you.
It’s quite simple. IR “photons” have their path-length increased as GHG molecules aggregate higher up. These molecules additionally are at a lower temp than any below and so are less efficient at re-radiating them. Also try examining a typical tropical LR (lapse rate) – I think you will find there is a LR right to the Tropopause. Therefore a GHG molecule closest approaching said Tropopause will be colder. And the IR absorption “warming” is irrelevant since relative to those molecules below it (at higher temp), as they are also receiving IR and likewise warming/cooling via absorption/emission.
“TB says: “You are thinking of density when you say “fishnet on top of your bed”. What the effect is, is increasing the distance (path-length) that any IR photon has to navigate through GHG absorbing molecules BEFORE exiting to space”
“DUH, what do you think density means? The color of the GHG molecules or the color of of those IR photons, per chance?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, your analogy of “Fishnet” is essentially a 2D object it has length + width but negligible height.
If you have a problem with what I said, then I suggest it is your analogy that’s at fault and not my correction of it. Which is correct.
TB says: “No they don’t absorb from a point source – just as they radiate to all directions, they absorb photons similarly from all directions (but mostly from below as they get higher in the atm). ”
“The photons are a point source. And “yes”, GHGs can or will absorb photons from all directions … but only IF and when one of those photons strikes a GHG molecule. And the higher up in the atmosphere those GHG molecules are, …. the less chance there is of them being struct by a photon.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Look, a “source” is, like, the source of the photon – and not the photon itself.
And indeed emitting LWIR comes from a massively “blurred” source and certainly not “point”.
TB says: “A predictable proportion of those photons are redirected downwards, and not “very little” since anything below the horizontal includes a downwards vector.”
“YUP”, ….. but the higher up in the atmosphere those GHG molecules are, ….. the smaller n’ smaller the “target” for that downward vector becomes. Even at the surface with a flat area to the horizon there is less than a 50% chance of the emited IR striking the surface. And it decreases exponentially the higher in altitude the GHG molecules are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Look, we’re not talking quantitatively here – we are talking relatively – as in changes from past conditions. The point is GHG molecules in the higher atmosphere present a “resistance” to outgoing LWIR that is continually being added too. So there is an effect – I didn’t say it was massive – obviously not, but modelling/empirical learning from the ~150 years of research says it HAS an effect.
TB says: “Err, they most certainly do – sorry to pull rank – but I’m a retired Meteorologist ”
“That’s OK, I’m a retired computer design engineer and I have an AB Degree in Physical and Biological Science so ya best be careful how you … jerk on my chain …. because “rank” means nothing to me.
Degree or no degree, only your ability to apply your learned knowledge matters to me.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Fair enough, but Meteorology is the …“The scientific study of the atmosphere and of atmospheric conditions, especially as they relate to weather and weather forecasting.”
And likewise your reasoning to me – I was just letting you know where my reasoning came from.
No jerking (of anything) from this end.
TB says: “Look at this: ….. Shows max LWIR emission (Analogous to dry/warm ) ”
“Analogous” means nothing to me other than “weazelworded” rhetoric.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Weazelword” again – is that “analogous” to “I can’t think of a scientific response” so I’ll just …..
Again, It’s quite simple, basic Meteorology. Google it….
Look at this Sat pic: http://www.satsignal.eu/wxsat/Meteosat7-full-scan.jpg
Does it look to you that cloud dominates the sub-equatorial zones? Really?
My above disputed statement is correct.
TB says: “You do know that the descending arm of Hadley Cells dry out to a vast extent to form the belts of HP?”
“A vast extent??? More of the same, HUH? Iffen you don’t know how much H2O vapor ppm is in that air then you don’t know diddly. But I’ll bet you a cold beer that the H2O vapor content is greater than 5,000 ppm (0.5%). Which is 12.5 times greater than the 398 ppm of CO2.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No , just more basic meteorology. PPM of H20 is in the figure you quoted anyway was a tropospheric tropical average that is much less than that found in the dry zones. When considering the dry high Troposhere and especially dry air within the sub-Tropical HP, not to mention the Sahara. I’m sorry but if you cannot assimilate the image of global LWIR emission I linked, then I’m flogging a dead horse here.
Look at this SkewT balloon vertical temp/humidity ascent profile…
http://www.weathergraphics.com/raob/5inver.jpg
This typical of that seen in the zones I talk of. Take the dashed line on the left ( dew point ) and drop it dawn the HMR (humidity mixing ration) dashed lines. You will find an equivalent dew point at surface pressure. What do you see? Yes, that’s right, dp’s of the order of –30C. There’s a lot less ppm of H2O than your quoted figures in that profile. By computation, the relative humidity in bulk of that profile is above the more moist boundary layer is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You again exclude from your “density” the simple concept of path-length. That is in addition to density (disregarding repeated collision) – That’s what the Pachina analogy is about – yes, of course the density of “pins” that impact the ball on its fall slows – but so too does the few extra pins added at the bottom of its fall – an increase in path-length. Again I ask you to read up Beer-Lambert – or at least reread it.
“And that is exactly what happens to those “hot” daytime desert temperatures just as soon as the Sun goes down. Due to the extremely low H20 vapor ppm in desert locales, the IR collisions are greatly reduced …. and thus the IR quickly escapes to outer space …… and the temperature “drops like a rock”. From 100+F down to freezing (32F) or below in just a couple hours or so. And that is a FACT, whether or not you want to embrace it.\”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thankyou for proving my point – as you started out this “discussion” by stating….
“You simply don’t understand. The proponents of CAGW …… EXCLUDE the atmospheric H2O vapor (humidity) from that “list” simply because the inclusion of it would NEGATE all their “junk science” claims about CO2. It is an “out of sight, out of mind” thingy.”
So you originally wanted to rule out a CO2 GHE by arguing H2O/WV dominates that effect and now you (thank-you) say deserts are dry and so do cool. Precisely, as does the clear sub-Tropical HP belts you see on the Meteosat Pic I linked and the LWIR emission scan I linked earlier.
Oh, and you are also ignorant of another piece of basic meteorology – the surface inversion – this in a desert will be just a few feet above the surface due near calm conditions and a highly insulating sandy surface (to high sub-surface temps) under clear skies. All the heat lost by night-time radiation in desert is confined to a shallow layer at the surface and is rapidly reheated by Solar SW soon after sunrise and convected aloft (dry – so no visible thermals/cloud) to maintain a generally stable max temp ( in absence of advection of warm/cooler air).
Look H2O is not excluded (for whatever reason you might imagine) – It’s just that it is NOT the whole story.
Copy/paste resulted in section being deleted .. here
By computation, the relative humidity in bulk of that profile is above the more moist boundary layer is <%.
TB says: “A better analogy is one of those Japanese pin-ball machines (Pachinko) that drop down and they collide with pins on the way down thus slowing/diverting their path. If the “depth” of the pins was greater they’d take longer to reach the bottom.”
“That was a tad better analogy, ….. but no Cupie doll winner for you …. because it doesn’t simulate the density of the GHG molecules in the atmosphere.”
“You will have to decrease the pin “density” (remove them) as the “depth” of the pins increases …. to actually simulate the atmosphere. And when you do that the “pin-balls” will reach the bottom a lot quicker.”
TB says:
January 7, 2014 at 3:46 pm
“The point of exit “the outside door” is at TOA. It is therefore vitally important in the transference of LWIR to space. No matter what happens below that level, if there is a greater vertical depth of GHG molecules aloft then IR will be slowed.”
—————–
TB, … “Who cares”, …. what the “greater vertical depth of GHG molecules” are that exit in the atmosphere above the Troposphere?
“Who cares” if those resident GHG molecules above the Troposphere will or are “slowing down” the IR energy that is being radiated away from the earth’s surface?
Once the radiated IR energy escapes past the top of the Troposphere it matters little whether or not it is absorbed and re-emitted by GHG molecules residing therein. It matter little because that WEE PORTION of re-emitter IR energy that is directed back toward the earth’s surface has to pass back through the upper Troposphere which is chock full of other GHG molecules whose temperatures are at -70C. Thus little, if any, of it will make it back to the earth’s surface, therefore there is nothing “vitally important” about it.
TB, your “vitally important” thingy is akin to you standing outside in -20F temperatures with a big campfire burning brightly one (1) mile from where you are standing and you claiming that the IR energy being radiated from that campfire is “vitally important” in/at keeping your arse from freezing solid.
For a “reality check” …. take a quick “looky-see” at this NASA graphic so that you will gain a better appreciation for IR energy radiation “to & fro” between the earth’s surface and the GHG molecules residing in the air above the Troposphere, to wit:
Layers of Earth’s Atmosphere
http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/atmosphere/layers.jpg
“Fair enough, but Meteorology is the …“The scientific study of the atmosphere and of atmospheric conditions, especially as they relate to weather and weather forecasting.””
—————–
TB, I know what the study of Meteorology entails ….. but apparently you don’t realize that the study of the Physical Sciences includes the root science upon which all of your Meteorological studies are founded.
“And likewise your reasoning to me – I was just letting you know where my reasoning came from.”
————–
That’s fine, but this discussion is not about weather forecasting and thus it puts you at an educational disadvantage in responding to my commentary.
“Look at this Sat pic: …………. Does it look to you that cloud dominates the sub-equatorial zones? Really? …. My above disputed statement is correct. ”
—————
TB, I have never mentioned or made reference to clouds, fogs or mists in this discussion simply because they are “visible” water (H2O) droplets which drastically affect the transfer of thermal energy in the atmosphere via both IR radiation and visible Sunlight sources. And that is why I have specifically stated “H2O vapor (humidity)” that defines the non-visible H2O molecules resident within the air.
When clouds, fogs or mists dominate a portion or part of the near-surface atmosphere then the “rules” for the “whole ballgame” changes because they not only act as a “transporter” of thermal energy but also as a “bi-directional” buffer that “controls” the direction of thermal energy radiation. And said “direction control” is dependent upon whether it is night time or daytime. And iffen the “truth” was known, fogs probably have as much or more effect on near-surface temperatures than clouds do. But neither Climatologists nor Meteorologists seldom if ever mention that fact …. nor do they even venture a “guess” as to the extent of said affect.
None is keeping track of …. low-land fogs, valley fogs, mountain fogs, pond fogs, lake fogs, river fogs, seashore fogs or ocean fogs, …. all of which affect near-surface air temperatures.
“No , just more basic meteorology. PPM of H20 is in the figure you quoted anyway was a tropospheric tropical average that is much less than that found in the dry zones.”
—————
TB, it matter not what the “tropical average” ppm of H2O vapor (humidity) is because it is still FAR GREATER than the “tropical average” ppm of CO2 … and thus me thinks it is physically impossible for anyone to determine the actual source of the LWIR emission within the atmosphere …… especially given the fact that thermal energy can be CONDUCTED to either one of the aforementioned GHG molecules via collisions with non-GHG gas molecules in the air (Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.)
And TB, said non-GHG gas molecules are the primary “absorbers” of thermal energy directly from the earth’s surface and therefore they are surely the primary “conductor” of said thermal energy to the GHG gas molecules that are in the near-surface air ….. which they will then re-radiate it as IR.
Samuel C Cogar says:
January 8, 2014 at 10:45 am
TB says:
January 7, 2014 at 3:46 pm
“The point of exit “the outside door” is at TOA. It is therefore vitally important in the transference of LWIR to space. No matter what happens below that level, if there is a greater vertical depth of GHG molecules aloft then IR will be slowed.”
—————–
TB, … “Who cares”, …. what the “greater vertical depth of GHG molecules” are that exit in the atmosphere above the Troposphere?
“Who cares” if those resident GHG molecules above the Troposphere will or are “slowing down” the IR energy that is being radiated away from the earth’s surface?
Samuel – you might not “care” but the physics says the atmosphere does. Like I said, go check out Beer-Lambert and all the experiments/mathematics that prove it correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Once the radiated IR energy escapes past the top of the Troposphere it matters little whether or not it is absorbed and re-emitted by GHG molecules residing therein. It matter little because that WEE PORTION of re-emitter IR energy that is directed back toward the earth’s surface has to pass back through the upper Troposphere which is chock full of other GHG molecules whose temperatures are at -70C. Thus little, if any, of it will make it back to the earth’s surface, therefore there is nothing “vitally important” about it.”
Samuel: Again I refer you to Beer-Lambert. Or alternatively write a paper refuting it.
You again have an incorrect concept of the GHE effect.
LWIR does NOT have to make it all the way back to the Earth’s surface at those altitudes (why is it not obvious that it logically cant?). Like the Pachinko analogy – there are too many pins in the way – what happens is that LWIR is further SLOWED in emission via re-emittance/absorption in the layers below. That’s all, nothing complicated. Just an added small incremental “insulation”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TB, your “vitally important” thingy is akin to you standing outside in -20F temperatures with a big campfire burning brightly one (1) mile from where you are standing and you claiming that the IR energy being radiated from that campfire is “vitally important” in/at keeping your arse from freezing solid.”
Samuel: No, it’s not, as the entirety of LWIR photons travel to space through that “door”. Your analogy above nowwhere near compares, as there we have the inverse square law at work which limits the energy emanating from that “campfire”. Ie, the fraction of energy you imagine there is MINUTE in comparison with the total energy the “campfire” emits. At TOA ALL that campfires energy passes to your “arse”. Do you not see. The point is ALL LWIR reaches that ARSE to get past it to space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For a “reality check” …. take a quick “looky-see” at this NASA graphic so that you will gain a better appreciation for IR energy radiation “to & fro” between the earth’s surface and the GHG molecules residing in the air above the Troposphere, to wit:
Layers of Earth’s Atmosphere
http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/atmosphere/layers.jpg
“Fair enough, but Meteorology is the …“The scientific study of the atmosphere and of atmospheric conditions, especially as they relate to weather and weather forecasting.””
Samuel: LWIR, once past the lower layers of the Stratosphere – where greatest emission occurs (confirmed by satellite sensing) – is relitively free to escape. And as I say, this layer of greatest emission will rise with further addition of GHG’s. BUT be less efficient because of your “GHG molecules whose temperatures are at -70C” – further adding to the GHE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TB, I know what the study of Meteorology entails ….. but apparently you don’t realize that the study of the Physical Sciences includes the root science upon which all of your Meteorological studies are founded.”
“And likewise your reasoning to me – I was just letting you know where my reasoning came from.”
That’s fine, but this discussion is not about weather forecasting and thus it puts you at an educational disadvantage in responding to my commentary.
Samuel: Where on earth to you get that bit of inverse logic from?
Your “I know what the study of Meteorology entails….. puts you at an educational disadvantage in responding to my commentary”.
Since when does a career in Meteorology make me at a disadvantage to ANYONE (note I didn’t say superior to) on the subject of Meteorology???
I think (hope) that with reflection you will think better of that.
Look Samuel – I’m not someone who is an “anorak” (UK analogy) of weather. The UKMO don’t just trawl for them and let em loose on an RAF base to give advice to highly trained fighter pilots flying jets costing up to £100m. Nor allow them to advise commercial jet’s both verbally and via compilation of Internationally approved charts for dissemination to the CAA. You know? – seems not.
I have qualifications in Maths/Physics/Computing/Stats – not to mention 3 years prior studying to be an engineer. That not taking-in of course, several months long courses/refreshers and 32 years of on the job training. I’d kindly ask you to put your hubris away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Look at this Sat pic: …………. Does it look to you that cloud dominates the sub-equatorial zones? Really? …. My above disputed statement is correct. ”
—————
TB, I have never mentioned or made reference to clouds, fogs or mists in this discussion simply because they are “visible” water (H2O) droplets which drastically affect the transfer of thermal energy in the atmosphere via both IR radiation and visible Sunlight sources. And that is why I have specifically stated “H2O vapor (humidity)” that defines the non-visible H2O molecules resident within the air.
Samuel: And I have shown you in multiple ways that I am not referring to clouds in preference to humidity. What did you not understand about the significance of that Tephigram I linked showing drying via subsidence in the sub-tropical HP belt? What is it you don’t understand about the mechanism for that drying?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When clouds, fogs or mists dominate a portion or part of the near-surface atmosphere then the “rules” for the “whole ballgame” changes because they not only act as a “transporter” of thermal energy but also as a “bi-directional” buffer that “controls” the direction of thermal energy radiation. And said “direction control” is dependent upon whether it is night time or daytime. And iffen the “truth” was known, fogs probably have as much or more effect on near-surface temperatures than clouds do. But neither Climatologists nor Meteorologists seldom if ever mention that fact …. nor do they even venture a “guess” as to the extent of said affect.”
None is keeping track of …. low-land fogs, valley fogs, mountain fogs, pond fogs, lake fogs, river fogs, seashore fogs or ocean fogs, …. all of which affect near-surface air temperatures.
Samuel: No they don’t change the rules – as LWIR still HAS to exit at TOA. Equatorial temps don’t keep rising. Heat cannot be retained indefinitely, which is why sensible/latent heat transfer towards these sub-tropical HP cells within Hadley cells allows that because there is a window to either side/above provided by this drying.
LWIR radiates very efficiently from Fog tops BTW (as I have many times observed on base with echo-sounding equipment and seen on tephigrams while preparing forecasts). The surface cooling is simply transferred to the fog top and the cooling there transferred back down through the fog layer to the surface via gentle turbulent mixing. How else do you think a surface inversion keeps developing when a surface layer fogs out? Or didn’t you know that it did?
Samuel, It’s just not in dispute in the meteorological community – sorry.
As I keep trying to say – maximum LWIR emission just moves to a higher level when “blocked” by a GHG.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“No , just more basic meteorology. PPM of H20 is in the figure you quoted anyway was a tropospheric tropical average that is much less than that found in the dry zones.”
I made I typo there and omitted to correct – I of course meant that the Tropospheric Tropical average was much more than the average.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“TB, it matter not what the “tropical average” ppm of H2O vapor (humidity) is because it is still FAR GREATER than the “tropical average” ppm of CO2 … and thus me thinks it is physically impossible for anyone to determine the actual source of the LWIR emission within the atmosphere …… especially given the fact that thermal energy can be CONDUCTED to either one of the aforementioned GHG molecules via collisions with non-GHG gas molecules in the air (Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.)”
Samuel:The satellite sensing shows where it exits, yes and cannot in entirety show the origin point – which is why you need to understand Meteorology and air-mass circulation – I have detailed the transport of tropical heat to these net emitting regions above and prior.
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And TB, said non-GHG gas molecules are the primary “absorbers” of thermal energy directly from the earth’s surface and therefore they are surely the primary “conductor” of said thermal energy to the GHG gas molecules that are in the near-surface air ….. which they will then re-radiate it as IR.
Samuel: I agree but only because they comprise ~99% of the atmosphere. They will absorb additional “conducted” thermal energy from GHG’s as they absorb LWIR. Yes, indeed they “will then re-radiate it as IR” – it’s all taken care of in the transport of thermal energy from the Tropics to zones of more efficient LWIR emittance – TOA and the dry HP zones either side where converged air at the sub-Tropical Jet subsides (dries) to form the sub-Tropical Highs.
TB says:
January 9, 2014 at 4:24 am
“Samuel – you might not “care” but the physics says the atmosphere does. Like I said, go check out Beer-Lambert and all the experiments/mathematics that prove it correct.”
————-
OK, … TB. …. I just Googled and read Beer-Lambert @ur momisugly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law
And it effectively confirms exactly what I’ve been telling you, to wit:
“The law states that there is a logarithmic dependence between the transmission (or transmissivity), T, of light through a substance and the product of the absorption coefficient of the substance, α, and the distance the light travels through the material (i.e., the path length), ℓ. ”
Any IR that makes it above the Troposphere will never make it back to earth because of the “absorption coefficient of the substance (GHGs)”. And if the IR does not make it back down to the near-surface atmosphere then there is NO greenhouse effect associated with it.
Anyway… TB. …. the Beer-Lambert law DOES NOT apply to GHGs and IR in earth’s atmosphere, so you can forget that noise, …. to wit
“Prerequisites
There are at least six conditions that need to be fulfilled in order for Beer’s law to be valid. These are:
1. The absorbers must act independently of each other;
2. The absorbing medium must be homogeneous in the interaction volume
3. The absorbing medium must not scatter the radiation – no turbidity;
4. The incident radiation must consist of parallel rays, each traversing the same length in the absorbing medium;
5. The incident radiation should preferably be monochromatic, or have at least a width that is narrower than that of the absorbing transition; and
6. The incident flux must not influence the atoms or molecules; it should only act as a non-invasive probe of the species under study. In particular, this implies that the light should not cause optical saturation or optical pumping, since such effects will deplete the lower level and possibly give rise to stimulated emission.
If any of these conditions are not fulfilled, there will be deviations from Beer’s law.”
————————-
TB says again:
“Samuel: Again I refer you to Beer-Lambert. Or alternatively write a paper refuting it.”
———————
TB, …. Beer-Lambert refutes what you are claiming, …… so you write that paper.
“You again have an incorrect concept of the GHE effect.
LWIR does NOT have to make it all the way back to the Earth’s surface at those altitudes (why is it not obvious that it logically cant?). Like the Pachinko analogy – there are too many pins in the way – what happens is that LWIR is further SLOWED in emission via re-emittance/absorption in the layers below. That’s all, nothing complicated. Just an added small incremental “insulation”.”
————-
TB, I now understand what the problem is, ….. and that is, …… you really don’t have a clue about what you are commenting on, do you?
So, best you start trying to fix your miseducation by reading and trying to understand this, to wit:
“green•house ef•fect: 1. the trapping of the sun’s warmth in a planet’s lower atmosphere due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet’s surface”
Source: https://www.google.com/#q=define+greenhouse+effect
Cheers