[alancalverd]

They tell you everything about insolation and radiative loss from the surface. A cirrus veil reduces surface heating during the day and reduces radiative loss at night.

But as I say, please don't let the bloody obvious get in the way of a profitable theory. Careers are at stake!

[Bored chemist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_cloud#Effects_on_climate

[paul cotter]

Hi BC, I had a quick look at the suggested thread( reply #23 ) and read several pages from 25 on. That sure brought out the nutjobs and keyboard warriors which made difficult reading. I have to be clear here, I am not referring to you, Alan or agyejy or anyone else who made cogent arguments. And yes, this was way before my time here. I noticed one error from agyejy that was not challenged: the op kept referring to the solar light being the cause of the heat in a glass house, this may have a slight effect but the main cause is the solar ir. One would be waiting a long time for a kettle surrounded by high power zenon flash tubes to boil it's water.

[Bored chemist]

Ironically, the reason greenhouses work is not really the greenhouse effect.
It's mainly that they stop warm air rising and carrying away the heat.

However the effect of CO2 etc on the temperature of the earth's surface is different.
The CO2 is transparent to the short wave incoming radiation, but more opaque to the longer wavelength outgoing radiation.

The sun emits more light (per unit wavelength) in the visible than in the IR.
So the heating of the earth is, at least largely, due to light. The near IR is also a contributor and some of the near UV does too.

In the context of global warming, the transmission of visible light by the atmosphere has not changed,  but the transmission of IR has.

Incidentally, high power xenon flash tubes are capable of igniting flammable materials near them.

[alancalverd]

Ironically, the reason greenhouses work is not really the greenhouse effect.
It's mainly that they stop warm air rising and carrying away the heat

That is true, but why is the stuff inside warm anyway? As you say, most of the incoming solar energy is in the visible to UV spectrum and heats the solid and liquid surface that absorbs it, and the greenhouse roof reduces convection and thus conductive loss from the surface to a colder boundary layer of gas.

One of the misleading school experiments that is promulgated by climate Believers is to illuminate a black card at the bottom of an opentop cylinder, and measure its temperature rise. They then fill the cylinder with CO2  and show that the temperature rises faster. Why is this misleading? First, because the CO2, being denser than the ambient air, doesn't mix and convect as easily (your point) and second, because whilst it may well be absorbing 15 micron radiation very strongly (so why doesn't it cool the card?)  the depth is well short of the extinction length  so it doesn't actually model atmospheric radiative transfer.

[paul cotter]

BC, from what I can find online is that of the incident solar radiation reaching the surface 49.4% is ir and 42.3% is visible and that the ir is the principle cause of heating. I have worked with what I would call medium powered zenon tubes and have often seen the tube become red hot after a few flashes( together with a lot of ozone ) but very little radiant heat in comparison to the blinding levels of light. Going to really high power levels with a flash tube could of course have sufficient thermal effects to do some damage.

[Bored chemist]

While it's true that xenon lamps are quite efficient and produce less IR than, for example, a tungsten lamp, they produce plenty of IR. And, of course, a red hot glass or quartz bulb will also produce some more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_arc_lamp#/media/File:Xenon_arc_lamp_profile.png

Xe lamp.jpg (146.46 kB . 659x610 - viewed 285 times)

If the light from the sun carries 42% of the energy, it's difficult to see how it only has a slight effect

The point remains, the absorption of visible light hasn't changed; that for IR has.
So only one is responsible for a change in the earth's temperature.

If we are talking about a glass house, given that the glass isn't good at transmitting long IR or  UV beyond about 350nm, it's fair to assume that the visible light does its fair share of the heating.

[paul cotter]

Ok, I stand corrected.

[championoftruth (OP)]

Ironically, the reason greenhouses work is not really the greenhouse effect.
It's mainly that they stop warm air rising and carrying away the heat.

However the effect of CO2 etc on the temperature of the earth's surface is different.
The CO2 is transparent to the short wave incoming radiation, but more opaque to the longer wavelength outgoing radiation.

The sun emits more light (per unit wavelength) in the visible than in the IR.
So the heating of the earth is, at least largely, due to light. The near IR is also a contributor and some of the near UV does too.

In the context of global warming, the transmission of visible light by the atmosphere has not changed,  but the transmission of IR has.

Incidentally, high power xenon flash tubes are capable of igniting flammable materials near them.

The Sizzling Spectacle: How Climate Boiling Became the Hottest Fad

Ladies and gentlemen, gather 'round and witness the most scorching show in town ? the grand spectacle of Climate Boiling! Yes, you heard it right, forget about climate change, because that's so pass?. It's time to turn up the heat and embrace the fiery craze that's taking the world by storm. Move over, global warming, and make way for the hottest trend since sliced bread, or should I say, since sun-baked bread!

Picture this: a world where every scientific prediction is as accurate as a weatherman's forecast, a world where icebergs melt faster than ice cream on a summer day, and where every natural disaster is attributed to the wrath of the Climate Boiler. It's as if Mother Nature herself decided to throw a BBQ party, and we're all on the guest list whether we like it or not.

In this sizzling new reality, logic and reason take a backseat while alarmist headlines take center stage. Have a cold day in winter? Clearly the Climate Boiler is taking a quick coffee break. A hot summer day? The Climate Boiler must be pulling an all-nighter to keep us warm, because why not? The beauty of Climate Boiling is that it conveniently explains away any weather pattern or anomaly, no matter how contradictory.

But wait, there's more! With Climate Boiling, you can guiltlessly blame everything on the poor old Climate Boiler. Overcooked your dinner? Climate Boiler's at it again! Traffic jam? Clearly, the Climate Boiler is causing all the cars to overheat. And don't even get me started on bad hair days ? it's all part of the Climate Boiler's cunning plan to give us that "windswept" look.

Now, you might ask, where's the evidence for this red-hot phenomenon? Fear not, my friends, for evidence is as abundant as sand in a desert. Just look around, and you'll see politicians pointing fingers at the Climate Boiler, activists passionately waving their "Climate Boiling Now!" banners, and social media influencers posting selfies with the latest Climate Boiler-themed merchandise.

But don't be fooled by those pesky skeptics who dare question the unquestionable. They're just a bunch of party poopers who insist on bringing actual data, scientific methods, and common sense to the conversation. How dare they? It's not like we need objective analysis when we have hashtags like #ClimateBoilingTruth trending on Twitter, right?

So there you have it, folks ? Climate Boiling, the blazing sensation that's turning science into a sideshow and reason into a roasted marshmallow. So go ahead, embrace the heat, join the march of the Climate Boilers, and let's all collectively fan the flames of this spicy trend. After all, in a world where the weather's hotter than a jalape?o pepper, why not add a dash of sarcasm and wit to keep things interesting?

[alancalverd]

Climate change is not a fad. It's an inevitable consequence of physics and chemistry, and has been going on for as long as this planet had an atmosphere (i.e. for ever). It has been a disaster for many species and civilisations.

The current problem is that we can see it coming and measure it very precisely, but by denying its inevitability  and pretending we can change the laws of physics by giving up fossil fuels, the human race is simply accepting a forthcoming humanitarian disaster instead of adapting to a predictable change of circumstance.

 

[Bored chemist]

Ironically, the reason greenhouses work is not really the greenhouse effect.
It's mainly that they stop warm air rising and carrying away the heat.

However the effect of CO2 etc on the temperature of the earth's surface is different.
The CO2 is transparent to the short wave incoming radiation, but more opaque to the longer wavelength outgoing radiation.

The sun emits more light (per unit wavelength) in the visible than in the IR.
So the heating of the earth is, at least largely, due to light. The near IR is also a contributor and some of the near UV does too.

In the context of global warming, the transmission of visible light by the atmosphere has not changed,  but the transmission of IR has.

Incidentally, high power xenon flash tubes are capable of igniting flammable materials near them.

The Sizzling Spectacle: How Climate Boiling Became the Hottest Fad

Ladies and gentlemen, gather 'round and witness the most scorching show in town ? the grand spectacle of Climate Boiling! Yes, you heard it right, forget about climate change, because that's so pass?. It's time to turn up the heat and embrace the fiery craze that's taking the world by storm. Move over, global warming, and make way for the hottest trend since sliced bread, or should I say, since sun-baked bread!

Picture this: a world where every scientific prediction is as accurate as a weatherman's forecast, a world where icebergs melt faster than ice cream on a summer day, and where every natural disaster is attributed to the wrath of the Climate Boiler. It's as if Mother Nature herself decided to throw a BBQ party, and we're all on the guest list whether we like it or not.

In this sizzling new reality, logic and reason take a backseat while alarmist headlines take center stage. Have a cold day in winter? Clearly the Climate Boiler is taking a quick coffee break. A hot summer day? The Climate Boiler must be pulling an all-nighter to keep us warm, because why not? The beauty of Climate Boiling is that it conveniently explains away any weather pattern or anomaly, no matter how contradictory.

But wait, there's more! With Climate Boiling, you can guiltlessly blame everything on the poor old Climate Boiler. Overcooked your dinner? Climate Boiler's at it again! Traffic jam? Clearly, the Climate Boiler is causing all the cars to overheat. And don't even get me started on bad hair days ? it's all part of the Climate Boiler's cunning plan to give us that "windswept" look.

Now, you might ask, where's the evidence for this red-hot phenomenon? Fear not, my friends, for evidence is as abundant as sand in a desert. Just look around, and you'll see politicians pointing fingers at the Climate Boiler, activists passionately waving their "Climate Boiling Now!" banners, and social media influencers posting selfies with the latest Climate Boiler-themed merchandise.

But don't be fooled by those pesky skeptics who dare question the unquestionable. They're just a bunch of party poopers who insist on bringing actual data, scientific methods, and common sense to the conversation. How dare they? It's not like we need objective analysis when we have hashtags like #ClimateBoilingTruth trending on Twitter, right?

So there you have it, folks ? Climate Boiling, the blazing sensation that's turning science into a sideshow and reason into a roasted marshmallow. So go ahead, embrace the heat, join the march of the Climate Boilers, and let's all collectively fan the flames of this spicy trend. After all, in a world where the weather's hotter than a jalape?o pepper, why not add a dash of sarcasm and wit to keep things interesting?

Let us know if that actually happens.

[Bored chemist]

It's an inevitable consequence of physics and chemistry

For example, if we add CO2 to the atmosphere, we can expect the temperature to rise.
If we are not happy about teh consequence of that rise (regardless of any other rise that may occur due to other factors) then we would be well advised not to add more CO2 to the atmosphere.

It's not rocket science.
Even if we are not the big cause, we should stop making it worse.
And, in doing so, we can avoid the problems of
running out of fuel
having to buy energy from governments/ regimes we don't like
not having enough resources for those whose economies are (currently) less extravagant.

[championoftruth (OP)]

It's an inevitable consequence of physics and chemistry

For example, if we add CO2 to the atmosphere, we can expect the temperature to rise.
If we are not happy about teh consequence of that rise (regardless of any other rise that may occur due to other factors) then we would be well advised not to add more CO2 to the atmosphere.

It's not rocket science.
Even if we are not the big cause, we should stop making it worse.
And, in doing so, we can avoid the problems of
running out of fuel
having to buy energy from governments/ regimes we don't like
not having enough resources for those whose economies are (currently) less extravagant.

in that case cut of gas and electricity to your house and confiscate your car.

[championoftruth (OP)]

It's an inevitable consequence of physics and chemistry

For example, if we add CO2 to the atmosphere, we can expect the temperature to rise.
If we are not happy about teh consequence of that rise (regardless of any other rise that may occur due to other factors) then we would be well advised not to add more CO2 to the atmosphere.

It's not rocket science.
Even if we are not the big cause, we should stop making it worse.
And, in doing so, we can avoid the problems of
running out of fuel
having to buy energy from governments/ regimes we don't like
not having enough resources for those whose economies are (currently) less extravagant.

what nonsense. they said that 70 years ago. nothing happened. msm propaganda

[Bored chemist]

what nonsense. they said that 70 years ago. nothing happened.

Is there a grow-up there who usually helps you with this sort of thing?

Do you understand that there's only so much oil,and when we have used it, there's none left?

It's not "propaganda". It's a statement pf the bloody obvious.

[Bored chemist]

confiscate your car.

Are you really dim enough to think that I can confiscate my own car?

[alancalverd]

The answer is simple. According to the advertisement in the LNER first-class waiting room in Newcastle,

"Travelling by train produces up to 513% less carbon emissions than flying".

So if we all whizz about on trains, we will suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere and kill the rainforest without using diesel.

I had plenty of time to study the advert because  as soon as the wind was strong enough to produce electricity, it blew down the wires, so we had to wait for a diesel locomotive. Sorry I can't attach the photograph - I'll have to compress the file a bit first.

[paul cotter]

I think I have a clear understanding of the points made by Alancalverd and BC. Alan says the absorption band is already saturated. BC agrees with this analysis but points out that the absorption will occur at lower atmospheric levels as the co2 concentration rises and this makes perfect sense if we had a static atmosphere but we know the atmosphere is highly turbulent. It would be a hell of a problem to analyse rigorously. Me, I am still sitting on the fence( hoping to not get splinters in my butt ) in a state of confusion.

[Bored chemist]

I think I have a clear understanding of the points made by Alancalverd and BC. Alan says the absorption band is already saturated. BC agrees with this analysis but points out that the absorption will occur at lower atmospheric levels as the co2 concentration rises and this makes perfect sense if we had a static atmosphere but we know the atmosphere is highly turbulent. It would be a hell of a problem to analyse rigorously. Me, I am still sitting on the fence( hoping to not get splinters in my butt ) in a state of confusion.

It's not a trivial problem, but here's a useful simplification.
Compared to radiative heat transfer (at the speed of light) the atmospheric mixing which is over a millionfold slower, is too slow to make a difference (on average).

So we can treat the air as a set of layers- each of them is "one average photon path length" thick.
To get out the heat has to make it through each layer in turn (and at each layer there's a near 50: 50 chance that it heads down rather than up).
Adding more CO2 decreases  the path length and thus makes each "layer" thinner.
But the depth of the atmosphere is substantially constant.
So we get more layers.
So it's harder for the heat to escape.

Incidentally, no transition is ever strictly saturated, the layers could be arbitrarily defined as say a 99% absorption of the IR in a particular wavelength band.

"Travelling by train produces up to 513% less carbon emissions than flying".

So, your argument is something like "Because someone wrote bad advertising copy, physics is wrong".

[alancalverd]

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/In-situ-CO2-concentrations-versus-altitude-measured-by-the-DOE-Cessna-aircraft-with-an_fig12_227619523

shows that CO2 concentration only varies by about 10 ppm with altitude, and the ground-level diurnal variance exceeds the altitude variation.

So the question is at what height the 14 micron absorption band is effectively saturated.