"Surfer" wrote in :


"G,lobalW,armingD,eception"
G,lobalW,armingD,eception@G,lobalW,armingD,ecepti on wrote in message
...


GISS is diverging from satellite data at an impressive rate of almost
2ºC per century.


That may or may not indicate an inconsistency.

GISS data is obtained by measuring air temperature close to the
earth's surface.

The satellite data is obtained by satellites measuring upward
radiation emitted by air molecules and using that to estimate air
temperature. So each satellite measurement typically represents the
average temperature of a column of air five to ten kilometres high.
http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/doc...e-Review01.pdf

Now since atmospheric CO2 obstructs radiation of infrared heat from
the earth's surface, increasing the concentration causes maximum
warming next to the surface

No evidence for this, plenty of evidence against it, eg Wood 1909 through
to Nahle 2011 and Klein 2012. The latter used mylar ballons, couldn't get
evidence of IR limitation for co2, or a range of gases and concentrations,
including methane and butane !!

and progressively less warming? [heat] as altitude increases.

Yes, that happens. It's the effect of convection - warm air rises ... qv
thermals, stack effect etc. Here (19°S 146°E) there is frequently 650
watts/m2 coming down. Heat and turbulence at ground level up to about 1m or
so above gl, begins to stratify at about 2m and above.
Figures from Mauna Loa show co2 concentrations increasing from 325 ppm to
390 ppm 1970 - 2010. 1970 is a reasonable start-point because comprehensive
studies of tropical climate were occurring, culminating in "Manual of
Tropical Housing & Building" S.Szokolay et al being published in 1974.
Average co2 concentration around here slightly higher than global average
due to 'carbon pipe' outgassing of the southern ocean. From time to time
peaks to around 500 ppm, frequently above 400 ppm. So maybe +/- 23%
increase in concentration? If IR limitation by co2 exists, it would
certainly be measurable here, but there is nothing.

[snip]

"troppo" wrote in message
...
"Surfer" wrote in :


"G,lobalW,armingD,eception"
G,lobalW,armingD,eception@G,lobalW,armingD,ecepti on wrote in message
...


GISS is diverging from satellite data at an impressive rate of almost
2ºC per century.


That may or may not indicate an inconsistency.

GISS data is obtained by measuring air temperature close to the
earth's surface.

The satellite data is obtained by satellites measuring upward
radiation emitted by air molecules and using that to estimate air
temperature. So each satellite measurement typically represents the
average temperature of a column of air five to ten kilometres high.
http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/doc...e-Review01.pdf

Now since atmospheric CO2 obstructs radiation of infrared heat from
the earth's surface, increasing the concentration causes maximum
warming next to the surface

No evidence for this, plenty of evidence against it, eg Wood 1909 through
to Nahle 2011 and Klein 2012.

However, such "evidence" would seem to contradict established physics.

Also the following highly qualified AGW skeptic says that Nahle's theory is
wrong.
http://co2insanity.com/2011/04/18/de...-simple-steps/

Start extract
Nice try, but I believe you have made the fatal flaw that most individuals
(including Professor Nahle) make concerning IR radiation. First, a cold body
cannot transfer heat to a hot body. It violates both classical and quantum
laws of thermodynamics. But, and here's the flaw, IR radiation is not heat,
it's light. The concept of temperature does not apply to photons (don't
confuse "light temperature" with the temperature of the matter generating
the light). Consequently, a colder object can irradiate IR light and have it
absorbed by a warmer object. No violation of the Second Law. The only IR
radiation that atmospheric CO2 can uniquely irradiate back to Earth is that
radiation that it has absorbed at 15 microns and it must do this before it
collides with molecules around it. If it collides with any molecules around
it (mainly N2 and O2), it will transfer that light energy to them (as heat)
through molecular collisions. That will raise their temperature and that's
the greenhouse gas effect. If it irradiates the light at 15 microns before
it collides, then it loses that light energy and drops back down to its
vibrational ground state. It has nothing to do with its temperature. The
Stefan-Boltzmann equation does not apply.

Where the Stefan-Boltzmann equation does apply (i.e., irradiating a
blackbody spectrum because it is warm) would apply to all the gases in the
atmosphere, not only CO2, since all objects when heated irradiate light.
Unfortunately, the blackbody radiation laws really work only well for solids
so even cheating and calling it a gray body is a stretch, especially for a
gas. No, the greenhouse gas effect is alive and well. It simply is not
responsible for global warming and particularly climate change.

James Barrante, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry

End extract

I think the only viable skeptic argument is the one that accepts that CO2
causes warming, but disputes how much amplification will be caused by
positive and negative feedback effects.

Those have not yet been detemined accurately.

"Surfer" wrote in :


"troppo" wrote in message
...
"Surfer" wrote in :


"G,lobalW,armingD,eception"
G,lobalW,armingD,eception@G,lobalW,armingD,ecepti on wrote in
message ...


GISS is diverging from satellite data at an impressive rate of
almost 2ºC per century.


That may or may not indicate an inconsistency.

GISS data is obtained by measuring air temperature close to the
earth's surface.

The satellite data is obtained by satellites measuring upward
radiation emitted by air molecules and using that to estimate air
temperature. So each satellite measurement typically represents the
average temperature of a column of air five to ten kilometres high.
http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/doc...e-Review01.pdf

Now since atmospheric CO2 obstructs radiation of infrared heat from
the earth's surface, increasing the concentration causes maximum
warming next to the surface

No evidence for this, plenty of evidence against it, eg Wood 1909
through to Nahle 2011 and Klein 2012.

However, such "evidence" would seem to contradict established physics.

Also the following highly qualified AGW skeptic says that Nahle's
theory is wrong.
http://co2insanity.com/2011/04/18/de...e-gas-theory-i
n-three-simple-steps/

So O'Sullivan is right? But you still believe " ... atmospheric CO2
obstructs radiation of infrared heat from the earth's surface, increasing
the concentration causes maximum warming next to the surface " ?


Start extract
Nice try, but I believe you have made the fatal flaw that most
individuals (including Professor Nahle) make concerning IR radiation.
First, a cold body cannot transfer heat to a hot body. It violates
both classical and quantum laws of thermodynamics. But, and here's the
flaw, IR radiation is not heat, it's light. The concept of temperature
does not apply to photons (don't confuse "light temperature" with the
temperature of the matter generating the light). Consequently, a
colder object can irradiate IR light and have it absorbed by a warmer
object. No violation of the Second Law. The only IR radiation that
atmospheric CO2 can uniquely irradiate back to Earth is that radiation
that it has absorbed at 15 microns and it must do this before it
collides with molecules around it. If it collides with any molecules
around it (mainly N2 and O2), it will transfer that light energy to
them (as heat) through molecular collisions. That will raise their
temperature and that's the greenhouse gas effect. If it irradiates the
light at 15 microns before it collides, then it loses that light
energy and drops back down to its vibrational ground state. It has
nothing to do with its temperature. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation does
not apply.

Where the Stefan-Boltzmann equation does apply (i.e., irradiating a
blackbody spectrum because it is warm) would apply to all the gases in
the atmosphere, not only CO2, since all objects when heated irradiate
light. Unfortunately, the blackbody radiation laws really work only
well for solids so even cheating and calling it a gray body is a
stretch, especially for a gas. No, the greenhouse gas effect is alive
and well. It simply is not responsible for global warming and
particularly climate change.

James Barrante, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry

End extract

The last line of the extract is the key one. And you don't reference the
subsequent responses by Nahle. And "Rosco" at the end.

I think the only viable skeptic argument is the one that accepts that
CO2 causes warming,

At 0.04% it is insignificant, whether it causes warming or not.

but disputes how much amplification will be caused
by positive and negative feedback effects.
Those have not yet been detemined accurately.

Perhaps because at 0.04% they cannot be determined, and there is no
point ?

You will be aware of the problem with the "missing hotspot" over the
tropics?

I am IN the tropics. The hottest and most uncomfortable conditions occur
during the late afternoon. When the sun goes down, the heat dissipates
within an hour or two usually. Even if it takes most of the night, it's
gone by the morning. And just as well - it would not be possible to live
here if there was residual heat in the air. That would be positive
feedback. If the 23% increase in CO2 over the past 40 years has had a
heating effect, then I assure you - we would know about it. The effect
has not occurred.

(The only residual heat remaining that people need to be concerned about
around here is that stored in masonry block walls that are exposed to the
sun. These may not cool for five months !)