Assume there are 4 molecules at 102 degrees and 9996 molecules at 100 degrees, same ratio as CO2 to all other air molecules The average temperature of all molecules is (408 + 999600) / 10000 which is 100.0008 which I rounded up. But nearly every instant a CO2 molecule is heated so the temperature keeps rising until equilibrium. The tiny bit of warming cumulative (although subject to convection as you note)
the principle I believe being that as air is warmed, it expands, (no matter how slightly) and then it rises,
Yes and convection cools the atmosphere. The more convection the cooler it will get. But that just reduces massive warming by the sun and the little bit of warming by added CO2. Convection is a perfect example of a negative feedback. Negative feedbacks dominate otherwise the planet would have cooked long ago.
This cooling effect by convection far surpasses the slight warming effect due to CO2 and GHG-
Some places that is true. Other places it is not. The reason is that convection is weather and some places have subsidence (the opposite of convection) simply due to weather. CO2 heats evenly everywhere including convection locations and subsidence locations.
Inm your closed system analogy of accumulation- We would have been at 100% warming long before now- but the fact is the system is not closed, and because it isn't convection deals the slight warming a blow-
Yes, I have imagined what would happen with unstoppable CO2 warming and indeed convection and latent heat transfer limit the temperature rise. They also limit the far higher temperature rise resulting from daytime solar most places with sunshine.
For the atmosphere to be hearted by CO2, there would need to be a "hotspot" where heat is trapped and prevented from rising to the stratosphere- Guess what? There is no hotspot- none have been found- it's a hypothesis which is being proven wrong
No, the lack of a hotspot in the tropical troposphere just means models are wrong and can't predict water vapor feedback or cloud feedback or any other positive or negative feedbacks (if any) from the small amount of warming from added CO2. That small amount of warming from added CO2 is not something that comes from a climate model with errors like the hotspot. It comes from line by line models, essentially a simple formation of the graph I showed in my last comment. What the line by line models tell us backs up the actual radiance measurements shown in the graph. And that is that there are notches where some frequencies are being absorbed by CO2. Lots of frequencies absorbed by water vapor. And even a few frequencies absorbed by N2 and O2.
[[Assume there are 4 molecules at 102 degrees and 9996 molecules at 100 degrees]]
Where do you come up with 10,000? CO2 takes up just 0.04% of the atmosphere (forgive me but Math was never my strong point)
[[The average temperature of all molecules is (408 + 999600) / 10000 which is 100.0008]]
You are stating that those 4 molecules raise the temperature of all the 9996 molecules the same amount/degree %, but this can’t be as as soon as the energy/heat leaves the CO2 molecule, and transfers into neighbor molecule, it begins a rapid descent in temp as the molecule that received the energy/heat rises and become cooled-
The article I posted to shows that the mass of cooler molecules so vastly outweighs the warmed ones, and the impact of entropy is so pervasive, that the amount of IR caused warming is insignificant
[[The tiny bit of warming cumulative]]
I get that it’s accumulative, BUT it is as you say tiny- and as the other article I cited shows, the warmer molecuels rise, and are not caught in a closed system local ‘hot spot’ in the atmosphere
[[Some places that is true. Other places it is not.]]
The convection spoken of in the article I believe was speaking to upper cooler molecules descending down to the area of CO2- replacing the warmer with cooler molecules as the warmer ones rose- it wasn’t speaking to surface air conditions on earth- here you are talking about weather related changes which are local, not global, and have nothing to do with the small amount of atmospheric warming
[[CO2 heats evenly everywhere including convection locations and subsidence locations.]]
We’re not talking about the mechanism behind CO2 and heating- we’re talking about the fact that as soon as a molecule is heated it rises and is replaced by cooler descending molecules- and we’re talking about the fact that the upper cooler molecules vastly outnumber CO2 molecules-
[[And that is that there are notches where some frequencies are being absorbed by CO2. Lots of frequencies absorbed by water vapor. And even a few frequencies absorbed by N2 and O2]]
We know this occurs- that isn’t the issue- the issue is that the models are wrong about the impact because in order for the impact of the slight warming to do what the IPCC claims it will do in 100 years, there needs to be hotspots in an isolated closed system in order for the temps to reach what has been predicted— the whole alarmist predictions rely on this hot spot feature- I’m willing to bet your line by line models did not predict - The link to ‘line by line’ model was ‘forbidden’- does the line by lien model predict the future? Or is it simply recording present conditions- I have no idea what that graph you show even means- Graphs are also not a strong point for me-
[[ but the notches are caused by specific molecules. As you can see, O2 also creates a notch.]]
It seems to me the chart just shows that notches occure- not predict what will happen I nthe future- I can’t find any articles on frequency band models or lien by line models
[[The IR photons keep on coming and will warm the atmosphere as long as the surface or lower atmosphere is warmer than higher up.]]
They can keep coming all they want- but they are not accumulative in the atmosphere due to reasons cited- the stratosphere is many many times more volume than the atmosphere, and many times more than CO2 volume, and like the article I cited states, it simply overwhelms the tiny amount of warming- if it didn’t, the atmosphere would have been saturated with warmer molecules by now and we’d be cooked as you say- The amount of warming is nowhere near enough to change the temps anywhere near what the alarmists claim it will- there simply isn’t enough CO2 nor IR photons coming up or down to cause any kind of change except temporary local insignificant warming- You have just too many opposite effects going on for the slight warming to have any significant impact- Warming depends on suspending entropy and isolating the warming in a closed system globally, not just locally in spots around the globe
And by the way- NASA has just been caught fudging and hiding data, and the gauges used to determine temps around the globe have been exposed as beign biased to newly blacktopped areas, beside large heating and cooling motors on dark rooftops etc- These temp readings are a large part of any computer models
As well satellite data conflicts with computer models of any stripes- and I’m willing to bet that the pause has thrown a big monkey wrench into the equations as well-
Even Hansen has come out and said the paris climate deal is nonsense and will do nothing even if we stopped all our CO2 production globally- Hopefully Hansen will do the right thing and redeem himself by exposing this fraud for what it is
[[But nearly every instant a CO2 molecule is heated so the temperature keeps rising until equilibrium.]]
And didn’t you say In a previous post that equilibrium doesn’t occur because of DTL?
[[Where is the evidence that CO2 captures all ir photons?
That was a mistake. It absorbs them all only within certain bands]]
Also- Do these bands cover the globe like a blanket? Or are they just local spots around the globe? IF so, how can these isolated bands separated by large distances capture all IR photons? Wouldn’t the areas where there are no bands allow the photons to blow right on by out into space? (I don’t anything about this stuff- I’m just asking for the sake of clarity, and to show if possible that the amount of CO2 isn’t large enough to cause any kind of appreciable warming)
Does CO2 form a continuous blanket around the globe? (Not sure how it could if CO2 comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere- it seems to me the atmosphere would either contain a majority of areas that are CO2 free, OR the ‘blanket’ would be so thin as to be just a molecule or two or so thick, and in such a case, saturation would be a huge problem when it comes to capturing ‘all’ ir photons- Every nano second the layer is saturated would mean a nano second ir photons have nothing impeding their rise toward space- and then- once again- you would have the fact that the cO2 molecules would reabsorbs ones it already has meaning even more ‘new’ ir photons would blow right on past the saturated CO2 molecules unimpeded- uncaptured-
and rally though- all of this is moot- because once again we’re talking so little CO2 that it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans really-
If you go to this website, watch the first video- around the 5 min mark it begins talking about SW and LW- short wave (from the sun) and long wave (From IR)- and how the rise in SW corresponds with drop in LW- the direct opposite of what all the climate models predicted- This fella, Spencer, who worked for NASA Satellite monitoring systems, has shown that the earth’s climate and oceans warming is a direct result not of CO2, but rather of cloud cover- the peaks and valleys over a 30 year period in the second video show a direct correlation between rising temps and lower cloud cover, falling temps and more cloud cover- the less cloud cover, the more of the sin’s energy that hits the earth- the rises had nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 accumulation - He even submitted his report to two of the leading IPCC scientists because he was criticizing their work specifically, and they both met with him and told Him basically ‘holy cow, you are right- we were wrong- our papers were wrong’
UIt’s an interesting listen-
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/why-the-ipcc-climate-model-is-wrong