Replies

So, if you've got GHG-induced warming, and a water vapor feedback, then that's pretty much in-line with the mainstream view

Which leads us to one of many fallacies of the GCM theories. Water Vapor is a GHG and a least 2 orders of magnitude more effective than CO2.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to explain the difference between the GHG H20, and the GHG CO2, that one is called (only by IPCC & their modellers) a "feedback".

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse

I know enough to say this: temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas, liquid, or solid. Right?

Sounds good, now how does CO2 contribute to temperature increase if it only absorbs and re-radiates quantum 15micron IR radation,(i.e. a delayed spontaneous & random process). Hint, it can't, It must lose the absorbed IR excitation in collisions with other molecules to manifest as a change in temperature(i.e. velocity of molecules).

So first you've said that the stratosphere is too thin to absorb radiant energy,

I said that in comparison with the troposphere that is quite true.. Obviously there are molecules in the stratosphere, sparce though they may be compared to the troposphere, and thus can manifest temperature(i.e. molecular motion), black body radiation is radiated consequent to molecular changes in motion. Radiant energy absorption on the otherhand is a quantum process that occurs at very select wavelengths dependent upon the quantum characteristics of the molecules absorbing radiant energy.

Here is a more complete picture of radiation absorption from UV through Visible to Far Infrared in comparison with Solar & Earth blackbody radiation curves.

Note the only significant CO2 absorption of Earth blackbody radiation associated with the greenhouse effect is at the 15micron band overlapped by H2O rotational absorption which aborbs 100% of earth blackbody radiation at IR wavelengths greater than 15microns.

At 15micons, absorption is 100%, and as Hug & Barret have made clear, that absorption reaches extinction in a very short atmospheric path(<100ft) near the surface of the earth.

The statosphere loses heat to space, and it is too thin to absorb radiant energy released from blackbody radiation and from release of latent heat of water vapor transported to the upper atmosphere.

and then you note that it isn't, i.e., the injected aerosols impart a warming via greater molecular motion.

The injected aerosols themselves are molecules absorbing solar radiation as well as upwelling blackbody radiation and imparting any absorbed energy to the stratosphere in collisions with upper atmosphere molecules. So where is any inconsistency? Those "volcanic" areosols are only sporadically part of the picture.

By the way, blackbody radiation is predominately due to changes in motion of molecules in interaction and collision as opposed to the spontaneous quantum emmissions at specific wavelengths of non-interacting molecules.

So, if you've got GHG-induced warming, and a water vapor feedback,

Water vapor "feedback", is an IPCC fiction. Water vapor IS the dominant GHG.

You have solar induced changes, and water vapor GHG interactions.

Your major contention is still with the CO2 energy absorption.

Have I ever said otherwise? The contention of the IPCC & their modellers is CO2 is the king and driver of the whole show. Which is a blatant fiction.

Which leads us to one of many fallacies of the GCM theories. Water Vapor is a GHG and a least 2 orders of magnitude more effective than CO2.

That's a known. Earth would be way below freezing if not for water vapor.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to explain the difference between the GHG H20, and the GHG CO2, that one is called (only by IPCC & their modellers) a "feedback".

I'm not sure. In the message I received from James Hansen when I asked the question about positive feedbacks, he said it was due to the increase in the relative humidity of the atmosphere caused by warming. That's all I can say about it -- database is empty beyond that datum.

I know enough to say this: temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas, liquid, or solid. Right?

No doubt about that. Everything I've read about the greenhouse effect says that CO2 and other GHGs "absorb and re-radiate" longwave radiation. Presumably if some of the re-radiated radiation is transferred to other molecules, the atmosphere heats up.

So first you've said that the stratosphere is too thin to absorb radiant energy,

I said that in comparison with the troposphere that is quite true.. Obviously there are molecules in the stratosphere, sparce though they may be compared to the troposphere, and thus can manifest temperature (i.e. molecular motion), black body radiation is radiated consequent to molecular changes in motion. Radiant energy absorption on the otherhand is a quantum process that occurs at very select wavelengths dependent upon the quantum characteristics of the molecules absorbing radiant energy.

That makes more sense. What you said initially didn't make sense to me.

At 15 microns, absorption is 100%, and as Hug & Barret have made clear, that absorption reaches extinction in a very short atmospheric path(<100ft) near the surface of the earth.

I understand that to be the core of their argument, and I did find it curious to read the section you called the "caveat" (one of two reasons that I wanted you to comment on that section). My question when I read that paragraph is: they say the addition of a "small amount of gas" has a negligible effect on net radiative flux at the tropopause. All I can conclude for the GHG argument is that increasing CO2 by ppm is not a "small amount" of gas. If that was not the case, then there wouldn't be any CO2 greenhouse effect to speak of. Since the IPCC speaks of a CO2 greenhouse effect, I have to draw the conclusion above -- and I can't argue it beyond that. Together we've stated Hug and Barrett vs. the IPCC: we can't push the argument any further. If Hug and Barrett's argument has merit, they'll eventually get more notice. Hug has published (though it's a German journal). If the give-and-take there gets noisy enough, it will get picked up elsewhere.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that no atmospheric molecules in the stratosphere can absorb longwave radiation?

Actually (drum roll) they might end up being a significant influence. Just saw this while looking at new pictures in the NASA Earth Observatory:

STUDY OF DUST IN ICE CORES SHOWS VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS INTERFERE WITH THE EFFECT OF SUNSPOTS ON GLOBAL CLIMATE

Your major contention is still with the CO2 energy absorption.

Have I ever said otherwise? The contention of the IPCC & their modellers is CO2 is the king and driver of the whole show. Which is a blatant fiction.

No, you haven't. But until somebody reputable in the climate change community stands up and says "Ohmigod, we screwed up -- look at this paper by Hug and Barrett!", I am going to harbor my suspicion that their experimental result doesn't transfer properly to the atmospheric system due to an overlooked dynamic process. And before making a considerable effort to try and convince me (though you can do whatever you want in terms of illustrating the point), I'll tell you that there isn't much more you can say for my thick-headed benefit. I understand Hug and Barrett's point enough to perceive how it conflicts with the standard GHG-induced warming view. I don't think you can provide any material that resolves that conflict.