[[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
Simply the conservation of energy. It can't just disappear, it either gets spread across the 10,000 non-CO2 molecules from the 4 CO2 molecules, or one of the 4 CO2 molecules has a probabilistic emission of an IR photon out into space or back towards the earth. The other way to get rid of energy as you pointed it motion (convection) upwards, but that is incredibly slow compared to transfer between molecules.
What is not really valid about my scenario is having all 4 CO2 molecules in the 10,000 other molecules getting hit with IR photons. The odds are much much lower than that. Might be 4 in a million or 4 in a billion. But the extra heat is still cumulative until it goes away (e.g. through convection or radiation to space)
...and the impact of entropy is so pervasive....
Entropy is an argument for dispersion of heat, not against it.
The convection spoken of in the article I believe was speaking to upper cooler molecules descending down to the area of CO2-
Convection is a (slow) process to cool the atmosphere. Thus it is a negative feedback because any time it gets warmer for whatever reason (sunshine, weather, CO2 warming), convection increases. But the important thing to realize is that sunshine is a dozen orders of magnitude more powerful than CO2 warming so it controls convection. If CO2 warming creates more convection it will probably be insignificantly more.
....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-
There was a predicted hotspot in the upper tropical troposphere, I believe it was due to increase convection in the tropics. They don't talk about it much anymore since the prediction failed. But that requires correct predictions about weather because, other than sunshine warming the earth, convection is a function of weather. Models can't predict weather because weather is essentially an input because it is parameterized. I would argue the hotspot is really a model input based on convection parameters. If they want a hotspot they increase the convection parameter. It is not very meaningful and could have nothing to do with CO2 (a hotspot might form from having frequent El Nino)
Warming depends on suspending entropy and isolating the warming in a closed system globally, not just locally in spots around the globe
The entropy argument is an argument for dispersion of warming from single CO2 molecules to other non-CO2 molecules. The conservation of energy means the extra warmth in the CO2 molecules has to go somewhere. It will eventually get radiated away or convect upwards and then be radiated away. But both of those are slow compared to the 1/10 nanosecond that it takes to transfer the heat from a CO2 molecules to a surrounding non-CO2 molecule, especially convection which on the order of minutes to move heat upwards.