[[Drop in 102 degree water molecules at a 0.04% concentration into water at 100 degrees and you raise the entire water temperature from 100 to 100.001]]
no sir that can’t possibly be true- The mass of 100 degree water is far too great to allow that great a rise- and this also ignores the fact that the surrounding mass is not static but dynamic- what insignificant warming does happen is over-ruled by the mass of cooler upper level molecules- The amount of warming that takes place is far too small and the atmosphere too dynamic to remain around to create an accumulative effect- the principle I believe being that as air is warmed, it expands, (no matter how slightly) and then it rises, and cooler air replaces it (while at same time cooling the slightly warmer air)
In order for the atmosphere to remain warmer due to accumulative effect- it would need to somehow defeat the rising temps and sinking cooler temps, and it would need to be a % large enough to ‘overpower’ the mass of cooler air and dynamic environment
This cooling effect by convection far surpasses the slight warming effect due to CO2 and GHG- The accumulative effect you described is simply far too small to actually accumulate in an amount large enough to overcome the cooling effect- The cooling effect cancels out any warming- just like a room heated in isolation from outside environments- as soon as you open the doors, and allow cooler air in, the room cools, and will remain cool despite trying to warm it by adding 0.04% by volume heat to the room
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-
And don’t forget, them ore clouds/water vapor in the atmosphere (Due to upward heat act from earth to atmosphere) them ore solar radiation is reflected back out to space- Preventing that heat from warming the atmosphere like it would without cloud cover- The cooler the atmosphere due to lack of warming from space, the harder time the heated molecules created by CO2 has to cause brief localized warming
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- According to this report, the IPCC hypothesis is ‘right’ In theory, but wrong according to reality- but even if right according to reality- there is still so little warming that a hotspot would create that it would amount to nearly zero warming for the net atmosphere- and just slight warming for the localized hotspot-
http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
This article says better than what I was trying to about entropy being devastating to heat accumulation in an open system- for the creation opf hotspots, the atmosphere would need to experience and imposible reduction of entropy:
[[From the mathematical definition of entropy, a process in which heat flows from cold to hot has decreasing entropy. This can happen in a non-isolated system if entropy is created elsewhere, such that the total entropy is constant or increasing.]]
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-agw-hot-spot-wont-happen.html
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.