<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 08:31:15 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote:

> > On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:56:02 -0500, Bill Ward
> > <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:16:16 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote:

> >> > On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:42:22 -0500, Bill Ward
> >> > <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:35:10 +0200, pausch wrote:

> >> >> > In article <rP2dnV0Q5K534GvSnZ2dnUVZ_h2dn...@giganews.com>,
> >> >> > bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com says...

> >> >> >> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 07:01:55 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote:

> >> >> >> > On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 18:10:38 -0400, bjacoby
> >> > <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> And you forgot to mention that your model ignores that
> > the
> >> >> >> > important
> >> >> >> >> >> CO2 IR bands are saturated.

> >> >> >> >> > Could you give a reference confirming the correctness of
> >> > that
> >> >> >> > statement?

> >> >> >> >> No I won't.

> >> >> >> > Ok, but stop making claims if you're so unwilling to verify
> >> > them,
> >> >> >> > will you?

> >> >> >> >> > And if CO2 does not cause any warming, why is it so hot
> > on
> >> > the
> >> >> >> > surface
> >> >> >> >> > of Venus?

> >> >> >> >> Just put the strawman to bed will you?  The earth is not
> >> > Venus. And
> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> >> didn't say CO2 causes NO warming.

> >> >> >> > The same physical laws work on Venus as on Earth, right?

> >> >> >> > You claimed the CO2 absorption bands are saturated already
> >> > with the
> >> >> >> > comparatively low CO2 abundance in the Earth's atmosphere --
> >> > if so,
> >> >> >> > that would imply that any amount of extra CO2 causes no
> > extra
> >> > warming
> >> >> >> > since the absorption is already saturated. That in turn
> > would
> >> > imply
> >> >> >> > that the hot-as-hell temperature on Venus surface cannot be
> >> > due to
> >> >> >> > the enormous amounts of CO2 in Venus' atmosphere.

> >> >> >> > So why is it so hot on Venus? Venus being closer to the Sun
> >> > than
> >> >> >> > Earth can only explain parts of Venus high temperature, but
> > it
> >> > cannot
> >> >> >> > explain why Venus is even hotter than Mercury. Any idea what
> >> > makes
> >> >> >> > Venus so hot if not the CO2?

> >> >> >> Venus is hot because it has an almost opaque, dense and deep
> >> >> >> atmosphere. Most of the absorption and emission of radiation
> >> > occurs
> >> >> >> near the top of the atmosphere, where the temperature is just
> >> > high
> >> >> >> enough to radiate the same amount of energy as absorbed from
> > the
> >> > Sun.

> >> >> >> The surface is much hotter because of adiabatic compression
> >> > forming a
> >> >> >> lapse rate from the radiating layer down to the surface, which
> >> > is at
> >> >> >> around 92 times the surface pressure on Earth.

> >> >> >> The "greenhouse effect" label is quite misleading, as the
> >> > mechanism
> >> >> >> involved has no connection with actual greenhouses, which
> > work by
> >> >> >> blocking convection.

> >> >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus>

> >> >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate>

> >> >> >>>>>> the important CO2 IR bands are saturated.

> >> >> >>>>> Could you give a reference confirming the correctness of
> > that
> >> >> >>>>> statement?

> >> >> >>>> No I won't.

> >> >> > Now I know why you won't do this.  You won't find any reliable
> >> > reference
> >> >> > confirming this, because the statement "CO2 IR bands are
> >> > saturated" is
> >> >> > wrong.  And by repeating it, you're propagating desinformation.

> >> >> To whom are you responding?

> >> >> > Here:

> > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy

> >> > -
> >> >> > argument/

> >> >> > you'll find a good explanation about the "CO2 IR bands are
> >> > saturated"
> >> >> > myth, an historic overview about how it originated, and a good
> >> >> > explanation why it is wrong.  And even if it had been correct,
> >> > more CO2
> >> >> > in our atmosphere would **still** give us a higher temperature
> > --
> >> > that
> >> >> > web page explains why.  It also explains why CO2 IR absorption
> >> > matters
> >> >> > also in the H2O bands, despite there being more H2O than CO2 in
> >> > the
> >> >> > atmosphere (the short explanation is that the IR absorption of
> >> > neither
> >> >> > CO2 nor H2O are continuous but has a lot of fine structure, and
> >> > quite
> >> >> > often the many thin absorption lines of CO2 resp H2O do not
> >> > overlap; the
> >> >> > long explanation can be found on that web page).

> >> >> > So THAT's why it's so hot on Venus: even though the CO2
> >> > absorption on
> >> >> > Venus indeed is well saturated, more CO2 still yields hotter
> >> > temperature
> >> >> > at the ground -- on Venus as on Earth.  This is because more
> > CO2
> >> > causes
> >> >> > the "effective radiation surface" of the CO2 to/from space to
> > move
> >> >> > upwards

> >> >> I don't think that's significant.  Here's why:  The Venusian
> >> > atmosphere
> >> >> is already opaque, absorbing all CO2 radiation within a very
> > short
> >> >> distance.  Absorption simply converts the IR to thermal energy in
> >> > the
> >> >> gas, so we have ordinary heated CO2 molecules in LTE, exchanging
> >> > photons
> >> >> like all other GHGs, but completely adiabatic until they reach
> >> > about one
> >> >> optical depth from space.  From there, some of the photons begin
> > to
> >> >> escape to space, cooling the planet.  That level is far up into
> > the
> >> >> atmosphere, where the temperature is just high enough to radiate
> > as
> >> > IR
> >> >> all the absorbed solar energy.  The transition from opaque to
> > semi-
> >> >> transparent occurs over only a few hundred meters, and any change
> >> > in CO2
> >> >> concentration will be effective only over that short distance
> > where
> >> >> radiation is important.  On the way down to the surface, only
> >> > convection
> >> >> carries energy.  Radiation plays no part.

> >> >> Be careful with RC "explanations", as they are notorious for
> >> > misleading
> >> >> half-truths. For example, in the link, they neglect to mention
> > that
> >> > most
> >> >> energy is carried from the surface of the Earth by evaporation
> > and
> >> >> convection, not radiation.  Water vapor is the primary GHG,
> >> > radiating
> >> >> broadband from an average radiating altitude near 6km.  CO2 plays
> >> > almost
> >> >> no part, as it emits only in the narrow 15u band from the cold
> >> >> stratosphere.

> >> >> The "narrow lines" of CO2 is a red herring.  At Earth's surface,
> >> > the
> >> >> lines are pressure broadened by collision with other air
> > molecules,
> >> > and
> >> >> nearly all the CO2 radiation is absorbed within a few meters.

> >> >> And, given the same surface pressure, the surface of Venus would
> > be
> >> > just
> >> >> as hot with any other GHG providing the same optical depth.

> >> >> > -- and then the adiabatic lapse rate does the rest of the work
> > in
> >> >> > heating up the ground. That "effective radiation surface" of
> >> > CO2 of
> >> >> > course resides much higher above the ground on Venus than on
> >> > Earth.

> >> >> > So could you now please stop propagating the myth (or lie) that
> >> > "CO2 IR
> >> >> > bands in the Earth's atmosphere are saturated, therefore more
> > CO2
> >> > does
> >> >> > not cause higher temperature", because that statement is doubly
> >> > flawed:

> >> >> > 1. The CO2 IR bands aren't saturated on Earth -- more CO2 will
> >> > still
> >> >> > yield more IR absorption.

> >> >> It doesn't matter - convection carries the surface energy to the
> >> > altitude
> >> >> where WV can emit it to space.   CO2 and radiation play almost no
> >> > part in
> >> >> that transfer.

> >> > ...and more CO2 increases the altitude where radiation becomes
> > dominant,
> >> > and that will increase the ground temperature since the
> > convection will
> >> > work over a larger altitude span.

> >> Apparently you missed the point.  If you increase the CO2 in the
> > Venusian
> >> atmosphere, you only affect the upper few meters, not the actual
> > altitude
> >> of tens of kilometers between the radiating layer and the surface.

> >> Why should I bother posting answers, if you're not even going to
> > read
> >> them?

> > ....and in particular when you don't seem to read what I post either. So
> > why do you post? You don't have to, feel free to stop any time you like!

> I was specifically noting that you did not respond to my comment that
> only the few meters at the top of the Venusian atmosphere would be
> affected by a change in CO2 concentration, since the column below is
> opaque to IR.  You still haven't responded.

> What have you written that you think I've ignored?

> >> >> > 2. Even if the CO2 IR bands had been saturated, more CO2 in our
> >> >> > atmosphere would still yield higher ground temperatures
> >> >> > (assuming
> >> >> > everying else was unchanged, of course).

> >> >> You need to explain a bit more precisely why you think that.  CO2
> >> >> has
> >> >> been increasing dramatically for the last decade, but the average
> >> >> surface
> >> >> temperature isn't increasing.

> >> > CO2 didn't increase much more dramatically during the latest
> >> > decade than
> >> > during the several decades before that. The current pause in the
> >> > global
> >> > warming is interesting though,

> >> Especially since it disproves your hypothesis that CO2 has a
> >> significant effect on surface temperatures..

> > Your demands on "disproof" is very slim......

> The CO2 signal is indistinguishable from noise.  Isn't that insignificant?

> >> > and demonstrates that CO2 isn't the sole factor determining the
> >> > average ground temperature.

> >> And isn't even significant, as the heating "signal", if any, is
> >> overwhelmed by something else you'd rather ignore.

> > If you bothered to read on a few lines, I actually suggest what this
> > "something else" could be. That's not ignoring it!

> >> > However, the current
> >> > pause in the warming isn't unique, there have been similar pauses
> >> > a few
> >> > other times during the latest 160 or so years. Personally I think
> >> > that
> >> > the current pause in the warming is linked to the latest solar
> > minimum
> >> > which was unusually long and unusually deep. Some astronomers even
> >> > speculated we were entering a new Maunder minimum, but that didn't
> >> > happen. Maybe after the next solar cycle.

> >> Could be.  But there's obviously something a lot more significant
> >> than
> >> CO2 affecting surface temperatures.

> > If so, why hasn't the global temperature decreased significantly during
> > the latest decade? If the counteracting factor had been "a lot more
> > significant" than increasing CO2, as you put it, then the warming ougt
> > to have turned into a cooling rather than merely a standstill in global
> > temperature.
> OTOH, if CO2 were significant, why hasn't it overwhelmed the other
> causes, as was predicted by the IPCC?

> > But the current pause in the global warming isn't unique during the
> > latest century, there have been pauses earlier too, and they lasted
> > 20-30 years. The current pause has only lasted some 10 years so far. So
> > it's too early to draw any firm conclusions about the current pause, we
> > should wait another 20-30 years before doing that. An in partucular it's
> > far too premature to deny CO2's role as a greenhouse gas....
> I don't know of anyone denying the IR spectrum of CO2.  The issue is
> whether CO2 represents a danger that requires redistribution of wealth
> for the planet's very survival.

> That sounds a bit premature to me,

> since no one seems to be able to provide and explain a scientifically
> defensible mechanism by which CO2 could cause such a danger.