Can someone tell me the point of taking pictures of how a process is "supposed" to work? I say "supposed" because the scientists really don't know what is truly typical since the satellite historical record of pictures like this cannot be more than about 30 years and high res pics are likely less than 10 years in the past. Therefore, given that this ice has been doing it's "thing" for a gajillion years, our interpretation is left for our imagination.

What I sense out of the pictures though is that the apparent melt of the white surface, and the poking up of rocky outcrops below, give a sense of impending doom. It is as though a picture of a major change in appearance (though deemed normal and typical as described in the article) drives home the point to the public that the earth is melting.

Makes me think of the great pics of glaciers calving at the coast and that being linked to the meltdown. Impressionable, uninformed minds take that image and create grand schemes of mankind destroying itself. Doesn't really matter that the calving process has occurred for as long as man has existed. The fact they see a pic and a what if statement allows them to decide that this is a new phenomenon. Makes me think of a certain shockumentary with a staid former high ranking US politician.

If reporting at NASA was symmetrical, this article would have been titled "Antarctic breakup six weeks late due to global cooling."

I expect that southern sea ice (which is currently 15% above normal) will remain above normal through the season. Temperatures in Antarctica have been running far below normal through the summer.

Posting this article under global warming is misleading.....just like everything else about global warming.....misleading...maybe you should seek another profession!

Reply: The global Warming part of the title under the blog section of the headlines is always there. I cannot take it out, it is just the header: This is so people will know what blog they are linking to. Nothing more than that. I would also say that your commenter name is a bit misleading. At least I would hope. If you are confused, just click on the link and you will see the title without the header. Read the post and you will see that it says that this melting is NOT due to global warming.

BT,

From the Sea Level Rise thread.

One more time, with feeling. First, the C02 doesn't heat the N2 and O2 (at least through radiation). It heats itself, and radiates IR towards the surface of the earth. This mechanism is different from convection and conduction.

If CO2 does not heat the N2 and O2 via radiation, then it must be conduction, correct? Otherwise how does N2 and O2 get heated to the same temp as CO2? You cannot mean that it heats itself.

The gases absorb a portion of incoming energy, based on its spectrum and the composition of each gas -- they do so by absorbing photons and changing the energy level of the molecule that absorbed the photon. Then, later, that molecule reverts to a less-energetic state and releases the energy in a new photon with a different (lower) energy level. The new photon is emitted in the IR (Infrared) band -- HEAT.

Why so vauge, settled science is not vague? Our atmosphere is quite transparent, and with the concentrations of N2 and 02 as they are now, they are 2,600 times more likely to get struck with radiation as is CO2, no matter the wavelength. This raises the kinetic energy of the gases, which in turn raises the temp.

So the first step in the process is that a portion of the incoming broad-spectrum solar energy (a stream of photons of various energy, and therefore frequency, levels) is absorbed and re-radiated as IR by atmospheric gases, including CO2.

I agree.

Some of that re-radiated IR is directed outwards, where it radiates away and adds to the energy reflected through albedo.

How much energy is reflected via albedo? I'm curious because it seems albedo reflects large quantities of energy that has slipped through all the N2, O2, and CO2, where it was 2,600 times more likely to strike than CO2. This is not a trivial question, if so much energy is reflected by ice, that means it was barely affected by the atmosphere. How can albedo from ice be so strong when there is so much CO2 radiating IR back towards it?

The second step in the process is that atmospheric CO2 has an absorption band in the IR region. This is where atmospheric CO2 differs from N2 and O2. The atmospheric CO2 absorbs incoming IR, including the re-radiated IR that was directed towards the surface in the first step.

What happens to the IR in that same band that strikes N2 and O2? Does it raise the kinetic energy? That same IR photon is 2,600 times more likely to strike N2 and O2 than CO2.

That absorbed IR photon again raises the energy level of whatever CO2 molecule ate it, and therefore warms the gas. Eventually that molecule will again revert to a lower-energy state and re-radiate another IR photon. As in step one, some will go away from the surface and some will go towards the surface.

Are there other ways for CO2 and all other gases to gain temp other than Eating photons? When CO2 re-radiates an IR photon, how many more times likely will it strike N2 or O2 than another CO2 molecule?

In the same way that a tiny amount of base current can cause a large change in collector current -- resulting in the power gain of a transistor -- so also a tiny amount of CO2 can cause a large change in the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere.

What? I'd love to hear more detail on this analogy. Is CO2 retaining all this energy thus raising the temp of the atmosphere?

I asked;
If you used a heat lamp that emitted the two bands of radiation that CO2 absorbs to heat a volume of N2 and O2, would the temp stay the same or would the radiation striking the N2 and O2 raise the kinetic energy of the volume?

You replied;
The temp of the volume would stay the same, ignoring boundary effects from the walls. If the volume were in space and bounded by a vacuum (as the earth is), the temperature of the N2 and O2 would stay the same.

Not true. You say it is relatively transparent, however that IR will strike N2 and O2 molecules. While they will not completely absorb the energy, their kinetic energy rises therefore reducing the energy of the photon (second law of conservation of energy) and the temp rises.

If you used the same source of energy to heat an equal volume and density of dry air and a mixture of just 80% N2 and 20% O2, you will see no difference in temp between the two systems. 380 ppm CO2 is far too little to have any measurable effect.

If you disagree, please don't say the science is settled. To be convincing, give me a volume and density, a precise amount of energy over a period of time, and show that N2 and O2 will not gain energy from an IR source. Leave convection and conduction out.

Regards,

Steve

Cool pics. Aren't related to any GW, just a natural process. Something neat to look at. Reply: That's right.

Take a break from GW for a moment and just admire them.

These photos are of the area that was once occupied by the Larsen B Ice Shelf.

The Larsen B Ice Shelf broke up a few years ago and is long gone; a victim of global warming.

So, for anybody to suggest that the fast ice in this area of antartica "usually breaks up every year" at a particular time is ignoring 12,000 years of history.

For all the skeptics: What this means is that for 12,000 years, ice in this area did not break up at all. The fact that it is breaking up every year is a consequence of the recent global warming.

Just because satellites didn't exist 12,000 years ago, does not mean ice shelves can not be dated.

Brett - I second the cool pics / thanks for the info comment by Brian & just wanted to add that you should ignore the satan's of the world ( and a lot of other folk ).
Keep up the good work, although I count myself in with the skeptics I enjoy your site & will continue to read, learn & think about your posts.

Be good,
Rick.

Hi Andrew,

I hate to rain on your doom and gloom parade, but Antarctica has been cooling over the last 30 years. Look at the trend at the bottom of the UAH table.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
SoPol Land Ocean
-0.07 -0.08 -0.06

The Larsen Ice shelf was sitting on top of an active geothermal and volcanic region. Warm water tends to melt ice. How does that correlate with "global" warming?

Hi Guys,

Andrew you are the one ignoring 12000 years of history. Temperatures are cooler now than in the Holocene Maximum. With the PDO shifting to the negative (BTW PDO number for this month is -1.56) and the sun being at a low TSI the temperatures are going to follow. This has nothing to do with CO2. CO2 has a very small effect on total climate maybe as much as 10% of the warming and I am being generous.

Does it make any sense at all that an ice shelf that has existed since the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago might one day disappear since the Ice Age is no longer in effect? Does inter-glacial mean anything to AGW advocates?

How about the fact that we are in the warmest period of a cycle that occurs regularly over the last couple million years and that sea levels were higher 125,000 years ago during the last major inter-glacial period without anthropogenic sources of CO2.

Why aren't there ice sheets covering North America today, there were 12,000 years ago? It still amazes me that people who have access to education are so freaked out by such non-events.

Recent global warming? The average temp of the planet has gone up around 14 C in the last 12,000 years and has gone up and down about 1 C every 4 to 5 hundred years for at least the last 2,000 years.

How exactly is a 1 C increase in temps after a 13 C increase in temps out of the ordinary?

Just because Ice Shelves existed 12,000 years ago does not mean that they still should today.

Regards,

Steve

If CO2 does not heat the N2 and O2 via radiation, then it must be conduction, correct? Otherwise how does N2 and O2 get heated to the same temp as CO2? You cannot mean that it heats itself.

Actually, I do mean that (excluding convection and conduction) the C02 molecules heat themselves.

How much energy is reflected via albedo? I'm curious because it seems albedo reflects large quantities of energy that has slipped through all the N2, O2, and CO2, where it was 2,600 times more likely to strike than CO2. This is not a trivial question, if so much energy is reflected by ice, that means it was barely affected by the atmosphere. How can albedo from ice be so strong when there is so much CO2 radiating IR back towards it?

The albedo is for the earth as a whole. See references like this for more specifics. That reference cites the figure of 0.39 (excluding greenhouse effects).

What happens to the IR in that same band that strikes N2 and O2? Does it raise the kinetic energy? That same IR photon is 2,600 times more likely to strike N2 and O2 than CO2.

N2 and O2 are transparent to IR photons. The IR photons do not raise the kinetic energy and are not absorbed.

Not true. You say it is relatively transparent, however that IR will strike N2 and O2 molecules. While they will not completely absorb the energy, their kinetic energy rises therefore reducing the energy of the photon (second law of conservation of energy) and the temp rises.

Sorry, the IR photons do NOT transfer energy to the N2 or 02 molecules. That's what it means to say "N2 and O2 are transparent to IR".

If you used the same source of energy to heat an equal volume and density of dry air and a mixture of just 80% N2 and 20% O2, you will see no difference in temp between the two systems. 380 ppm CO2 is far too little to have any measurable effect.

Excluding convective and conductive effects, the IR energy not change the temperature of the N2 and O2, regardless of any CO2 concentration.

N2 and O2 are transparent to IR. No radiative IR energy transfer.

If you disagree, please don't say the science is settled. To be convincing, give me a volume and density, a precise amount of energy over a period of time, and show that N2 and O2 will not gain energy from an IR source. Leave convection and conduction out.

Choose any volume and density you like (within reason). Exclude convection and conduction. The N2 and O2 will not change in temperature.

This aspect of the science is most definitely settled.

The quantum nature of this phenomena may perhaps be the stumbling block for Steve. His questions seem to indicate a mental model of collisions between particles -- something like balls on a pool table. A better analogy is, perhaps, flocks of birds flying through each other. Each molecule is a flock, and each photon is another flock.

At IR energy levels, the effective size of a photon is so small that its "flock" passes through the "flock" that is the N2 molecule with essentially no interaction. Imagine a small flock of starlings flying through a larger and more widely spread flock of crows. The two simply fly through each other. No "collision", no energy transfer.

Transparent!

The southern sea ice is currently 15% above normal, PH? I don't think so. This must come as a shock to you.

Brett, even while the southern ice isn't doing anything unusual just now, it turns out the northern ice is. See this page for an animation and an article in which a scientist describes the ice as behaving like "styrofoam in a bathtub" (text pasted below since I can't find the link -- IIRC it's from a newspaper in Manitoba called The Prairie). It should be an interesting summer.

Also, I don't recall that you've blogged on the issue of Tibetan-region glacier melt/water supply loss: "Two billion face water famine as Himalayan glaciers melt"

--------------------

'Giant fractures have been cracking open the ice in the Beaufort Sea in recent weeks creating extraordinary stretches of open water and giving researchers from around the world a first-hand look at the Arctic meltdown. "It's shocking to see," says David Barber, a climate specialist at the University of Manitoba. He is heading an international project, involving more than 200 researchers from 15 countries, on the Amundsen, a Canadian Coast Guard ship over-wintering in the Beaufort. "The fractures are huge," says Barber, who recently returned from the Amundsen and says some cracks are more than 100 kilometres across. "We drove our ship down of one of them and you couldn't see the sides of it." The Canadian Ice Service has posted a satellite image of one "massive fracture" on its website, along with an animation showing huge fissures opening and giant slabs of ice peeling away west and north of Banks Island over the last five weeks. Stretches of open water, known as leads, normally form in the Beaufort in winter as thick, old ice grinds past much thinner first-year ice. Barber says he has never such large fractures and so much open water in December and January. He says the phenomenon is tied to the loss of Arctic ice last summer, that "stunned" scientists as the ice retreated 40 per cent below normal, to the lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979.

'There is now so little thick, multi-year ice left, that it is being blown around the Beaufort "like Styrofoam in a bathtub," says Barber. As the thick older ice moves it pulls away from the thin new ice creating fractures and large areas of open water. The $40-million research initiative on the Amundsen is part of the International Polar Year. Barber says the researchers could not have picked a more interesting winter to spend in the Beaufort, but says the changes they are documenting are "disturbing." Not only is the ice fracturing, but he says storm tracks are changing as weather systems are drawn in over the open water and fed by heat being released by the seawater. And thick multi-year ice, which the researchers are tracking with beacons, is moving at up to 30 nautical miles a day, much faster than normal. If the trend continues, he and other scientists predict the Arctic could be ice free in the summer months by 2020, plus or minus 10 years. That means Arctic summer ice, which has capped the planet for more than a million years, might be gone by 2010, says Barber.

'The implications extend far beyond the Arctic, and the possibility of shipping routes opening in the North. Weather across the Northern Hemisphere is impacted by what happens in the Arctic and the northern ice plays a critical role in controlling Earth's thermostat. Arctic ice reflects close to the 95 per cent of solar radiation that hits it. Once the ice melts away, seawater absorbs the heat instead, later releasing it back to the atmosphere, a process that will speed global warming. The phenomenon is already at play in the Beaufort. Barber saysthe extra heat absorbed by the sea water last summer delayed the formation of new ice last fall by many weeks. And the heat is still being released as storms churn up open water, creating unusually balmy winter weather, he says, noting the temperatures off Banks Island hit -9 C when he was on the Amundsen in December.'

Bloom,

Very interesting animation!! Looks like some currents, both wind and water are stirring things up a bit up there.

How does this compare to the ice conditions in the same area back in the 20s and 30s?

Patrick Henry;
After reading you blog, the word symmetrical stuck out for me. I looked at the 2 photos again and noticed that they were taken at two different angles. The first seems right over the antarctic and the second is about 15 degrees difference, at a slant. And when you take pictures to avoid noise,this is how you should do it. At a slant the picture will avoid the light scattering from the sun,and reduce the suns ability to reflect back, right into your lens. Another words,you could be right, because these two angles, these two photographs are not accurate comparisons.
Kipp

Today's ice map of the region east of the Antarctic Peninsula (where the photographs were taken) shows no shortage of very dense ice.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/antarctic.jpg

Hi Guy,

UAH is out and the survey says.....Delta T -.588 compared to RSS at -.629 and PDO -1.56.

Thanks for the stories, Steve. And, how does all of this relate to human produced CO2? I say the most pragmatic thing to do, and perhaps the only option is for us to adapt to any of these changes.

BT,

Actually, I do mean that (excluding convection and conduction) the C02 molecules heat themselves.

Wow. That is an incredibe statement, can you elaborate?

Also, can you please explain how N2 and O2 are heated to the same temp as the CO2?

Use any or all of the three methods for transfer of energy.

The albedo is for the earth as a whole. See references like this for more specifics. That reference cites the figure of 0.39 (excluding greenhouse effects).

Thanks for the link. No offense, but you are horrible at answering questions, are avoiding answering, or have no clue that you are not answering the questions posed to you.

How is it that albedo plays such a large role in radiative forcing?

My meaning is, that in order to play such a large role, most of the energy coming through the atmosphere must reach the surface and is then reflected, mostly unimpeded back to space.

This infers that CO2 is doing very little to change albeto, therefor very little "trapping".

N2 and O2 are transparent to IR photons. The IR photons do not raise the kinetic energy and are not absorbed.

BS. Please provide something, heck anything, to show how and or why. Really, a heat lamp that emits IR in the same wavelengths that CO2 absorbs will not raise the kinetic energy of a volume of N2 and O2? Assume a vaccum surrounding the volume if you like.

Sorry, the IR photons do NOT transfer energy to the N2 or 02 molecules. That's what it means to say "N2 and O2 are transparent to IR".

Outrageous :) Would you like to provide me with a link or care to explain yourself? Actually a link on this one would be better, the fact that you reitterated it with such conviction shows that an equally preposterous statement is sure to follow.

N2 and O2 are transparent to IR. No radiative IR energy transfer.

See above :)

The quantum nature of this phenomena may perhaps be the stumbling block for Steve. His questions seem to indicate a mental model of collisions between particles -- something like balls on a pool table. A better analogy is, perhaps, flocks of birds flying through each other. Each molecule is a flock, and each photon is another flock.

What? You have no clue what you mean by that do you? This reminds of your terrible use of Plank's Law :)

Okay, I'll bite, which quantum nature is my stumbling block?

You say that I "seem" to make an analogy and then make a "better analogy" on what you suppose? Your better analogy of the one you dreamt up for me is no better!

How are balls on a pool table any different from a flock of birds?

How are the IR birds hitting hitting the CO2 birds and not the N2 birds? This goes back to the transparency issue above.

At IR energy levels, the effective size of a photon is so small that its "flock" passes through the "flock" that is the N2 molecule with essentially no interaction. Imagine a small flock of starlings flying through a larger and more widely spread flock of crows. The two simply fly through each other. No "collision", no energy transfer.

What do you mean by effective size? Are some photons smaller than others?

How does CO2 fit in your model above?

Transparent!

BS!

Regards,

Steve

Hi Steve Bloom,

The southern sea ice is currently 15% above normal, PH? I don't think so

I'm going to take you through some tricky third grade math here. Please try to follow closely.

From Brett's post-
the current southern hemispheric sea-ice area is at 2.9 million sq/km, which is about 400,000 sq/km greater than the normal level

normal = 2.5 = 2.9 - 0.4
0.4 / 2.5 = 16% (above normal.)

As far as the Arctic goes, sea ice extent is almost exactly normal. (The uiuc graphs are four days behind the maps.) According to UAH and RSS, January was below normal temps in the northern hemisphere. It has been exceptionally cold near the Bering Strait, which means that the ice is getting very thick there. That is the key bottleneck to preventing a repeat of last year.

i.e. you are in for a big disappointment this summer.

i.e. you are in for a big disappointment this summer.

PH, if that turns out to be the case, it also means that the antiAGW theory you put forth is vindicated, because your prediction (that happens to be verifiable in a timely basis and not after the current college students are dead) is correct. So, not only will you be correct, the AGWers will be proved wrong. Of course, they will "adjust" their theory so the facts now fit it.

Amusing how they got on those OT ad hom attacks about how religious beliefs hamper science. Classic accusing the other side of what their side's actions cause.

Steve, it's just physics. You either want to learn it or you don't. The choice is yours, and only yours.

The fact that you don't understand this material means only that you don't understand this material -- nothing more and nothing less.

All the way over there (meaning distant from the local warming effect of the time), Paul? I'd say there's no evidence of anything like this in the '20s/30s or any reason to think it happened. More to the point, this behavior wasn't seen in recent winters (like 2005 and 2007) that preceded sharp drops in summer ice levels. We'll have to wait until this summer to see what it means, but thinner ice and warmer water seems like a resonable conclusion for now.

RK, the CO2 is warming the atmosphere and ocean, and those in turn are melting the glaciers and the sea ice. Some adaptation will be necessary, but without mitigation we will run the risk of repeating events to which we'll have a difficult time adapting:

'"The last time carbon was emitted to the atmosphere on the scale of what we are doing today, there were winners and losers," remarked Ken Caldeira, a co-author from the Carnegie Institution�s Department of Global Ecology. "There was ecological devastation, but new species rose from the ashes. Our work provides even more incentive to develop the clean energy sources that can provide for economic growth and development without risking the natural world that is our endowment."'

Short of that, there problems like ocean acidification ("Carbon Dioxide Is Double Threat to Reefs") and damage to agriculture ("Rising CO2 levels: A double whammy for the food supply") to deal with.

So the prudent course would seem to be as much mitigation (CO2 reduction) as possible and adaptation as necessary.

Sorry, PH, I misundersood what you meant. But looking at this graph, though (which seems to be running a few days behind the other plot), it seems to me that you don't have much of a hook to hang your hat on. What part of "still no significant trend" don't you understand?

PH: "It has been exceptionally cold near the Bering Strait, which means that the ice is getting very thick there. That is the key bottleneck to preventing a repeat of last year."

Is it getting thick? If the water's still warm, I doubt it. Even if it is getting thick, first year ice never gets all that thick, and even if it was thick multi-year ice it wouldn't be a bottleneck since ice doesn't flush out through the strait in the spring and summer. But that's OK, I'm sure that idea sounded good when you made it up.

To ruin your fun entirely, let's take a look at that Bering Strait sea ice on the convenient Nome NWS office sea ice page. Oops, at and just above the strait there's a mix of young and first year ice with no first year thick ice at all. Looking at the codes, areas of that ice are no more than 12" thick (and as little as 4") and it doesn't get 48" thick anywhere. Sorry, PH, but that ice is going to go fast.

Following the links to the National Ice Center sea ice map for the Barents Sea, I'm not seeing a lot of thickness either. But that would make sense, since first year ice is rarely very thick.

Hi Steve Bloom,

Thanks for the link to the NOAA map. I hadn't seen that before. Sea ice on the southern side of the Bering Strait is not particularly interesting, because it doesn't start forming until December, and never gets very thick. It is always gone by June.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html

It is the ice on the north side of the Bering Strait - the Chuckchi and East Siberian Seas which are going to determine the blockage this summer. Barrow has been averaging -15F since the start of winter. I wonder how thick the ice is there?
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/PABR/2007/12/20/CustomHistory.html?dayend=8&monthend=2&yearend=2008&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Bloom,

Ah, dancing again. Now, why wouldn't there be any evidence of anything like this in the 20s and 30s? Because you think so? As Al used to say, "I don't think so, Tim."

BT,

Hahahahahahahaha :)

Was that all you could cough up after choking on all your BS?

You said you wanted debate this and when I called you out on your terrible analogies, and your, quite frankly, "seemingly" :)zero knowledge of how light interacts with particles, you pull the "it's simple physics" BS?

You even asked Brett if there could be a topic on this subject and you still refuse to clarify your BS by saying I don't know physics. You're full of crap.

If you say 2+2=5 and I ask you how you arrived at that answer, you don't reply with "it's math dummy", explain it! It might just be on Bizzaro world.

How is it that 999,600 ppm of N2, O2, Ar2, and a few other trace gasses' temps are so heavily influenced by CO2?

How is it that CO2 heats itself?

Please explain how some photons are bigger than others.

How does a "flock" of IR manage to collide with a flock of 380 evenly spaced CO2 birds that are surrounded by 999,600 other birds and never hit the others? Your analogy, not mine.

Don't attempt to debate me if your just going to pull your usual BS. I'd rather just poke fun at your overactive imagination that compels you to explain things you have little or no knowledge of. Kids say the funniest things!

Can you answer any of the above? I could use a good laugh today. Lace it up, call me dumb, and please dream up some analogy based on a supposition so as to make as little sense as possible.

Steve

Let's see your evidence, Paul, of a) previous epsodes of this sort of behavior or b) significant warming in the area in question (off Banks Island) in the 20s/30s.

Can you answer any of the above? I could use a good laugh today. Lace it up, call me dumb, and please dream up some analogy based on a supposition so as to make as little sense as possible.

When I try to have a civil discussion with these guys, this is the result. Steve, you asked the questions and I gave you the answers. I'm sorry you don't like them. I won't bother to show you the courtesy again. It's no wonder that you don't seem to have absorbed much, since -- like any half-duplex transceiver -- it's very hard to receive anything when the "transmit" button is held on.

The fact remains that you are displaying a staggering ignorance of basic physics. Ignorance of, for example, quantum mechanics that's been taught to college freshmen and high-school seniors for more than thirty years. Maybe you can have a back-channel conversation with Kamatu and pick up a few tidbits here and there -- he seems to know at least a little bit of the relevant principles.

I fail to understand why you think that shouting such rubbish over and over will accomplish anything except strongly confirming your apparent ignorance, your boorish rudeness, and the stunning and utterly complete absence of any credibility of your opinions on a topic as challenging as climatology.

PH re your larson ice shelf comment about geotherma etc-in addition to that effect the disappearance of the ice shelf will bring into play marine warming much like we experience in the bay area to that region of the antarctic thus explaining some antarctic warming-this will be reduced as the ice shelf reforms
the earths wobbling top condition has reached a state where the rays of the sun are striking the northern hemispher in greater proportion than in the southern hemishere hence southern hemisphere ice age. start erecting poles and measuring the lengths of shadows for the next ten years and see if this is the case

Bloom,

Let's see your evidence, Paul, of a) previous epsodes of this sort of behavior or b) significant warming in the area in question (off Banks Island) in the 20s/30s.

My original question to you was How does this compare to the ice conditions in the same area back in the 20s and 30s? to which you replied,I'd say there's no evidence of anything like this in the '20s/30s or any reason to think it happened.

You say that there isn't any reason to think something like it happened in the 20s or 30s, yet you have no way of knowing whether or not this type of behavior is out of the ordinary. We didn't have satellites in the 20s and 30s and, unfortunately, we didn't have temperature recording devices in the area in question.

However, having said that, there is plenty of evidence worldwide that temperatures were as warm or warmer than today's. There is no reason to believe that similar conditions necessary to initiate the same sort of ice behavior could not have been met in the 20s and 30s.

Absence of evidence does not necessarily mean that similar conditions could not have occurred at any time during the past, especially in the 20s or 30s.

I am saying that similar conditions could have occurred in the 20s and 30s. Unfortunately, we will never know, will we?

BT,

When I try to have a civil discussion with these guys, this is the result. Steve, you asked the questions and I gave you the answers.

No you didn't. You came up with some crap about flocks and was very adamant about N2 and O2 being TRANSPARENT to IR that CO2 absorbs. I asked you how, you replied "simple physics". I said BS, and you're now crying about civility.

Did I hurt your feelings? Out of all my replies, you cannot answer any of the questions (questions in an attempt to clarify your BS I might add), but what you can do is get upset because I called you out as a BS'er. Your knowledge on this subject is telling.

You have no clue what you are talking about, if you did, you would answer and even throw in a couple zingers to rub it in, don't pull some crap about being civil. I know your not above poking fun, I'm simply too smart for you, aren't I?

Prove me wrong. I know you can't.

The fact remains that you are displaying a staggering ignorance of basic physics. Ignorance of, for example, quantum mechanics that's been taught to college freshmen and high-school seniors for more than thirty years.

Your lying. Be specific. Tell me what quantum nature you were thinking of that makes N2 and O2 transparent. Can't again? Simple, right? Settled?

Were my questions to clarify your non-answers too vague, did you need any clarification before civility set in?

How about just one question.

How does N2 and O2 arrive at the same temp as CO2 within our atmosphere?

Maybe you can have a back-channel conversation with Kamatu and pick up a few tidbits here and there -- he seems to know at least a little bit of the relevant principles.

A back channel conversation with a parrot would produce the same results as one with you. Did you know that some parrots can add, and if they don't know the answer they don't pull some crap about Quantum or Plank's Law :)

I fail to understand why you think that shouting such rubbish over and over will accomplish anything except strongly confirming your apparent ignorance, your boorish rudeness, and the stunning and utterly complete absence of any credibility of your opinions on a topic as challenging as climatology.

Just answer the questions. Oh yeah, nearly forgot, YOU CAN'T! :) Do you have any big brothers that can take up for you, I thought you were a man.

Brett,

I thought a separate thread for the origins of this non-debate was warranted, only to see that none can answer the call anyway. Good thing, this AGW stuff would soon fall on it's knees once it has been determined that CO2 CANNOT be responsible for what is being attributed to it.

Regards,

Steve

PH, you could have followed the second link I provided to the similar chart for the Barrow (Beaufort Sea) region (noting that this is quite distant from the Bering Strait "bottleneck" you first talked about). It seems to be running thin as well. Comparing it to the chart from three weeks ago, we can see that there hasn't been much of an increase in thickness.

Remember that this area of the Arctic is entirely composed of first year ice, so it's going to be an exercise in frustration trying to finding the thick stuff there. Also, cold air temps shouldn't lead you to expect thicker ice since the underlying ocean temps have a far larger influence.

Sorry, PH, but I just realized I probably confused things when in my first post with the sea ice chart links I said the second link showed the Barents Sea rather than what it actually was (the Chukchi Sea, i.e. the region north of the Bering Strait).

NGW Steve-

Since BT doesn't feel like explaining this to you, I will make an attempt.

The point is that in fact, by definition, homonuclear (i.e. same- atom) diatomics like O2 and N2 are unable to absorb IR radiation because they undergo no dipole changes upon stretching, the only internal motion they can experience. On the other hand, CO2, although the ground state molecule has no dipole on the time average, as it vibrates, it does (picture vibrations bouncing the C back and forth between O=C===O and O===C=O) so that it is an extremely strong absorber (and emitter) of infrared light. As a lab example, in measuring IR spectra, one needs to flush room air from the chamber holding one's samples, because the traces of CO2 in the few centimeters of the light's path can give signals as large as features in the solid or liquid-phase (i.e. LOTS more molecules) of experimental sample being probed. Guess what gas is used for flushing?--dry, pure N2--totally IR transparent. The only other gas in any significant quantity in the atmosphere is Argon, a monoatomic which therefore has no vibrations at all.

Because they absorb the light via quantum transitions, they don't cool and emit lower E photons. The excited molecules reemit the same light energy they got, but because they've been tumbling around the photons come back out in all directions, which means that of the ones that _were_ being radiated out from the earth (cooling it) some get turned back

Also I might as well be personal, as that seems to be the modus operandi on this blog: Steve, I recommend that while you may not like BT or his style of attempting to humiliate you, you should accept his knowledge of physics like you would anyone else's. He is wrong often like most people, but he is also write often.

Further, I'm not acting as a "big brother" to help BT. I'm merely attempting to answer your original question.

Maybe this will help clear things up Steve.

Regards,
~Elliot

Have a nice evening, Steve.

Tell me what quantum nature you were thinking of that makes N2 and O2 transparent.

For those who are interested in yet another answer to Steve's question (since it's already been asked and answered at least a half-dozen times here, with links), here is another:
Classical mechanics could not accurately predict the spectrum of radiation emitted by a heated body. In fact, it predicted that a hot body should radiate an infinite amount of energy.
...
Energy of a wave = (Planck's constant) * (Frequency of the wave)

This idea is familiar to us today, we know that x-rays have more energy than rays of light, which in turn are more powerful than radio waves. These are all examples of electromagnetic radiation - but with different frequencies, and therefore, according to Planck's idea, different energies.

This solved the problem of blackbody radiation in the following way. Because each wave has a particular energy, there are only a finite number of waves that have an energy that is less than that associated with the oven. Not all waves that fit in the oven actually exist - there are some who require more energy than is available. If a particular wavelength has too high an energy threshold, it doesn't contribute anything - it doesn't 'wave' at all! This means that the total number of waves (and therefore the total energy) in the oven is finite, and even more exiting, it fits the spectrum discovered experimentally.

It was Einstein who realised what Planck was really doing here. Beneath the concept that each wave has an associated energy is a deeper one - that electromagnetic waves can be 'quantisized'. The idea is that waves can only carry particular values of energy because they actually arrive as particles, each with a specific energy value. It isn't possible for half a particle to arrive ! Solving the blackbody dilemma was therefore one of the first steps to quantum theory - this is ultimately what scientists had to do about the blackbody conflict between theory and experimental evidence - they embarked upon a new theory altogether!

N2 and O2 cannot absorb IR photons, and are instead transparent to them. This is because their diatomic molecular structure makes them too "stiff". Atmospheric CO2, a triatomic gas, has more degrees of freedom and therefore more readily absorbs IR photons -- transforming their energy into heat in the process.

Here is another accessible answer to Steve's question:
The purpose of this page is to provide a simple explanation of why some gases are Global Warming (GW) gases and others are not. Quite a few people have wondered why carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are called greenhouse gases when they are in very low concentration in the atmosphere while nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) which make up 99%+ of the atmospheric gases are not. To understand why this is so you need to understand the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

It is well known in physics that there are three mechanisms of heat transfer from one body to another. They are:

   1. Conduction
   2. Convection
   3. Radiation

Because the Earth is surround by an almost perfect vacuum we can ignore conduction and convection as they require either a physical contact between the two bodies (conduction) or the movement of a heat containing fluid (convection).

That leaves radiation as the only mechanism by which heat can enter and leave the Earth. The Earth heats up due to radiation from the Sun and the Earth cools by radiating heat out into space. Because of the properties of the gases that make up the atmosphere the light that comes from the Sun, which is mostly in what we call visible wavelengths, is not absorbed by the atmosphere. However the Earth radiates most of its heat away in what we call the infra-red wavelengths.

The wavelengths that a hot body radiates at is determined by its temperature and can be described by the Planck Radiation Formula which is way too complex to discuss here but if you are interested there is a nice explanation at:

Wikipedia: Planck's law or
HyperPhysics (GSU): Blackbody Radiation

In a nutshell the cooler a body is the lower the wavelength of the radiation it will emit. As the Earth has a fairly cool absolute temperature of around 300K it radiates most of its energy in the infra-red wavelength. The greenhouse effect is a result of the Earth radiating in the infra-red region. To understand why you need to know a bit about how gases absorb and emit radiation.

The reason that CO2, CH4 etc. are greenhouse gases and the main atmospheric gases (O2,N2) are not is because they absorb radiation at the wavelengths that the Earth emits at. That greenhouse gases absorb in the infrared region is because infrared absorption is due to intramolecular motion (vibration, rotation, and bending). The diatomic gases (N2,O2) are to 'stiff' to flex easily this way. The triatomic CO2 and penta-atomic CH4 are much more flexible and therefore they do absorb in the infra-red.

An infrared spectrophotometer (a very common laboratory instrument) can be used to measure and quantify the IR absorption. You can see the relevant spectra on the web at:
Iowa State
or
brneurosci.org

To summarize:

   1. The Sun is hot.
   2. Hot bodies like the sun radiate in the visible spectrum.
   3. 99+% of gases in the atmosphere are transparent in the visible region of the spectrum.
   4. The Earth is pretty cool.
   5. Cool bodies radiate in the infra-red spectrum.
   6. Triatomic(+) gases (CO2, CH4, H20) are not transparent in the infra-red region of the spectrum, they thus absorb radiation from the earth.
   7. Absorbed radiation heats the absorbing body (gas).

All these are facts that can be easily demonstrated by experiment using equipment available in most high school physics labs.

The only non-obvious facts are that CO2, CH4 etc. are greenhouse gases and the main atmospheric gases (O2,N2) are not and this is due to their chemical structures as explained above.

The idea that CO2 in the air is an important determinant of global temperature is actually quite old, it was first theorized by Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) in a paper published in Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-276 (1896)[1].

He is one of the most respected of scientists and in fact the symbol 'A' is used for the activation energy of a chemical reaction in his honor. He even related the concentration of CO2 to the past geological variation in the Earths temperature.

"One may now ask, How much must the carbonic acid vary according to our figures, in order that the temperature should attain the same values as in the Tertiary and Ice ages respectively? A simple calculation shows that the temperature in the arctic regions would rise about 8 deg. to 9 deg. C., if the carbonic acid increased to 2.5 or 3 times its present value. In order to get the temperature of the ice age between the 40th and 50th parallels, the carbonic acid in the air should sink to 0.62--0.55 of its present value (lowering of temperature 4-5 deg. C.)."

Ref: Le Moyne College

Not bad work, comparing it to the current supercomputer models, considering it was published in 1896.

This is the "settled" part of the science, folks. It just is.

Steve Bloom, I read the article in the Vancouver Sun you mentioned above and I have done a search for the names of the authors and Southwestern. I got five hits, repeating the same story with three of the links being directly related to the Vancouver Sun article. I did run down the original item, it was given orally on 8 August 2007.
http://eco.confex.com/eco/2007/techprogram/P1281.HTM

I also saw a great number of other abstracts from papers that don't contradict your source, but raise a number of questions and observations.

Firstly, in a number of them high temps (over 100 degrees F)were the major factor, not CO2 at the concentrations used while temps around 90 were optimal. So, heat might be more important than the CO2, but does the study include other plants that can thrive better in warmer climates? I know when I was stationed in Central America other vegetables were used as staples by the locals.

Secondly, truly massive doses of CO2 (10K+ ppm) produced much greater biomass growth, including the edible portions. Also, the effect of elevated CO2 at levels noted in the news story also increased biomass and fruiting. Does this increase in biomass offset the lower protein levels or does adjustment of the plant nutrient levels have anything to do with protein production?

Thirdly, several studies note that increased CO2 and warmer temps can increase the quality of nutrients other than protein. Again, is this an offsetting issue vs. the protein levels?

I'd suggest you do some research on hydroponics and greenhouse growing, with references to the need for either air circulation (to replenish CO2 used by the plants) and/or CO2 enrichment. Heat factors also can come into play here as heat can inhibit the ability of plants to utilize available nutrients.

On another front, is Canada really only 5% arable land? I don't know, it just seems a bit low. Since we are talking about AGW, I'd also think that including glaciers in the 95% might not be honest, although the potential (unspecified) for coastal flooding would be relevant under these assumptions. Speaking of hydroponics, they are being used more and more for agriculture as the technology level increases, greatly extending the agricultural value of marginal farming land. A number of common grocery store fruits and vegetables are produced using hydroponic techniques for at least a portion of their life cycle.

So again, this might be an issue that would not be solved by some kind of AGW megaproject to alter climate and weather, but simply using existing technologies to solve the problem, in this case, food supply worries. Actually, the market will solve this without government interference if it is left alone.

Kamatu, the difficulty is that we are already engaged in a megaproject to alter climate and weather. I and others would prefer that we stop. Why do you want to continue?

Regarding the plant response to elevated CO2, there have been numerous papers in the last couple of years, most of which amount to not especially good news. A number of these studies have been in situ. Notice that the abstract describes a meta-study referring to much of this other work.

I wish I shared your optimism that food supplies can be adapted so easily. The problem with the free market is that it's very bad at planning for future events that are too far off. Also, the free matket is unlikely to be very interested in adapting the parts of the biosphere from which a profit cannot be made.

Elliot,

Since BT doesn't feel like explaining this to you, I will make an attempt.

"Feel" like explaining? :) Humorous. I do thank you for taking his place, it gets tiring having someone tell you that you're wrong with horrible analogies and exclaiming "it's physics" without any explanation.

Please bear with me as I ask questions, they are not trivial, I am asking so that when they are answered one will see that the order of magnitude that is attributed to CO2 forcing is in fact grossly over-guess-timated.

The point is that in fact, by definition, homonuclear (i.e. same- atom) diatomics like O2 and N2 are unable to absorb IR radiation because they undergo no dipole changes upon stretching, the only internal motion they can experience.

I am not arguing that homonuclear molecules are absorbing any photons. I am arguing that IR that strikes a homonuclear molecule raises the kinetic energy of that molecule. Do you disagree?

On the other hand, CO2, although the ground state molecule has no dipole on the time average, as it vibrates, it does (picture vibrations bouncing the C back and forth between O=C===O and O===C=O) so that it is an extremely strong absorber (and emitter) of infrared light.

What wavelengths do CO2 absorb? If radiation in a wavelength that is not absorbed by CO2 strikes CO2, will the kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule rise? How much of the spectrum that gets through to the troposphere is absorbed by CO2? How much energy does that represent in total energy that gets through?

Guess what gas is used for flushing?--dry, pure N2--totally IR transparent. The only other gas in any significant quantity in the atmosphere is Argon, a monoatomic which therefore has no vibrations at all.

You are assuming absorption of a photon and ignoring kinetic energy changes. Do you agree with BT that a volume of N2 and O2 when subjected to IR radiation will not rise in temp?

A very simple test would be to have dry air and a equal volume of N2 and O2 subjected to the same IR source and measure the temps. While the sample with CO2 may be slightly higher, a concentration of 380 ppm cannot produce significant differences.

Because they absorb the light via quantum transitions, they don't cool and emit lower E photons. The excited molecules reemit the same light energy they got, but because they've been tumbling around the photons come back out in all directions, which means that of the ones that _were_ being radiated out from the earth (cooling it) some get turned back

How transparent is dry air at 1 ATM? How much of our atmosphere is at 1 ATM? How much energy is actually getting "turned back" by CO2? Water vapor is quite different in that it absorbs lots of wavelengths, clumps, and is capable of absorbing 2.5 times the energy per unit of mass.

Steve, I recommend that while you may not like BT or his style of attempting to humiliate you, you should accept his knowledge of physics like you would anyone else's. He is wrong often like most people, but he is also write often.

:) Excuse me? :) He certainly "writes" often. There is no need to simply accept anyone's "knowledge" if they have never displayed it. Especially if they have attempted to BS their knowledge when using Plank's Law to dismiss the use of specific heat capacity to determine how much energy it takes to raise one gram of CO2, one gram of dry air, or one gram of H2O vapor.

His use of Plank's Law was even in a VACUUM :) to measure SPECIFIC CAVITY HEAT, he must have Google'd Specific Heat and picked the wrong link and then pulled some crap about me not knowing quantum using the link. I still have it, it is quite ridiculous.

Why is it that so many AGWer's are more interested in someone's CREDIBILITY rather than their statement? If your are truthful one day and a liar the next, should I simply assume the next day you�re are telling the truth or would it not be prudent to always check the facts? The Scientific Method dictates that the facts much always be checked. I did not start attending this blog to make friends, I joined to ask questions and get answers.

Further, I'm not acting as a "big brother" to help BT. I'm merely attempting to answer your original question.

Thank you.

My original question is how does the N2 and O2 in our atmosphere arrive at the same temp as the CO2 it surrounds?

Note, the total mass of the atmosphere is ~5,000 trillion tons while CO2 makes up about 750 billion tons.

Help me out Elliot, how does so little CO2 have such a grand affect in an atmosphere that is mostly transparent, weighs 1.3 kg per cubic meter at 1 ATM, where CO2 makes up only .7 grams at 1 ATM, when most of the atmosphere is lower than 1 ATM, and when CO2's specific heat is less than dry air?

Regards,

Steve

BT,

Thank you for, again, not answering any of the questions I posed to clarify your previous non-answers. The first link you provided also did a great job at not answering any of them.

How is it that some photons are bigger than others?

How does CO2 heat itself? Perhaps this new found phenomena coupled with Patrick CycloneBuster's Tunnels are in fact the end to everyone's problems.

Real question: How does the N2 and O2 in our atmosphere arrive at the same temp as the CO2 it surrounds? That is 99.96% of the atmosphere.

I know that CO2 absorbs IR and why, quite frankly I don't care because the bands that CO2 absorbs are narrow and the amount of energy that is absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 is tiny compared to all the other energy that is raising the kinetic energy of the 99.96% of the rest of the atmosphere.

The second link states that CO2 absorbs IR radiation and that raises the temp of the body (of gas). The CO2 or the atmoshphere? So one CO2 molecule is responsible for heating nearly 2,700 molecules of N2 and O2? Or are they being just as vague and don't care to explain how 99.96% of our atmosphere is heated?

They use similar tactics as yourself when stating that the points made could be easily reproduced in a high school lab, without even vaguely describing how. Know how easy it is to build a widget? Very easy in a High School lab.

Hmmm. It takes .6 joules to raise the .7 grams of CO2 in a cubic meter of dry air at 1 ATM 1C, and it takes 1,301 joules to raise the entire cubic meter of dry air 1 C.

So the CO2 funnels all the 1,301 joules to the N2 and O2 it takes to raise the entire cubic meter 1 C? Is this via collisions?

The fact that cloud cover makes such difference shows just how much energy is escaping without the cloud cover. Even though there is 750 billion tons of CO2 today rather than only 500 billion tons 250 years ago out of the 5,000 trillion tons of N2 and O2.

Elliot,

If I may ask, in your opinion, did BT answer even ONE of the questions I asked in order to clarify his non-answers? Do you still agree that I should trust him? If so, please provide why.

I am not arguing that the greenhouse effect does not exist, I am extremely skeptical of the "forcing" values that AGWer's commonly give to CO2. I am asking why the forcing value is so high, and with the science settled, no one can answer that question. Is that not odd to you or anyone else?

The IPCC does not say why either, they simply say that since no other substitute can be found, CO2 is "very highly likely" (90% chance) the culprit for the guessed amount of forcing thought to not be attributed to other forcings. This is Science? Sloppy with no means to measure accuracy. Crap.

No one has measured this forcing, it is ATTRIBUTED. And now we have folks building models that are based on conjecture and many trust them? Pure nonsense.

With all the points above plus the below, there is far to much evidence pointing to causes other than CO2 and the magnitude of CO2's forcing.

We were already emerging from the LIA when the Industrial Revolution began. It was getting warmer anyway.
Poor recording methods.
Poor adjusting methods.
UHI
Last interglacial saw higher sea levels than today without CO2 over 280 ppm.
Solar minima caused LIA.
Temps have gone up and down 1 degree several times since end of last Ice Age.
Climate is regional, not global.

Regards,

Steve

How is it that some photons are bigger than others?

Q-U-A-N-T-U-M     M-E-C-H-A-N-I-C-S

It is not that photons have different sizes -- I'm not even sure that it is even meaningful to talk about their "size", they are not physical objects that one can measure with a ruler. They have different energies, and the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency: high-energy photons have high-frequencies, low-energy photons have low frequencies. From the first link:

It was Einstein who realised what Planck was really doing here. Beneath the concept that each wave has an associated energy is a deeper one - that electromagnetic waves can be 'quantisized'. The idea is that waves can only carry particular values of energy because they actually arrive as particles, each with a specific energy value. It isn't possible for half a particle to arrive ! Solving the blackbody dilemma was therefore one of the first steps to quantum theory - this is ultimately what scientists had to do about the blackbody conflict between theory and experimental evidence - they embarked upon a new theory altogether!

Classical mechanics doesn't work to explain certain phenomena -- specifically the "ultraviolet catastrophe. Quantum mechanics resolves explains the apparent paradox and avoids the "ultraviolet catastrophe" of classical mechanics.

Steve's questions cannot be correctly answered without quantum mechanics. They can, and have been, answered for very long time with quantum mechanics.

NGW Steve-

I agree with you, in that the idea that the "science is settled" is utter BS. I also am very skeptical of the idea that anything we do is changing the Earth's climate. I see no reason that an equilibrium was suddenly reached around the industrial revolution and the idea that only forcing factors due to human influence effect the climate. Looking at past cycles and data it appears very clear, to me anyway, that the Earth's climate consistently changes and has been significantly warmer and colder than current.

Further, I agree that the method the IPCC uses of deducing and explaining their views are sketchy at best. I don't trust the data and I certainly don't trust the politicians touting the theory. That is not to say that I am completely positive that we have no effect on the climate, I just believe that it is roughly negligible in comparison to other factors.

I was merely attempting to answer the question in your posts that I knew for sure. That was the idea of transparency to IR that is exhibited by diatomic and monoatomic ions. In regards to your further questions on that subject in the prior post; yes I am saying that the kinetic energy of the n2 and o2 molecules will not be directly influenced by IR. There's no direct coupling mechanism to transfer the energy from the IR light into the molecules. Of course, if you have particles (or a wall)(or CO2 or H2O molecules) that absorb the light and then undergo collisions with the N2 and O2 molecules, you could indirectly transfer heat (kinetic E) into or out of them, but not via a simple interaction of the IR photons and the N2 or O2 molecules. So yes, I do agree with BT that purely by interaction with IR the N2 and O2 will not rise in temperature.

I did not say you should accept BT's knowledge of physics as fact, just that you should not automatically brush away anything he says because you don't like the way he phrases things. No I don't think you should trust him, you shouldn't trust anybody's writing inherently. I'm probably to untrusting, but I'm sure there is a happy medium of skepticism to anything you read. Especially something posted on a blog which requires no identification or guarentee of knowledge/credentials. You should always attempt to verify the information. Obviously you have used that tactic in becoming skeptical of the entire agw theory. You, like me, appear not to have trusted the words coming out of Gore's mouth. Thus I assume you did a significant amount of research and came to the conclusion that the idea of human carbon emmisions being to blame for a change in our "weather" for the last 30 years.

Just to clarify, I don't think that co2 has the effect on the atmosphere that some are claiming. I think other factors (especially after reading svensmark's work) have a much greater effect. All I know is that purely from infrared radiation the co2 is the only gas in the atmosphere that is effected (affected?) directly. As for your other questions, I don't believe that I am qualified to offer an explanation. I think you would be better served finding an answer with another source.

Regards,
~Elliot

NGW Steve-

I really need to edit more carefully.

"Thus I assume you did a significant amount of research and came to the conclusion that the idea of human carbon emmisions being to blame for a change in our "weather" for the last 30 years."

...is foolish....

That at least is what I meant to say at the end. As is I see it could be read as me thinking you agree with that idea, I feel the need to clarify.

Sorry for any confusion.

-Elliot

Eliot and BT are totally lost in the ozone.

The near IR bands CO2 absorbs are quite narrow and almost entirely covered by H2O which has twice the absorptivity at a given wavelength.

Depending on the humidity the abundance of H20 is 100 to 1,000s of times that of CO2. All of the energy emitted in the near infrared at these common wavelengths, e.g., 15 microns, is absorbed in the first few hundred meters.

That energy is converted to kinetic energy, i.e., shared among all molecules.

Yes, Eliot is correct, the near infrared is absorbed by these molecules possessing spacial asymmetries as vibrational energy. All gases emit, in the far infrared and longer wavelengths, it's called 'heat'. Excited electrons drop an energy level and emit a photon.

Nonetheless, the emissivity==absorptivity of C02 at standard temperature and pressure is 9*10^-4 or 1000 times smaller that asphalt or most other black solids. Shiny surfaces still have much higher emissivities than CO2.

QED, the earth's surface cannot be heated by back-radiation, it emits radiation faster than the atmosphere can heat it without conduction and a higher temperature (2nd Law of Thermodynamics).