csteel: "but how does it work with a hotter stratosphere?"

For two reasons. Firstly temperature measures the speed of the speed of the molecules and that determines frequency it radiates. The higher the frequency the more energy is lost with each photon emitted. This is what you are focusing on. However what is important here is the rate at which energy is emitted. That also depends on the rate photons are emitted, which it turn depends on the number of molecules per unit space. The stratosphere is so thin there are bugger all molecules, so bugger all photons are emitted.

The second reason is the presence (or rather absence) of black bodies. If there are no black bodies, the stratosphere can't absorb or emit radiation. The other name for a black body gas is a greenhouse gas. The biggest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water, but there is no water in the stratosphere.

The answer to the third (implied) question re why is the stratosphere is so hot, is because the major temperature regulator in the atmosphere is water vapour. And again there isn't any.

He did explain why there isn't any, but the reason escapes me for now. It is probably because at a certain temperature the vapour pressure of water drops to zero, so it all condenses out.

RobP: "We learned at school that overnight temperatures are higher on cloudy nights"

I know the answer, because I watched the videos. Would you believe the answer is fairly critical to this entire global warming thing? But it is rather complex. As usual there is more than one thing going on. And, since it is the videos we are discussing here - it is probably best you watch them, then ask - or supply the answer.

An after thought,

If you want to question him directly he edits some of Real climatehttp://www.realclimate.org/ they have a chat site. I have under a different name asked some questions and other climatologists have patiently answered my questions dumb though they may have been.

another site for breaking scientific news is http://www.eurekalert.org/pubnews.php. Can be a bit New scientisty but it covers all topics
GY, they have editors access to unreleased/embargoed stuff too, which I can't get at.

csteele

Can I ask, why have you put this thread up on OLO?

You must know that there are far better web sites, that are much better a resource than this 'opinion' site, and have archived topics on many of the 'climate sciences'.

Have you checked out the on-line courses/syllabuses? The answers to your question/s are there. I gave you one that requires much less bandwidth - really good for beginners. Obviously, not all students get 100%, some even fail - as we have seen :)

You might find this interesting:

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html

Some blinkered 'sceptics' still don't accept the science and will try anything, anything at all, to justify inaction on climate change. These people are best ignored, but byjeezus, it sure rankles me sometimes - that's one reason I post under a pseudonym, I can let off 'steam'.

Ok, you lose some authority on the subject, but that's ok, especially on a site like this. Besides, the pressure relief from not dotting the 'i's' or crossing the 't's can be fun.

___________

Examinator,

Yep, I squirmed all through Plimer's responses - I really felt embarrassed for him. He's dug himself an open-cut mine/mind field that would be almost impossible for him to extricate from, even with his mining mates help.

Dear Robp.

Explaining to others is always a good way to see if one has a grip on the concepts so permit me to have a crack. Hopefully I'm pulled up if I get it wrong.

>>So, why doesn't the extra heat in our atmosphere (that is causing global warming) leak into space on clear nights?<<

You kind of answered it already. Greenhouse gases do act like a kind of cloud but while normal clouds are deemed 'black boxes', CO2 and Methane are a lot more choosy about what they absorb and emit. On my understanding if you wore a pair of infra-red glasses you would see the CO2 in the atmosphere as a visible cloud obstructing your view of things further out.

Their choosiness is a function of what frequency they vibrate as molecules.

Archer uses the analogy of a partially blocked sink. Although the same amount of water is entering it (sunlight) the blockage forces the water level (temperature) higher until a new equilibrium is reached and the same amount of water leaves it as before.

It isn't permanent but the time scales for its dissipation would appear to be in the order of 100,000 years. He talks about weathering represented by the equation CaSiO3 + CO2 to CaCO3 + SiO2. This occurs when water moves over igneous rocks, reacts with CO2 in the atmosphere and the resultant CaCO2 + SiO2 (calcium carbonate and silicon dioxide) is washed into our oceans. Plate tectonics does the rest and the material is taken underground and returned to us via things like volcanoes where the high temperatures reverse the equation.

Without any of these processes occurring, at room temperature CO2 should be at around 10ppm where as in the natural atmosphere is at 280pm. Higher now of course.

Lecture 14 covers this pretty well.

Hope this helps.

Dear Q&A,

I've been an OLO participant for a while and kicking things around with a few of the crew is something I'm comfortable with. Taking a little of the rancour from the issue was indeed a goal. Sorely needed I felt.

Just wanted to say thanks for this thread will watch it and learn.
My understanding is not near those taking part but I do understand as a ham radio operator the different layers around the earth.
And some of the changes that take place.
Ionization of the E layer can be great fun for me.
Too much sunspot activity can be as bad as too little.
Thanks again will watch with interest.

csteele, fair enough - especially the bit about "taking a little of the rancour from the issue ..."
best wishes
qanda