How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Wuwei]

How much of that area is actually radiating once you account for conduction and convection?

It is easier to compute a figure for conduction of heat through air. Why don't you have a go at the computation and we can compare notes and methodology.

.

 

[SSDD]

How much of that area is actually radiating once you account for conduction and convection?

It is easier to compute a figure for conduction of heat through air. Why don't you have a go at the computation and we can compare notes and methodology.

.

Don't dodge you seem to believe that the SB law can tell you how much a square meter of atmosphere (snicker) is radiating to a tenth of a Wm^2...

 

[Wuwei]

How much of that area is actually radiating once you account for conduction and convection?

It is easier to compute a figure for conduction of heat through air. Why don't you have a go at the computation and we can compare notes and methodology.

.

Don't dodge you seem to believe that the SB law can tell you how much a square meter of atmosphere (snicker) is radiating to a tenth of a Wm^2...

Nope, no dodge. Post #780 gives the total radiation power density in a cubic meter. It's radiation is isotropic.

You still haven't given a figure for the conduction of heat through air.

.

 

[SSDD]

How much of that area is actually radiating once you account for conduction and convection?

It is easier to compute a figure for conduction of heat through air. Why don't you have a go at the computation and we can compare notes and methodology.

.

Don't dodge you seem to believe that the SB law can tell you how much a square meter of atmosphere (snicker) is radiating to a tenth of a Wm^2...

Nope, no dodge. Post #780 gives the total radiation power density in a cubic meter. It's radiation is isotropic.

You still haven't given a figure for the conduction of heat through air.

.

Laughing out loud in your stupid face....

30,000? Really? How many molecules do you think are in a cubic centimeter of air? When you start out with bullshit...and build on it..you only get more bullshit..

No doubt you believe yourself even though there is no such thing as a square meter of air...of course you believe all manner of rediculousness.....

You may as well calculate the percentage of unicorns that successfully complete the yearly migration...

 

[Wuwei]

Laughing out loud in your stupid face....

30,000? Really? How many molecules do you think are in a cubic centimeter of air? When you start out with bullshit...and build on it..you only get more bullshit..

No doubt you believe yourself even though there is no such thing as a square meter of air...of course you believe all manner of rediculousness.....

You may as well calculate the percentage of unicorns that successfully complete the yearly migration...

Ho hum. Still laughing out loud at your monitor screen? And another unicorn reference! How unique.

Still hung up on your slab atmosphere example? We are past that. You demanded to know what a cubic meter of CO2 was radiating. I showed you it is around 175 Watts isotropically.

How about a computation on the conduction of heat in the atmosphere. It's easy. I will give you my answer: 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP.

.

 

[SSDD]

Laughing out loud in your stupid face....

30,000? Really? How many molecules do you think are in a cubic centimeter of air? When you start out with bullshit...and build on it..you only get more bullshit..

No doubt you believe yourself even though there is no such thing as a square meter of air...of course you believe all manner of rediculousness.....

You may as well calculate the percentage of unicorns that successfully complete the yearly migration...

Ho hum. Still laughing out loud at your monitor screen? And another unicorn reference! How unique.

Still hung up on your slab atmosphere example? We are past that. You demanded to know what a cubic meter of CO2 was radiating. I showed you it is around 175 Watts isotropically.

How about a computation on the conduction of heat in the atmosphere. It's easy. I will give you my answer: 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP.

.

You demonstrate the garbage in garbage out principle perfectly...you actually believe that 1 in 30,000 CO2 molecules actually radiates a photon? In any given cubic centimeter of air, there are roughly 77,000,000 molecules...of those, about 30,000 are CO2 molecules...the odds of any of those thirty thousand molecules not having a collision with any of the 77 million molecules they are jostling around with in the time between absorption and emission of a photon is not even close to 1 in 30,000...not even close. I think William Happer was closer to the mark when he said that about 1 in a billion CO2 molecules will escape a collision and actually emit a photon...

Your numbers based on your wildly wrong odds of a CO2 molecule actually emitting a photon are so far off, that it isn't even funny to me.....garbage in..garbage out...the guiding principle of climate science..

 

[Wuwei]

Laughing out loud in your stupid face....

30,000? Really? How many molecules do you think are in a cubic centimeter of air? When you start out with bullshit...and build on it..you only get more bullshit..

No doubt you believe yourself even though there is no such thing as a square meter of air...of course you believe all manner of rediculousness.....

You may as well calculate the percentage of unicorns that successfully complete the yearly migration...

Ho hum. Still laughing out loud at your monitor screen? And another unicorn reference! How unique.

Still hung up on your slab atmosphere example? We are past that. You demanded to know what a cubic meter of CO2 was radiating. I showed you it is around 175 Watts isotropically.

How about a computation on the conduction of heat in the atmosphere. It's easy. I will give you my answer: 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP.

.

You demonstrate the garbage in garbage out principle perfectly...you actually believe that 1 in 30,000 CO2 molecules actually radiates a photon? In any given cubic centimeter of air, there are roughly 77,000,000 molecules...of those, about 30,000 are CO2 molecules...the odds of any of those thirty thousand molecules not having a collision with any of the 77 million molecules they are jostling around with in the time between absorption and emission of a photon is not even close to 1 in 30,000...not even close. I think William Happer was closer to the mark when he said that about 1 in a billion CO2 molecules will escape a collision and actually emit a photon...

Your numbers based on your wildly wrong odds of a CO2 molecule actually emitting a photon are so far off, that it isn't even funny to me.....garbage in..garbage out...the guiding principle of climate science..

This is old ground we are retreading. You are always guessing at things by saying, Gee this number is small or that number is big. That is not a way to handle science. Here it is again:

The relaxation time of a CO2 molecule is slightly less than 6 microSec. That means that, on the average, within 6000 nanoSec it will spontaneously emit a photon.
Reference, https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3478579/109243.pdf

The average time for an air molecule to collide with it is 0.2 nanoSec. A collision will abort the radiation of 15 microns.

The excited CO2 will most likely undergo collision before it has a chance to emit the photon. More specifically,
CO2 emission probability is 0.2 ns / 6000 ns = 1 / 30,000

So, your guess was wrong. There is a 175 Watt radiation density due to CO2.
Conduction is only 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP.

It really looks like CO2 radiation is about a million times more effective than convection.

.

 

[SSDD]

Laughing out loud in your stupid face....

30,000? Really? How many molecules do you think are in a cubic centimeter of air? When you start out with bullshit...and build on it..you only get more bullshit..

No doubt you believe yourself even though there is no such thing as a square meter of air...of course you believe all manner of rediculousness.....

You may as well calculate the percentage of unicorns that successfully complete the yearly migration...

Ho hum. Still laughing out loud at your monitor screen? And another unicorn reference! How unique.

Still hung up on your slab atmosphere example? We are past that. You demanded to know what a cubic meter of CO2 was radiating. I showed you it is around 175 Watts isotropically.

How about a computation on the conduction of heat in the atmosphere. It's easy. I will give you my answer: 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP.

.

You demonstrate the garbage in garbage out principle perfectly...you actually believe that 1 in 30,000 CO2 molecules actually radiates a photon? In any given cubic centimeter of air, there are roughly 77,000,000 molecules...of those, about 30,000 are CO2 molecules...the odds of any of those thirty thousand molecules not having a collision with any of the 77 million molecules they are jostling around with in the time between absorption and emission of a photon is not even close to 1 in 30,000...not even close. I think William Happer was closer to the mark when he said that about 1 in a billion CO2 molecules will escape a collision and actually emit a photon...

Your numbers based on your wildly wrong odds of a CO2 molecule actually emitting a photon are so far off, that it isn't even funny to me.....garbage in..garbage out...the guiding principle of climate science..

This is old ground we are retreading. You are always guessing at things by saying, Gee this number is small or that number is big. That is not a way to handle science. Here it is again:

The relaxation time of a CO2 molecule is slightly less than 6 microSec. That means that, on the average, within 6000 nanoSec it will spontaneously emit a photon.
Reference, https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3478579/109243.pdf

The average time for an air molecule to collide with it is 0.2 nanoSec. A collision will abort the radiation of 15 microns.

The excited CO2 will most likely undergo collision before it has a chance to emit the photon. More specifically,
CO2 emission probability is 0.2 ns / 6000 ns = 1 / 30,000

So, your guess was wrong. There is a 175 Watt radiation density due to CO2.
Conduction is only 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP.

It really looks like CO2 radiation is about a million times more effective than convection.

.

The mean decay time for a CO2 molecule to emit a photon is on the order of 1 second according to Dr Happer...

From an email exchange with Dr Happer:
Gmail - Another dumb question from Dave

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]

Here is the attachment:

https://sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Statz67-lifetimes.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Laughing out loud in your stupid face....

30,000? Really? How many molecules do you think are in a cubic centimeter of air? When you start out with bullshit...and build on it..you only get more bullshit..

No doubt you believe yourself even though there is no such thing as a square meter of air...of course you believe all manner of rediculousness.....

You may as well calculate the percentage of unicorns that successfully complete the yearly migration...

Ho hum. Still laughing out loud at your monitor screen? And another unicorn reference! How unique.

Still hung up on your slab atmosphere example? We are past that. You demanded to know what a cubic meter of CO2 was radiating. I showed you it is around 175 Watts isotropically.

How about a computation on the conduction of heat in the atmosphere. It's easy. I will give you my answer: 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP.

.

You demonstrate the garbage in garbage out principle perfectly...you actually believe that 1 in 30,000 CO2 molecules actually radiates a photon? In any given cubic centimeter of air, there are roughly 77,000,000 molecules...of those, about 30,000 are CO2 molecules...the odds of any of those thirty thousand molecules not having a collision with any of the 77 million molecules they are jostling around with in the time between absorption and emission of a photon is not even close to 1 in 30,000...not even close. I think William Happer was closer to the mark when he said that about 1 in a billion CO2 molecules will escape a collision and actually emit a photon...

Your numbers based on your wildly wrong odds of a CO2 molecule actually emitting a photon are so far off, that it isn't even funny to me.....garbage in..garbage out...the guiding principle of climate science..

This is old ground we are retreading. You are always guessing at things by saying, Gee this number is small or that number is big. That is not a way to handle science. Here it is again:

The relaxation time of a CO2 molecule is slightly less than 6 microSec. That means that, on the average, within 6000 nanoSec it will spontaneously emit a photon.
Reference, https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3478579/109243.pdf

The average time for an air molecule to collide with it is 0.2 nanoSec. A collision will abort the radiation of 15 microns.

The excited CO2 will most likely undergo collision before it has a chance to emit the photon. More specifically,
CO2 emission probability is 0.2 ns / 6000 ns = 1 / 30,000

So, your guess was wrong. There is a 175 Watt radiation density due to CO2.
Conduction is only 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP.

It really looks like CO2 radiation is about a million times more effective than convection.

.

The mean decay time for a CO2 molecule to emit a photon is on the order of 1 second according to Dr Happer...

From an email exchange with Dr Happer:
Gmail - Another dumb question from Dave

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]

Here is the attachment:

https://sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Statz67-lifetimes.pdf

You should have asked him if cooler molecules are restricted in anyway from emitting toward warmer molecules.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Laughing out loud in your stupid face....

30,000? Really? How many molecules do you think are in a cubic centimeter of air? When you start out with bullshit...and build on it..you only get more bullshit..

No doubt you believe yourself even though there is no such thing as a square meter of air...of course you believe all manner of rediculousness.....

You may as well calculate the percentage of unicorns that successfully complete the yearly migration...

Ho hum. Still laughing out loud at your monitor screen? And another unicorn reference! How unique.

Still hung up on your slab atmosphere example? We are past that. You demanded to know what a cubic meter of CO2 was radiating. I showed you it is around 175 Watts isotropically.

How about a computation on the conduction of heat in the atmosphere. It's easy. I will give you my answer: 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP.

.

You demonstrate the garbage in garbage out principle perfectly...you actually believe that 1 in 30,000 CO2 molecules actually radiates a photon? In any given cubic centimeter of air, there are roughly 77,000,000 molecules...of those, about 30,000 are CO2 molecules...the odds of any of those thirty thousand molecules not having a collision with any of the 77 million molecules they are jostling around with in the time between absorption and emission of a photon is not even close to 1 in 30,000...not even close. I think William Happer was closer to the mark when he said that about 1 in a billion CO2 molecules will escape a collision and actually emit a photon...

Your numbers based on your wildly wrong odds of a CO2 molecule actually emitting a photon are so far off, that it isn't even funny to me.....garbage in..garbage out...the guiding principle of climate science..

This is old ground we are retreading. You are always guessing at things by saying, Gee this number is small or that number is big. That is not a way to handle science. Here it is again:

The relaxation time of a CO2 molecule is slightly less than 6 microSec. That means that, on the average, within 6000 nanoSec it will spontaneously emit a photon.
Reference, https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3478579/109243.pdf

The average time for an air molecule to collide with it is 0.2 nanoSec. A collision will abort the radiation of 15 microns.

The excited CO2 will most likely undergo collision before it has a chance to emit the photon. More specifically,
CO2 emission probability is 0.2 ns / 6000 ns = 1 / 30,000

So, your guess was wrong. There is a 175 Watt radiation density due to CO2.
Conduction is only 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP.

It really looks like CO2 radiation is about a million times more effective than convection.

.

The mean decay time for a CO2 molecule to emit a photon is on the order of 1 second according to Dr Happer...

From an email exchange with Dr Happer:
Gmail - Another dumb question from Dave

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]

Here is the attachment:

https://sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Statz67-lifetimes.pdf

You should have asked him if cooler molecules are restricted in anyway from emitting toward warmer molecules.

The second law defines this.

The observations tell us, bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ho hum. Still laughing out loud at your monitor screen? And another unicorn reference! How unique.

Still hung up on your slab atmosphere example? We are past that. You demanded to know what a cubic meter of CO2 was radiating. I showed you it is around 175 Watts isotropically.

How about a computation on the conduction of heat in the atmosphere. It's easy. I will give you my answer: 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP.

.

You demonstrate the garbage in garbage out principle perfectly...you actually believe that 1 in 30,000 CO2 molecules actually radiates a photon? In any given cubic centimeter of air, there are roughly 77,000,000 molecules...of those, about 30,000 are CO2 molecules...the odds of any of those thirty thousand molecules not having a collision with any of the 77 million molecules they are jostling around with in the time between absorption and emission of a photon is not even close to 1 in 30,000...not even close. I think William Happer was closer to the mark when he said that about 1 in a billion CO2 molecules will escape a collision and actually emit a photon...

Your numbers based on your wildly wrong odds of a CO2 molecule actually emitting a photon are so far off, that it isn't even funny to me.....garbage in..garbage out...the guiding principle of climate science..

This is old ground we are retreading. You are always guessing at things by saying, Gee this number is small or that number is big. That is not a way to handle science. Here it is again:

The relaxation time of a CO2 molecule is slightly less than 6 microSec. That means that, on the average, within 6000 nanoSec it will spontaneously emit a photon.
Reference, https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3478579/109243.pdf

The average time for an air molecule to collide with it is 0.2 nanoSec. A collision will abort the radiation of 15 microns.

The excited CO2 will most likely undergo collision before it has a chance to emit the photon. More specifically,
CO2 emission probability is 0.2 ns / 6000 ns = 1 / 30,000

So, your guess was wrong. There is a 175 Watt radiation density due to CO2.
Conduction is only 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP.

It really looks like CO2 radiation is about a million times more effective than convection.

.

The mean decay time for a CO2 molecule to emit a photon is on the order of 1 second according to Dr Happer...

From an email exchange with Dr Happer:
Gmail - Another dumb question from Dave

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]

Here is the attachment:

https://sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Statz67-lifetimes.pdf

You should have asked him if cooler molecules are restricted in anyway from emitting toward warmer molecules.

The second law defines this.

The observations tell use bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.

The observations tell use bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.

When you finally post the masses of photons at various frequencies, will you also post their temperatures?
Can't wait to see your data.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You demonstrate the garbage in garbage out principle perfectly...you actually believe that 1 in 30,000 CO2 molecules actually radiates a photon? In any given cubic centimeter of air, there are roughly 77,000,000 molecules...of those, about 30,000 are CO2 molecules...the odds of any of those thirty thousand molecules not having a collision with any of the 77 million molecules they are jostling around with in the time between absorption and emission of a photon is not even close to 1 in 30,000...not even close. I think William Happer was closer to the mark when he said that about 1 in a billion CO2 molecules will escape a collision and actually emit a photon...

Your numbers based on your wildly wrong odds of a CO2 molecule actually emitting a photon are so far off, that it isn't even funny to me.....garbage in..garbage out...the guiding principle of climate science..

This is old ground we are retreading. You are always guessing at things by saying, Gee this number is small or that number is big. That is not a way to handle science. Here it is again:

The relaxation time of a CO2 molecule is slightly less than 6 microSec. That means that, on the average, within 6000 nanoSec it will spontaneously emit a photon.
Reference, https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3478579/109243.pdf

The average time for an air molecule to collide with it is 0.2 nanoSec. A collision will abort the radiation of 15 microns.

The excited CO2 will most likely undergo collision before it has a chance to emit the photon. More specifically,
CO2 emission probability is 0.2 ns / 6000 ns = 1 / 30,000

So, your guess was wrong. There is a 175 Watt radiation density due to CO2.
Conduction is only 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP.

It really looks like CO2 radiation is about a million times more effective than convection.

.

The mean decay time for a CO2 molecule to emit a photon is on the order of 1 second according to Dr Happer...

From an email exchange with Dr Happer:
Gmail - Another dumb question from Dave

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]

Here is the attachment:

https://sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Statz67-lifetimes.pdf

You should have asked him if cooler molecules are restricted in anyway from emitting toward warmer molecules.

The second law defines this.

The observations tell use bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.

The observations tell use bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.

When you finally post the masses of photons at various frequencies, will you also post their temperatures?
Can't wait to see your data.

I gave you the equation. I also advised you that the mass is dependent on the energy in the particle (as the equation describes). Your just to damn lazy to do the math...

Keep spinning TOAD, your circular arguments and lies bore me.

 

[SSDD]

This is old ground we are retreading. You are always guessing at things by saying, Gee this number is small or that number is big. That is not a way to handle science. Here it is again:

The relaxation time of a CO2 molecule is slightly less than 6 microSec. That means that, on the average, within 6000 nanoSec it will spontaneously emit a photon.
Reference, https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3478579/109243.pdf

The average time for an air molecule to collide with it is 0.2 nanoSec. A collision will abort the radiation of 15 microns.

The excited CO2 will most likely undergo collision before it has a chance to emit the photon. More specifically,
CO2 emission probability is 0.2 ns / 6000 ns = 1 / 30,000

So, your guess was wrong. There is a 175 Watt radiation density due to CO2.
Conduction is only 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP.

It really looks like CO2 radiation is about a million times more effective than convection.

.

The mean decay time for a CO2 molecule to emit a photon is on the order of 1 second according to Dr Happer...

From an email exchange with Dr Happer:
Gmail - Another dumb question from Dave

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]

Here is the attachment:

https://sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Statz67-lifetimes.pdf

You should have asked him if cooler molecules are restricted in anyway from emitting toward warmer molecules.

The second law defines this.

The observations tell use bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.

The observations tell use bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.

When you finally post the masses of photons at various frequencies, will you also post their temperatures?
Can't wait to see your data.

I gave you the equation. I also advised you that the mass is dependent on the energy in the particle (as the equation describes). Your just to damn lazy to do the math...

Keep spinning TOAD, your circular arguments and lies bore me.

I doubt that it is laziness where toddster is concerned. He has made it abundantly clear that he can't even read a simple equation...much less solve one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is old ground we are retreading. You are always guessing at things by saying, Gee this number is small or that number is big. That is not a way to handle science. Here it is again:

The relaxation time of a CO2 molecule is slightly less than 6 microSec. That means that, on the average, within 6000 nanoSec it will spontaneously emit a photon.
Reference, https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3478579/109243.pdf

The average time for an air molecule to collide with it is 0.2 nanoSec. A collision will abort the radiation of 15 microns.

The excited CO2 will most likely undergo collision before it has a chance to emit the photon. More specifically,
CO2 emission probability is 0.2 ns / 6000 ns = 1 / 30,000

So, your guess was wrong. There is a 175 Watt radiation density due to CO2.
Conduction is only 0.000255 Watts per meter at STP.

It really looks like CO2 radiation is about a million times more effective than convection.

.

The mean decay time for a CO2 molecule to emit a photon is on the order of 1 second according to Dr Happer...

From an email exchange with Dr Happer:
Gmail - Another dumb question from Dave

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]

Here is the attachment:

https://sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Statz67-lifetimes.pdf

You should have asked him if cooler molecules are restricted in anyway from emitting toward warmer molecules.

The second law defines this.

The observations tell use bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.

The observations tell use bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.

When you finally post the masses of photons at various frequencies, will you also post their temperatures?
Can't wait to see your data.

I gave you the equation. I also advised you that the mass is dependent on the energy in the particle (as the equation describes). Your just to damn lazy to do the math...

Keep spinning TOAD, your circular arguments and lies bore me.

I gave you the equation. I also advised you that the mass is dependent on the energy in the particle

I saw your imaginary equation. Any back up?
Any link that shows the temperature of these photons? No?

LOL!

DURR

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The mean decay time for a CO2 molecule to emit a photon is on the order of 1 second according to Dr Happer...

From an email exchange with Dr Happer:
Gmail - Another dumb question from Dave

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]

Here is the attachment:

https://sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Statz67-lifetimes.pdf

You should have asked him if cooler molecules are restricted in anyway from emitting toward warmer molecules.

The second law defines this.

The observations tell use bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.

The observations tell use bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.

When you finally post the masses of photons at various frequencies, will you also post their temperatures?
Can't wait to see your data.

I gave you the equation. I also advised you that the mass is dependent on the energy in the particle (as the equation describes). Your just to damn lazy to do the math...

Keep spinning TOAD, your circular arguments and lies bore me.

I doubt that it is laziness where toddster is concerned. He has made it abundantly clear that he can't even read a simple equation...much less solve one.

You never responded to my post about a 41C object radiating toward a 50C object. Why is that?

 

[rightwinger]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

Because the climate never changed before we started using fossil fuels?

Yes it did
And now it is changing at an accelerated pace

The earth can survive any climate change. It is one tough piece of rock
It is humans who are vulnerable

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

Because the climate never changed before we started using fossil fuels?

Yes it did
And now it is changing at an accelerated pace

The earth can survive any climate change. It is one tough piece of rock
It is humans who are vulnerable

And now it is changing at an accelerated pace

How do you know?

 

[SSDD]

You should have asked him if cooler molecules are restricted in anyway from emitting toward warmer molecules.

The second law defines this.

The observations tell use bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.

The observations tell use bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.

When you finally post the masses of photons at various frequencies, will you also post their temperatures?
Can't wait to see your data.

I gave you the equation. I also advised you that the mass is dependent on the energy in the particle (as the equation describes). Your just to damn lazy to do the math...

Keep spinning TOAD, your circular arguments and lies bore me.

I doubt that it is laziness where toddster is concerned. He has made it abundantly clear that he can't even read a simple equation...much less solve one.

You never responded to my post about a 41C object radiating toward a 50C object. Why is that?

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I didn't respond because the comment really didn't warrant any response...Which part of the second law of thermodynamics makes you think that could ever happen?

 

[SSDD]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

Because the climate never changed before we started using fossil fuels?

Yes it did
And now it is changing at an accelerated pace

The earth can survive any climate change. It is one tough piece of rock
It is humans who are vulnerable

The only proxy temperature reconstructions that have sufficient resolution to support your claim of accelerated change are ice core temperature reconstructions and they all show changes in the past that were much larger than the bit of warming we have seen...and those changes happening much faster than any we have seen...so which studies do you think show otherwise?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The second law defines this.

The observations tell use bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.

The observations tell use bombardment, with less energetic particles, cools the mass as they must be warmed in order for them to be re-emitted.

When you finally post the masses of photons at various frequencies, will you also post their temperatures?
Can't wait to see your data.

I gave you the equation. I also advised you that the mass is dependent on the energy in the particle (as the equation describes). Your just to damn lazy to do the math...

Keep spinning TOAD, your circular arguments and lies bore me.

I doubt that it is laziness where toddster is concerned. He has made it abundantly clear that he can't even read a simple equation...much less solve one.

You never responded to my post about a 41C object radiating toward a 50C object. Why is that?

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I didn't respond because the comment really didn't warrant any response...Which part of the second law of thermodynamics makes you think that could ever happen?

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.

I explained that work was done, so why do you feel no energy will flow from cooler to warmer?