how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[gslack]

LOL, reflection IS absorption and re-radiation. As is scattering.

Laser emmision is even more awesome. The atoms absorb at one wavelength then as an electromagnetic energy passes by, it stimulates the atom to emit radiation it the same direction as the passing energy.

Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)


A claim can be made for how much IR is absorbed vs how much is absorbed, and a fair statement would be that some is reflected back towards earth. But that would be minuscule to the reflective abilities of a cloud. GH gases can't be a good absorber and good reflector simultaneously. Just as nothing can be both a good emitter and absorber simultaneously.

IGCSE - Thermal Physics Revision - Radiation



Again, it can reflect some and absorb some, but it cannot be completely efficient at either one at the same time.

The MET office likes to misuse the terms so they don't have to actually prove anything.

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory



It's a fine example of just how un-scientific the methods used to further this ridiculous theory.

Frankly You can buy their story or buy Kirchoff's law... I take the law...

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

n thermodynamics, Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation refers to wavelength-specific radiative emission and absorption by a material body in thermodynamic equilibrium, including radiative exchange equilibrium.
A body at temperature T radiates electromagnetic energy. A perfect black body in thermodynamic equilibrium absorbs all light that strikes it, and radiates energy according to a unique law of radiative emissive power for temperature T, universal for all perfect black bodies. Kirchhoff's law states that:
For a body of any arbitrary material, emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature, the perfect black-body emissive power.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Here, the dimensionless coefficient of absorption (or the absorptivity) is the fraction of incident light (power) that is absorbed by the body when it is radiating and absorbing in thermodynamic equilibrium. In slightly different terms, the emissive power of an arbitrary opaque body of fixed size and shape at a definite temperature can be described by a dimensionless ratio, sometimes called the emissivity, the ratio of the emissive power of the body to the emissive power of a black body of the same size and shape at the same fixed temperature. With this definition, a corollary of Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity. In some cases, emissive power and absorptivity may be defined to depend on angle, as described below.
Kirchhoff's Law has another corollary: the emissivity cannot exceed one (because the absorptivity cannot, by conservation of energy), so it is not possible to thermally radiate more energy than a black body, at equilibrium. In negative luminescence the angle and wavelength integrated absorption exceeds the material's emission, however, such systems are powered by an external source and are therefore not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Before Kirchhoff's law was recognized, it had been experimentally established that a good absorber is a good emitter, and a poor absorber is a poor emitter. Naturally, a good reflector must be a poor absorber. This is why, for example, lightweight emergency thermal blankets are based on reflective metallic coatings: they lose little heat by radiation.

You worked pretty hard there.. Hope it stimulates some neurons somewhere..

But I think the hard-core denialists are focused on the "other" excitation source. Not the sun. GHouse theory works 24 hrs a day and has little to do with DIRECT solar irradiation.. CO2 is a poor absorber of sunlight because it's so narrow band. Water vapor (clouds) are much better absorbers on INCOMING sunlight.

It's the heat coming from the earth as a thermal tank -- going UP --- that the denialists have problems with. Because they quote thermodynamics in error -- not realizing that the EARTH emits a spectrum of IR where MORE of the energy is shifted into the absorption bands of CO2 and the other GHGases.. That's why clouds keep the surface warm at night (except in the desert where there is little water vapor to act as the PRINCIPLE GHGas).

No thermal conduction or convection required.. Mostly done by EM radiation....

Bottom line --- Go find the few studies that studied the GreenHouse at NIGHT, in the DESERT, controlled for water vapor that tried to find the warming due to the rest of the GHGases.. Not many exist --- because LARGELY they don't confirm that CO2 is a huge factor... And the hysteria industry is NOT gonna publish findings that contradict the Warmer Bible..

And none of what I wrote or quoted was specific to short wave radiation from the sun, but rather long wave radiation from the planets surface.

Also, I do not have a problem with IR emitted from the surface interacting with GH gases, that's been studied over and again, I am pretty sure it's recognized fact. What I, and most other people with any sense take issue with is the Down Welling Long Wave IR warms the warmer surface of the planet, it's heat source.

There is no misunderstanding of of the spectrum or wavelength differences between EM from the sun directly, and that of IR from the warmed surface. That is understood and acknowledged, and I don't see where you got that from anything I have said on here..

The issue with AGW theory with me is, the energy coming in from the sun, some gets reflected, some refracted, some absorbed, some used to warm the surface, and that which the surface emits as IR, warms the Atmosphere and then has enough left to warm it's own heat source further... It's a silly claim made by men that although were brilliant, were still wrong in their assumptions. The theory defies the 2nd law and does some nifty work around the 1st one as well.

 

[gslack]

It's optics 101 that all materials can only reflect, absorb, or transmit EM radiation. The prortions of the three possibilities vary with wavelength.

If they absorb, the energy raises their temperature, causing them to become a radiation source.

Oh hush now socko, anyone who took "optics 101" would know that reflection and absorption are opposites... Please...

Only for black bodies. Real materials transmit, or absorb, or reflect in different proportions all incoming radiation, depending on wavelength. What they transmit or reflect leaves them unchanged. What they absorb changes their energy state. If that energy state is > absolute zero, then they are inclined to radiate their own energy.

Now make up another story to try and deny simple physics.

No silly socko, it's not just for black bodies... It's for everything.. A black body is a perfect absorber and emitter, and would deny all reflection. If it can absorb and emit all wavelengths of EM, than what is left to reflect? Nothing, and any good fake scientist would know this...

And notice what you just tried to claim up there? You misused a concept again...

"Real materials transmit, or absorb, or reflect in different proportions all incoming radiation, depending on wavelength. What they transmit or reflect leaves them unchanged. What they absorb changes their energy state. If that energy state is > absolute zero, then they are inclined to radiate their own energy."

You have said some backwards things on here, even tried to imply Botlzmann was your own, but that bit of nonsensical BS takes the cake...

LOL, you have a habit of half reading your googles searches findings and just winging it. Lazy... Materials can do all of those things certainly and they do but, they cannot do them all equally well or even close. Once again I don't know I bother posting links and citing them when you silly socks can't read anyway...

IGCSE - Thermal Physics Revision - Radiation

Absorbers, Emitters & Reflectors
Some materials are good at absorbing and emitting thermal radiation while others are good at reflecting radiation. Examples of good absorbers and emitters are matt black materials. White and silvery surfaces are bad absorbers because they reflect away most of thermal radiation. However, bad absorbers are good reflectors and likewise good absorbers are poor reflectors of thermal radiation.

In summary:

Matt Black Materials = good absorbers/emitters + poor reflectors
White/Silvery Materials = poor absorbers/emitters + good reflectors

Please read something before you speak again...

 

[flacaltenn]

Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)


A claim can be made for how much IR is absorbed vs how much is absorbed, and a fair statement would be that some is reflected back towards earth. But that would be minuscule to the reflective abilities of a cloud. GH gases can't be a good absorber and good reflector simultaneously. Just as nothing can be both a good emitter and absorber simultaneously.

IGCSE - Thermal Physics Revision - Radiation



Again, it can reflect some and absorb some, but it cannot be completely efficient at either one at the same time.

The MET office likes to misuse the terms so they don't have to actually prove anything.

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory



It's a fine example of just how un-scientific the methods used to further this ridiculous theory.

Frankly You can buy their story or buy Kirchoff's law... I take the law...

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You worked pretty hard there.. Hope it stimulates some neurons somewhere..

But I think the hard-core denialists are focused on the "other" excitation source. Not the sun. GHouse theory works 24 hrs a day and has little to do with DIRECT solar irradiation.. CO2 is a poor absorber of sunlight because it's so narrow band. Water vapor (clouds) are much better absorbers on INCOMING sunlight.

It's the heat coming from the earth as a thermal tank -- going UP --- that the denialists have problems with. Because they quote thermodynamics in error -- not realizing that the EARTH emits a spectrum of IR where MORE of the energy is shifted into the absorption bands of CO2 and the other GHGases.. That's why clouds keep the surface warm at night (except in the desert where there is little water vapor to act as the PRINCIPLE GHGas).

No thermal conduction or convection required.. Mostly done by EM radiation....

Bottom line --- Go find the few studies that studied the GreenHouse at NIGHT, in the DESERT, controlled for water vapor that tried to find the warming due to the rest of the GHGases.. Not many exist --- because LARGELY they don't confirm that CO2 is a huge factor... And the hysteria industry is NOT gonna publish findings that contradict the Warmer Bible..

And none of what I wrote or quoted was specific to short wave radiation from the sun, but rather long wave radiation from the planets surface.

Also, I do not have a problem with IR emitted from the surface interacting with GH gases, that's been studied over and again, I am pretty sure it's recognized fact. What I, and most other people with any sense take issue with is the Down Welling Long Wave IR warms the warmer surface of the planet, it's heat source.

There is no misunderstanding of of the spectrum or wavelength differences between EM from the sun directly, and that of IR from the warmed surface. That is understood and acknowledged, and I don't see where you got that from anything I have said on here..

The issue with AGW theory with me is, the energy coming in from the sun, some gets reflected, some refracted, some absorbed, some used to warm the surface, and that which the surface emits as IR, warms the Atmosphere and then has enough left to warm it's own heat source further... It's a silly claim made by men that although were brilliant, were still wrong in their assumptions. The theory defies the 2nd law and does some nifty work around the 1st one as well.

Well good..

I have no problem with the re-radiation of heat thru IR tho the guys who WROTE the thermo laws might not have gone far enough in thinking to "embellish" it for understanding..

A black body -- the Earth, in thermal equilibrium (important because it's NEVER REALLY in equibrium given it's got a pumped heat switch that has 24 cycle) absorbs efficiently at the SAME frequencies as it emits. In other words, it can eat it's own RADIANTED heat very efficiently.. RADIATED heat in the form of IR does NOT obey the propagation laws of conducted heat in that it doesn't give a rat's ass if the EM wave is gonna hit a hot body or warm body.. But ----- The NET TOTAL thermal transfer will always be from Hot to Cold with NO violation of any 2nd law. Doesn't mean that down-dwelling IR can't go to ground.. Just means there's more of it coming up than going down.. And the CO2 acts to create a thermal resistance at the CO2 by raising the temperature in the troposphere. (blanket analogy aside). Remember that conduction/convection has a forcing function of the temp differential.. Lowering that diff is like turning down the voltage and less heat flows from hot to warmish, than from hot to cold. That's the thermal resistance part.

When I first heard we were violating laws --- I was outraged and looked into it. Because it seemed perfectly legit to me. It was just confusion about how EM propagates and the NET EXCHANGE balance. Doesn't mean SOME EM IR can't do doughnuts between the sky and the ground...

I'm outraged NOW by a WHOLE LIST of law violations in other forums. And spending most of my time making certain the guilty get punished.

EDIT EDIT"

BTW: Read a great article about how the Thermo laws didn't anticipate the STATISTICS behind heat transfer. In small transfers, the chances of a particular energy state and EM frequency are random. And for low particle counts, you can actually violate the 2nd law for quite awhile til the odds correct it. Even in the presence of a substantial thermal gradient....

 

[gslack]

Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)


A claim can be made for how much IR is absorbed vs how much is absorbed, and a fair statement would be that some is reflected back towards earth. But that would be minuscule to the reflective abilities of a cloud. GH gases can't be a good absorber and good reflector simultaneously. Just as nothing can be both a good emitter and absorber simultaneously.

IGCSE - Thermal Physics Revision - Radiation



Again, it can reflect some and absorb some, but it cannot be completely efficient at either one at the same time.

The MET office likes to misuse the terms so they don't have to actually prove anything.

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory



It's a fine example of just how un-scientific the methods used to further this ridiculous theory.

Frankly You can buy their story or buy Kirchoff's law... I take the law...

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You worked pretty hard there.. Hope it stimulates some neurons somewhere..

But I think the hard-core denialists are focused on the "other" excitation source. Not the sun. GHouse theory works 24 hrs a day and has little to do with DIRECT solar irradiation.. CO2 is a poor absorber of sunlight because it's so narrow band. Water vapor (clouds) are much better absorbers on INCOMING sunlight.

It's the heat coming from the earth as a thermal tank -- going UP --- that the denialists have problems with. Because they quote thermodynamics in error -- not realizing that the EARTH emits a spectrum of IR where MORE of the energy is shifted into the absorption bands of CO2 and the other GHGases.. That's why clouds keep the surface warm at night (except in the desert where there is little water vapor to act as the PRINCIPLE GHGas).

No thermal conduction or convection required.. Mostly done by EM radiation....

Bottom line --- Go find the few studies that studied the GreenHouse at NIGHT, in the DESERT, controlled for water vapor that tried to find the warming due to the rest of the GHGases.. Not many exist --- because LARGELY they don't confirm that CO2 is a huge factor... And the hysteria industry is NOT gonna publish findings that contradict the Warmer Bible..

Red herring non science. Published by big oil just like the scandal sheets in the grocery store line. Let's publish this today. It sounds like it could be the truth and could obscure the obvious for another month or so. That's a few more billion in profits for us, though a few billion more in extreme weather recovery for everybody.

Every additional molecule of carbon dioxide that we return to the atmosphere from wence it came millions of years ago acts like every other carbon dioxide molecule when struck by EM radiation in the lab or in our atmosphere. It mostly transmits short wavelength radiation and mostly reflects long wave radiation. Always. No exceptions.

On earth, the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere the less long wave goes into space. It remains here warming the planet.

Truth is so simple, lies so complicated.

LOL now you're going to try and take some of the heat off of your sock friend and agree with his "sequestered carbon" theory???

ROFL, Numan you are one silly man....

 

[gslack]

"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs.."

From the perspective of effect, absorbtion and re-emission is reflection and scattering. The only difference is the direction.

Do explain, at a wave/elementary-particle/atomic/molecular level, the process by which a solid, liquid, and gas absorb, emit, reflect and scatter EM radiation.

An incoming photon impacts molecule. Then what?

Here is the one I have always quandried, transparency of glass. Does the light pass through without ever interacting with the atoms or is it absorbed and reemited by each atom in a straight line, through the material?

NO, I did my job. You made the claim, I challenged it with logic, links and sources, and now you can either try and prove my evidence false or keep on weaseling...

I have done enough of the work for you silly socko... Well okay one last little bit of help, a small clue to get you started okay...

Your answers are in the last couple of pages of posts here. Matter of fact in one of PMZ socks butcherings of science he answered your last question and he didn't even know what it meant. And obviously either do you.. It's all about the wavelength of EM radiation and the absorbing/emitting/reflecting properties of the material.. Oh and as flacaltenn mentioned previously, phase is a factor as well...

Now you can do your own leg work..

 

[itfitzme]

You are easily distracted. *The initial consideration was whether reflection and absorbtion/re-emmission are different with respect to CO2 gas and electragmetic wavicles.

It began here;

...When a photon of light strikes a carbon dioxide molecule it is subject to certain very well known probabilities. There are odds that it will pass through unimpeded, that it will be absorbed, or that it will be reflected from wence it came. It can be shown theoretically and empiracly what those odds are for any wavelength of light.*
...

LOL, the theory is that GH gases absorb and re-emit IR energy. If it's "reflecting" now it's whole other situation isn't it..

LOL, reflection IS absorption and re-radiation. *As is scattering. *

Laser emmision is even more awesome.*...

You say that reflection is NOT absorption and re-emission.

If were going to say that, some how reflection and absorbtion/re-emission is different, then we have to examine it at an atomic/macroscopic level. *

If not absorption and re-emission, how does light them manage to interact with the material without absorption and re-emission?

At a macroscopic level, the terms;*scattering*and transmission are typically used and refer to solids though there is nothing wrong with using them in terms of suspended particles, liquids or gasses. They are measures of effect after the light has left the material.

At a microscopic level, the terms*absorption, emission, radiation, and re-radiation are typical. *When the study becomes mixed, terminology starts getting mixed about. Atmosphere consists of gasses and particles with wavelengths of light ranging from UV to IR. The concerns can range from; the level of photon absorbtion and re-emission by the electron energy band; to absorbtion by the molecular bonds; to molecule kinetic energy; to reflection of suspended particles. *So, the use of reflection as well as absorbtion/re-emission are equally valid if were talking about gases and suspentions.

So the considerations then arise regarding the atomic processes involved in lasers, transmission through glass, as well the reflection off of materials. With respect to the reflection of materials, I didn't even mention metals. *

So, as light passes through a glass, does it interact with the material or pass through as if nothing were there? *When light reflects off the surface of a silver, does it interact with the material or what? *When light hits a gas, if indeed some is returned towards the source as reflection, how does this occur.

The answer is that it is reflected by absorption and re-emission. *Whether the mechanism is is that of vibration of the bonds or the electrons being kicked into a new energy level, the interaction is absorbtion and re-emission. *What we measure after the interaction is transmission, scattering, and reflection, defraction, and reflection.

Reflection is simply a macroscopic measure of the microscopic processopf absorptiom and reflection where the angle is in the general direction back towards the source.

Your quibbling over word usage, saying things*like "LOL" and "I'll throw you a marshmallow" when, in fact, you have no clue what your talking about. *Not knowing is fine. Nobody can be faulted for not knowing everything. *But you follow it up with a complete lack of emotional intelligence.

 

[flacaltenn]

That was IanC with the phase suggestion, but it's OK by me..

 

[gslack]

You worked pretty hard there.. Hope it stimulates some neurons somewhere..

But I think the hard-core denialists are focused on the "other" excitation source. Not the sun. GHouse theory works 24 hrs a day and has little to do with DIRECT solar irradiation.. CO2 is a poor absorber of sunlight because it's so narrow band. Water vapor (clouds) are much better absorbers on INCOMING sunlight.

It's the heat coming from the earth as a thermal tank -- going UP --- that the denialists have problems with. Because they quote thermodynamics in error -- not realizing that the EARTH emits a spectrum of IR where MORE of the energy is shifted into the absorption bands of CO2 and the other GHGases.. That's why clouds keep the surface warm at night (except in the desert where there is little water vapor to act as the PRINCIPLE GHGas).

No thermal conduction or convection required.. Mostly done by EM radiation....

Bottom line --- Go find the few studies that studied the GreenHouse at NIGHT, in the DESERT, controlled for water vapor that tried to find the warming due to the rest of the GHGases.. Not many exist --- because LARGELY they don't confirm that CO2 is a huge factor... And the hysteria industry is NOT gonna publish findings that contradict the Warmer Bible..

And none of what I wrote or quoted was specific to short wave radiation from the sun, but rather long wave radiation from the planets surface.

Also, I do not have a problem with IR emitted from the surface interacting with GH gases, that's been studied over and again, I am pretty sure it's recognized fact. What I, and most other people with any sense take issue with is the Down Welling Long Wave IR warms the warmer surface of the planet, it's heat source.

There is no misunderstanding of of the spectrum or wavelength differences between EM from the sun directly, and that of IR from the warmed surface. That is understood and acknowledged, and I don't see where you got that from anything I have said on here..

The issue with AGW theory with me is, the energy coming in from the sun, some gets reflected, some refracted, some absorbed, some used to warm the surface, and that which the surface emits as IR, warms the Atmosphere and then has enough left to warm it's own heat source further... It's a silly claim made by men that although were brilliant, were still wrong in their assumptions. The theory defies the 2nd law and does some nifty work around the 1st one as well.

Well good..

I have no problem with the re-radiation of heat thru IR tho the guys who WROTE the thermo laws might not have gone far enough in thinking to "embellish" it for understanding..

A black body -- the Earth, in thermal equilibrium (important because it's NEVER REALLY in equibrium given it's got a pumped heat switch that has 24 cycle) absorbs efficiently at the SAME frequencies as it emits. In other words, it can eat it's own RADIANTED heat very efficiently.. RADIATED heat in the form of IR does NOT obey the propagation laws of conducted heat in that it doesn't give a rat's ass if the EM wave is gonna hit a hot body or warm body.. But ----- The NET TOTAL thermal transfer will always be from Hot to Cold with NO violation of any 2nd law. Doesn't mean that down-dwelling IR can't go to ground.. Just means there's more of it coming up than going down.. And the CO2 acts to create a thermal resistance at the CO2 by raising the temperature in the troposphere. (blanket analogy aside). Remember that conduction/convection has a forcing function of the temp differential.. Lowering that diff is like turning down the voltage and less heat flows from hot to warmish, than from hot to cold. That's the thermal resistance part.

When I first heard we were violating laws --- I was outraged and looked into it. Because it seemed perfectly legit to me. It was just confusion about how EM propagates and the NET EXCHANGE balance. Doesn't mean SOME EM IR can't do doughnuts between the sky and the ground...

I'm outraged NOW by a WHOLE LIST of law violations in other forums. And spending most of my time making certain the guilty get punished.

EDIT EDIT"

BTW: Read a great article about how the Thermo laws didn't anticipate the STATISTICS behind heat transfer. In small transfers, the chances of a particular energy state and EM frequency are random. And for low particle counts, you can actually violate the 2nd law for quite awhile til the odds correct it. Even in the presence of a substantial thermal gradient....

Agreed.. Save one thing...

A photon, or our conception and understanding of the quanta (or discrete bundle) of EM radiation displays characteristics of both a wave and a particle. Meaning as longwave IR photons are coming up from the surface, the force of those photons would interfere with those of the down welling long wave IR photons coming down and the greater force of course would come from the warmer source, and the weaker or cooler forces would be overwhelmed by the warmer forces.

Now this is where people like Roy Spencer go nuts and claim the energy has to go somewhere and go off on a long winded and thoroughly silly thought experiment on his blog.

Sure it does, but we don't know where it goes or what happens to it, and we can't just assume it "must" create additional warming in the directions it's heading. but they do..

So what happens to energy when we use it? We know some is used to do the work, some is lost due things like friction, gravity, so on and so forth. ut when we say "used up" is it destroyed? Well no because energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so what happens to energy we used to do the work?

We don't know, they don't know, nobody knows. But I would rather not proclaim the sky is falling and frighten people needlessly or commit to hypotheticals and theories that are only considered because it seems to fit into the situation somewhat.. Nor would I take drastic measures that will lead to untold deaths or unnecessary poverty in places which cannot afford fashionable, yet hardly viable alternatives.

 

[gslack]

That was IanC with the phase suggestion, but it's OK by me..

Oh you're right my bad... Sorry Ian.

 

[itfitzme]

"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs.."

From the perspective of effect, absorbtion and re-emission is reflection and scattering. *The only difference is the direction.

Do explain, at a wave/elementary-particle/atomic/molecular level, the process by which a solid, liquid, and gas absorb, emit, reflect and scatter EM radiation. *

An incoming photon impacts molecule. *Then what?

Here is the one I have always quandried, transparency of glass. *Does the light pass through without ever interacting with the atoms or is it absorbed and reemited by each atom in a straight line, through the material?

NO, I did my job. You made the claim, I challenged it with logic, links and sources, and now you can either try and prove my evidence false or keep on weaseling...

I have done enough of the work for you silly socko... Well okay one last little bit of help, a small clue to get you started okay...

Your answers are in the last couple of pages of posts here. Matter of fact in one of PMZ socks butcherings of science he answered your last question and he didn't even know what it meant. And obviously either do you.. It's all about the wavelength of EM radiation and the absorbing/emitting/reflecting properties *of the material.. Oh and as flacaltenn mentioned previously, phase is a factor as well...

Now you can do your own leg work..

That's down right sad.

All you've done is demonstrate you have some knowledge but don't fully understand what you're talking about.

You don't know the quantum mechanics of transmision. *You can't distinguish between macroscopic measures and microscopic effects. You don't grasp that absorption at one wavelength can be accompanied by either a change in the attomic/molecular state or by re-emission. If the energy is not re-emited the macroscopic measure of the effectnis callee absorption. If the energy is re-emitted it is called scattering, transmission, or reflection. If it passes through, it's transmission. *If it gets licked back, it's reflection. If the angle is all over the place, it's scattering.

You can post all the links you want but if you don't fully understandnthe material, you a) don't have all the links and b) all the material isn't on the internet for free. It's still market economy.

 

[gslack]

You are easily distracted. *The initial consideration was whether reflection and absorbtion/re-emmission are different with respect to CO2 gas and electragmetic wavicles.

It began here;

LOL, the theory is that GH gases absorb and re-emit IR energy. If it's "reflecting" now it's whole other situation isn't it..

LOL, reflection IS absorption and re-radiation. *As is scattering. *

Laser emmision is even more awesome.*...

You say that reflection is NOT absorption and re-emission.

If were going to say that, some how reflection and absorbtion/re-emission is different, then we have to examine it at an atomic/macroscopic level. *

If not absorption and re-emission, how does light them manage to interact with the material without absorption and re-emission?

At a macroscopic level, the terms;*scattering*and transmission are typically used and refer to solids though there is nothing wrong with using them in terms of suspended particles, liquids or gasses. They are measures of effect after the light has left the material.

At a microscopic level, the terms*absorption, emission, radiation, and re-radiation are typical. *When the study becomes mixed, terminology starts getting mixed about. Atmosphere consists of gasses and particles with wavelengths of light ranging from UV to IR. The concerns can range from; the level of photon absorbtion and re-emission by the electron energy band; to absorbtion by the molecular bonds; to molecule kinetic energy; to reflection of suspended particles. *So, the use of reflection as well as absorbtion/re-emission are equally valid if were talking about gases and suspentions.

So the considerations then arise regarding the atomic processes involved in lasers, transmission through glass, as well the reflection off of materials. With respect to the reflection of materials, I didn't even mention metals. *

So, as light passes through a glass, does it interact with the material or pass through as if nothing were there? *When light reflects off the surface of a silver, does it interact with the material or what? *When light hits a gas, if indeed some is returned towards the source as reflection, how does this occur.

The answer is that it is reflected by absorption and re-emission. *Whether the mechanism is is that of vibration of the bonds or the electrons being kicked into a new energy level, the interaction is absorbtion and re-emission. *What we measure after the interaction is transmission, scattering, and reflection, defraction, and reflection.

Reflection is simply a macroscopic measure of the microscopic processopf absorptiom and reflection where the angle is in the general direction back towards the source.

Your quibbling over word usage, saying things*like "LOL" and "I'll throw you a marshmallow" when, in fact, you have no clue what your talking about. *Not knowing is fine. Nobody can be faulted for not knowing everything. *But you follow it up with a complete lack of emotional intelligence.

Oh stop posturing.. And don't quote yourself and pretend I didn't respond to your post socko..We all see I did..

And you have subtly changed the parameters of your position in your last two posts.

You first claimed it was reflection is absorption and re-emission, then you claimed "From the perspective of effect, absorbtion and re-emission is reflection and scattering. Now its "The initial consideration was whether reflection and absorbtion/re-emmission are different with respect to CO2 gas and electragmetic wavicles."

Dude another 3-4 posts and you will be agreeing with me 100% but still claiming I'm wrong...LOL

SO, no matter how you try and rationalize it, no matter how many misunderstood concepts, misrepresented facts, or how much posturing or altering of your claim you do on this, the fact will still remain that reflection is the opposite of absorption.

And I brought links to reputable and verifiable sources to show this fact, and all you have done is alter your claim and babble...

 

[gslack]

"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs.."

From the perspective of effect, absorbtion and re-emission is reflection and scattering. *The only difference is the direction.

Do explain, at a wave/elementary-particle/atomic/molecular level, the process by which a solid, liquid, and gas absorb, emit, reflect and scatter EM radiation. *

An incoming photon impacts molecule. *Then what?

Here is the one I have always quandried, transparency of glass. *Does the light pass through without ever interacting with the atoms or is it absorbed and reemited by each atom in a straight line, through the material?

NO, I did my job. You made the claim, I challenged it with logic, links and sources, and now you can either try and prove my evidence false or keep on weaseling...

I have done enough of the work for you silly socko... Well okay one last little bit of help, a small clue to get you started okay...

Your answers are in the last couple of pages of posts here. Matter of fact in one of PMZ socks butcherings of science he answered your last question and he didn't even know what it meant. And obviously either do you.. It's all about the wavelength of EM radiation and the absorbing/emitting/reflecting properties *of the material.. Oh and as flacaltenn mentioned previously, phase is a factor as well...

Now you can do your own leg work..

That's down right sad.

All you've done is demonstrate you have some knowledge but don't fully understand what you're talking about.

You don't know the quantum mechanics of transmision. *You can't distinguish between macroscopic measures and microscopic effects. You don't grasp that absorption at one wavelength can be accompanied by either a change in the attomic/molecular state or by re-emission. If the energy is not re-emited the macroscopic measure of the effectnis callee absorption. If the energy is re-emitted it is called scattering, transmission, or reflection. If it passes through, it's transmission. *If it gets licked back, it's reflection. If the angle is all over the place, it's scattering.

You can post all the links you want but if you don't fully understandnthe material, you a) don't have all the links and b) all the material isn't on the internet for free. It's still market economy.

Yes, yes socko and you haven't provided one bit of evidence and yet I supplied a good deal of it...

Frankly, you're just trifling because you got caught being wrong and can't handle it.. I'm sorry man, but that's life. Sometimes you're a successful internet fake scientist in a web forum, and sometimes your shown for being full of it... And trust me when I tell you, no matter what persona you take, if you are too lazy to actually read some of the things you're going to claim some brilliance at, you will get outed every time. You can fake intelligence and knowledge with clever google searches, but you can't fake understanding..

 

[flacaltenn]

And none of what I wrote or quoted was specific to short wave radiation from the sun, but rather long wave radiation from the planets surface.

Also, I do not have a problem with IR emitted from the surface interacting with GH gases, that's been studied over and again, I am pretty sure it's recognized fact. What I, and most other people with any sense take issue with is the Down Welling Long Wave IR warms the warmer surface of the planet, it's heat source.

There is no misunderstanding of of the spectrum or wavelength differences between EM from the sun directly, and that of IR from the warmed surface. That is understood and acknowledged, and I don't see where you got that from anything I have said on here..

The issue with AGW theory with me is, the energy coming in from the sun, some gets reflected, some refracted, some absorbed, some used to warm the surface, and that which the surface emits as IR, warms the Atmosphere and then has enough left to warm it's own heat source further... It's a silly claim made by men that although were brilliant, were still wrong in their assumptions. The theory defies the 2nd law and does some nifty work around the 1st one as well.

Well good..

I have no problem with the re-radiation of heat thru IR tho the guys who WROTE the thermo laws might not have gone far enough in thinking to "embellish" it for understanding..

A black body -- the Earth, in thermal equilibrium (important because it's NEVER REALLY in equibrium given it's got a pumped heat switch that has 24 cycle) absorbs efficiently at the SAME frequencies as it emits. In other words, it can eat it's own RADIANTED heat very efficiently.. RADIATED heat in the form of IR does NOT obey the propagation laws of conducted heat in that it doesn't give a rat's ass if the EM wave is gonna hit a hot body or warm body.. But ----- The NET TOTAL thermal transfer will always be from Hot to Cold with NO violation of any 2nd law. Doesn't mean that down-dwelling IR can't go to ground.. Just means there's more of it coming up than going down.. And the CO2 acts to create a thermal resistance at the CO2 by raising the temperature in the troposphere. (blanket analogy aside). Remember that conduction/convection has a forcing function of the temp differential.. Lowering that diff is like turning down the voltage and less heat flows from hot to warmish, than from hot to cold. That's the thermal resistance part.

When I first heard we were violating laws --- I was outraged and looked into it. Because it seemed perfectly legit to me. It was just confusion about how EM propagates and the NET EXCHANGE balance. Doesn't mean SOME EM IR can't do doughnuts between the sky and the ground...

I'm outraged NOW by a WHOLE LIST of law violations in other forums. And spending most of my time making certain the guilty get punished.

EDIT EDIT"

BTW: Read a great article about how the Thermo laws didn't anticipate the STATISTICS behind heat transfer. In small transfers, the chances of a particular energy state and EM frequency are random. And for low particle counts, you can actually violate the 2nd law for quite awhile til the odds correct it. Even in the presence of a substantial thermal gradient....

Agreed.. Save one thing...

A photon, or our conception and understanding of the quanta (or discrete bundle) of EM radiation displays characteristics of both a wave and a particle. Meaning as longwave IR photons are coming up from the surface, the force of those photons would interfere with those of the down welling long wave IR photons coming down and the greater force of course would come from the warmer source, and the weaker or cooler forces would be overwhelmed by the warmer forces.

Now this is where people like Roy Spencer go nuts and claim the energy has to go somewhere and go off on a long winded and thoroughly silly thought experiment on his blog.

Sure it does, but we don't know where it goes or what happens to it, and we can't just assume it "must" create additional warming in the directions it's heading. but they do..

So what happens to energy when we use it? We know some is used to do the work, some is lost due things like friction, gravity, so on and so forth. ut when we say "used up" is it destroyed? Well no because energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so what happens to energy we used to do the work?

We don't know, they don't know, nobody knows. But I would rather not proclaim the sky is falling and frighten people needlessly or commit to hypotheticals and theories that are only considered because it seems to fit into the situation somewhat.. Nor would I take drastic measures that will lead to untold deaths or unnecessary poverty in places which cannot afford fashionable, yet hardly viable alternatives.

Don't worry.. Be Happy.. That 1st paragraph actually states a similiar idea to Total Net Energy flow. But instead of worrying about the collisions of a 12 gauge shot with a 410 load shot -- consider the effect if 90% of them miss in the air and land on their targets.

Yes -- there is some cancellation due to Ians "phase" observation. I know this from my optical computing background. A diffraction pattern from laser light is formed by phase cancellation. But as private pilots say -- the sky is a big place and you're not likely to collide if you're 40 miles from an airport or VOR complex.

There is a winner of the your "forces" and a loser --- at the materials exchanging the fire. And that's what still validates the Thermo rules..

Here's what that cancellation looks like with laser light after a lens works on the phases. That optical computing stuff is amazing. You are looking at the spatial frequencies of some crystal lattice illuminated by a flat field of laser light and then focused with a lens.. At the focal point you can measure all of the vital geometry of that crystal.. The spatial distances between molecules in any direction. Working in that field gave me an unfair advantage in thinking between frequency domains and time or space domains. And the BEAUTY of this simple method was amazing.. ((That''s all a FOUR BEER topic))

Not so much happens if you use INcoherent light (like this Surface IR radiation) because of the non-uniform phase front and frequencies.. Makes those cancellations rarer if you will...

 

[itfitzme]

NO, I did my job. You made the claim, I challenged it with logic, links and sources, and now you can either try and prove my evidence false or keep on weaseling...

I have done enough of the work for you silly socko... Well okay one last little bit of help, a small clue to get you started okay...

Your answers are in the last couple of pages of posts here. Matter of fact in one of PMZ socks butcherings of science he answered your last question and he didn't even know what it meant. And obviously either do you.. It's all about the wavelength of EM radiation and the absorbing/emitting/reflecting properties *of the material.. Oh and as flacaltenn mentioned previously, phase is a factor as well...

Now you can do your own leg work..

That's down right sad.

All you've done is demonstrate you have some knowledge but don't fully understand what you're talking about.

You don't know the quantum mechanics of transmision. *You can't distinguish between macroscopic measures and microscopic effects. You don't grasp that absorption at one wavelength can be accompanied by either a change in the attomic/molecular state or by re-emission. If the energy is not re-emited the macroscopic measure of the effectnis callee absorption. If the energy is re-emitted it is called scattering, transmission, or reflection. If it passes through, it's transmission. *If it gets licked back, it's reflection. If the angle is all over the place, it's scattering.

You can post all the links you want but if you don't fully understandnthe material, you a) don't have all the links and b) all the material isn't on the internet for free. *It's still market economy.

Yes, yes socko and you haven't provided one bit of evidence and yet I supplied a good deal of it...

Frankly, you're just trifling because you got caught being wrong and can't handle it.. I'm sorry man, but that's life. Sometimes you're a successful internet fake scientist in a web forum, and sometimes your shown for being full of it... And trust me when I tell you, no matter what persona you take, if you are too lazy to actually read some of the things you're going to claim some brilliance at, you will get outed every time. You can fake intelligence and knowledge with clever google searches, but you can't fake understanding..

You can go forward believing what you want. Hope it works for you.

Not my job to prove it to you. You want proof, go pay for it. *Take some courses in material sciences, quantum mechanics, and field theory.

Or, just go on stroking your ego. *I did my job, for anyonr reading your bs that can figure it for themselves.

 

[gslack]

Well good..

I have no problem with the re-radiation of heat thru IR tho the guys who WROTE the thermo laws might not have gone far enough in thinking to "embellish" it for understanding..

A black body -- the Earth, in thermal equilibrium (important because it's NEVER REALLY in equibrium given it's got a pumped heat switch that has 24 cycle) absorbs efficiently at the SAME frequencies as it emits. In other words, it can eat it's own RADIANTED heat very efficiently.. RADIATED heat in the form of IR does NOT obey the propagation laws of conducted heat in that it doesn't give a rat's ass if the EM wave is gonna hit a hot body or warm body.. But ----- The NET TOTAL thermal transfer will always be from Hot to Cold with NO violation of any 2nd law. Doesn't mean that down-dwelling IR can't go to ground.. Just means there's more of it coming up than going down.. And the CO2 acts to create a thermal resistance at the CO2 by raising the temperature in the troposphere. (blanket analogy aside). Remember that conduction/convection has a forcing function of the temp differential.. Lowering that diff is like turning down the voltage and less heat flows from hot to warmish, than from hot to cold. That's the thermal resistance part.

When I first heard we were violating laws --- I was outraged and looked into it. Because it seemed perfectly legit to me. It was just confusion about how EM propagates and the NET EXCHANGE balance. Doesn't mean SOME EM IR can't do doughnuts between the sky and the ground...

I'm outraged NOW by a WHOLE LIST of law violations in other forums. And spending most of my time making certain the guilty get punished.

EDIT EDIT"

BTW: Read a great article about how the Thermo laws didn't anticipate the STATISTICS behind heat transfer. In small transfers, the chances of a particular energy state and EM frequency are random. And for low particle counts, you can actually violate the 2nd law for quite awhile til the odds correct it. Even in the presence of a substantial thermal gradient....

Agreed.. Save one thing...

A photon, or our conception and understanding of the quanta (or discrete bundle) of EM radiation displays characteristics of both a wave and a particle. Meaning as longwave IR photons are coming up from the surface, the force of those photons would interfere with those of the down welling long wave IR photons coming down and the greater force of course would come from the warmer source, and the weaker or cooler forces would be overwhelmed by the warmer forces.

Now this is where people like Roy Spencer go nuts and claim the energy has to go somewhere and go off on a long winded and thoroughly silly thought experiment on his blog.

Sure it does, but we don't know where it goes or what happens to it, and we can't just assume it "must" create additional warming in the directions it's heading. but they do..

So what happens to energy when we use it? We know some is used to do the work, some is lost due things like friction, gravity, so on and so forth. ut when we say "used up" is it destroyed? Well no because energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so what happens to energy we used to do the work?

We don't know, they don't know, nobody knows. But I would rather not proclaim the sky is falling and frighten people needlessly or commit to hypotheticals and theories that are only considered because it seems to fit into the situation somewhat.. Nor would I take drastic measures that will lead to untold deaths or unnecessary poverty in places which cannot afford fashionable, yet hardly viable alternatives.

Don't worry.. Be Happy.. That 1st paragraph actually states a similiar idea to Total Net Energy flow. But instead of worrying about the collisions of a 12 gauge shot with a 410 load shot -- consider the effect if 90% of them miss in the air and land on their targets.

Yes -- there is some cancellation due to Ians "phase" observation. I know this from my optical computing background. A diffraction pattern from laser light is formed by phase cancellation. But as private pilots say -- the sky is a big place and you're not likely to collide if you're 40 miles from an airport or VOR complex.

There is a winner of the your "forces" and a loser --- at the materials exchanging the fire. And that's what still validates the Thermo rules..

Here's what that cancellation looks like with laser light after a lens works on the phases. That optical computing stuff is amazing. You are looking at the spatial frequencies of some crystal lattice illuminated by a flat field of laser light and then focused with a lens.. At the focal point you can measure all of the vital geometry of that crystal.. The spatial distances between molecules in any direction. Working in that field gave me an unfair advantage in thinking between frequency domains and time or space domains. And the BEAUTY of this simple method was amazing.. ((That''s all a FOUR BEER topic))

Not so much happens if you use INcoherent light (like this Surface IR radiation) because of the non-uniform phase front and frequencies.. Makes those cancellations rarer if you will...

Amazing, that kind of intel gathered so simply. Well relatively anyway.

It's amazing what they are able to do now with todays technology. Despite my disagreement with AGW theory, I do not doubt the potential we have.

 

[gslack]

That's down right sad.

All you've done is demonstrate you have some knowledge but don't fully understand what you're talking about.

You don't know the quantum mechanics of transmision. *You can't distinguish between macroscopic measures and microscopic effects. You don't grasp that absorption at one wavelength can be accompanied by either a change in the attomic/molecular state or by re-emission. If the energy is not re-emited the macroscopic measure of the effectnis callee absorption. If the energy is re-emitted it is called scattering, transmission, or reflection. If it passes through, it's transmission. *If it gets licked back, it's reflection. If the angle is all over the place, it's scattering.

You can post all the links you want but if you don't fully understandnthe material, you a) don't have all the links and b) all the material isn't on the internet for free. *It's still market economy.

Yes, yes socko and you haven't provided one bit of evidence and yet I supplied a good deal of it...

Frankly, you're just trifling because you got caught being wrong and can't handle it.. I'm sorry man, but that's life. Sometimes you're a successful internet fake scientist in a web forum, and sometimes your shown for being full of it... And trust me when I tell you, no matter what persona you take, if you are too lazy to actually read some of the things you're going to claim some brilliance at, you will get outed every time. You can fake intelligence and knowledge with clever google searches, but you can't fake understanding..

You can go forward believing what you want. Hope it works for you.

Not my job to prove it to you. You want proof, go pay for it. *Take some courses in material sciences, quantum mechanics, and field theory.

Or, just go on stroking your ego. *I did my job, for anyonr reading your bs that can figure it for themselves.

LOL, you didn't do anything but alter your arguments and try to BS your way out of looking a complete fool.

Nah, I don't need courses, you on the other hand... Well, maybe internet scientist isn't your thing.

 

[PMZ]

It's optics 101 that all materials can only reflect, absorb, or transmit EM radiation. The prortions of the three possibilities vary with wavelength.

If they absorb, the energy raises their temperature, causing them to become a radiation source.

Oh hush now socko, anyone who took "optics 101" would know that reflection and absorption are opposites... Please...

Are you actually saying, numbnuts, that materials don't transmit light? My windows refute that. I can see right through them. They don't absorb more than a little, but they do reflect more or less dependent on incident angle and wavelength.

Are you saying that my windows and my glasses and my telescopes and my binoculars and my magnifying lenses and my microscopes don't work????

 

[PMZ]

That's down right sad.

All you've done is demonstrate you have some knowledge but don't fully understand what you're talking about.

You don't know the quantum mechanics of transmision. *You can't distinguish between macroscopic measures and microscopic effects. You don't grasp that absorption at one wavelength can be accompanied by either a change in the attomic/molecular state or by re-emission. If the energy is not re-emited the macroscopic measure of the effectnis callee absorption. If the energy is re-emitted it is called scattering, transmission, or reflection. If it passes through, it's transmission. *If it gets licked back, it's reflection. If the angle is all over the place, it's scattering.

You can post all the links you want but if you don't fully understandnthe material, you a) don't have all the links and b) all the material isn't on the internet for free. *It's still market economy.

Yes, yes socko and you haven't provided one bit of evidence and yet I supplied a good deal of it...

Frankly, you're just trifling because you got caught being wrong and can't handle it.. I'm sorry man, but that's life. Sometimes you're a successful internet fake scientist in a web forum, and sometimes your shown for being full of it... And trust me when I tell you, no matter what persona you take, if you are too lazy to actually read some of the things you're going to claim some brilliance at, you will get outed every time. You can fake intelligence and knowledge with clever google searches, but you can't fake understanding..

You can go forward believing what you want. Hope it works for you.

Not my job to prove it to you. You want proof, go pay for it. *Take some courses in material sciences, quantum mechanics, and field theory.

Or, just go on stroking your ego. *I did my job, for anyonr reading your bs that can figure it for themselves.

Believing what they want is a profound observation. That's what it boils down to. Believing what they want. The ultimate ego trip.

Let's just be thankful that we're not all like that or we'd still be living in caves.

 

[itfitzme]

NO, I did my job. You made the claim, I challenged it with logic, links and sources, and now you can either try and prove my evidence false or keep on weaseling...

I have done enough of the work for you silly socko... Well okay one last little bit of help, a small clue to get you started okay...

Your answers are in the last couple of pages of posts here. Matter of fact in one of PMZ socks butcherings of science he answered your last question and he didn't even know what it meant. And obviously either do you.. It's all about the wavelength of EM radiation and the absorbing/emitting/reflecting properties *of the material.. Oh and as flacaltenn mentioned previously, phase is a factor as well...

Now you can do your own leg work..

That's down right sad.

All you've done is demonstrate you have some knowledge but don't fully understand what you're talking about.

You don't know the quantum mechanics of transmision. *You can't distinguish between macroscopic measures and microscopic effects. You don't grasp that absorption at one wavelength can be accompanied by either a change in the attomic/molecular state or by re-emission. If the energy is not re-emited the macroscopic measure of the effectnis callee absorption. If the energy is re-emitted it is called scattering, transmission, or reflection. If it passes through, it's transmission. *If it gets licked back, it's reflection. If the angle is all over the place, it's scattering.

You can post all the links you want but if you don't fully understandnthe material, you a) don't have all the links and b) all the material isn't on the internet for free. *It's still market economy.

Yes, yes socko and you haven't provided one bit of evidence and yet I supplied a good deal of it...

Frankly, you're just trifling because you got caught being wrong and can't handle it.. I'm sorry man, but that's life. Sometimes you're a successful internet fake scientist in a web forum, and sometimes your shown for being full of it... And trust me when I tell you, no matter what persona you take, if you are too lazy to actually read some of the things you're going to claim some brilliance at, you will get outed every time. You can fake intelligence and knowledge with clever google searches, but you can't fake understanding..

Yes, yes socko and you haven't provided one bit of evidence and yet I supplied a good deal of it...

Frankly, you're just trifling because you got caught being wrong and can't handle it.. I'm sorry man, but that's life. Sometimes you're a successful internet fake scientist in a web forum, and sometimes your shown for being full of it... And trust me when I tell you, no matter what persona you take, if you are too lazy to actually read some of the things you're going to claim some brilliance at, you will get outed every time. You can fake intelligence and knowledge with clever google searches, but you can't fake understanding..

You can go forward believing what you want. Hope it works for you.

Not my job to prove it to you. You want proof, go pay for it. *Take some courses in material sciences, quantum mechanics, and field theory.

Or, just go on stroking your ego. *I did my job, for anyonr reading your bs that can figure it for themselves.

LOL, you didn't do anything but alter your arguments and try to BS your way out of looking a complete fool.*

Nah, I don't need courses, you on the other hand... Well, maybe internet scientist isn't your thing.

Your having*difficulty differentiating between individuals. Can't tell the difference between what one individual presents and what another presents.

 

[itfitzme]

Well good..*

I have no problem with the re-radiation of heat thru IR tho the guys who WROTE the thermo laws might not have gone far enough in thinking to "embellish" it for understanding..*

A black body -- the Earth, in thermal equilibrium (important because it's NEVER REALLY in equibrium given it's got a pumped heat switch that has 24 cycle) absorbs efficiently at the SAME frequencies as it emits. In other words, it can eat it's own RADIANTED heat very efficiently.. RADIATED heat in the form of IR does NOT obey the propagation laws of conducted heat in that it doesn't give a rat's ass if the EM wave is gonna hit a hot body or warm body.. But ----- The NET TOTAL thermal transfer will always be from Hot to Cold with NO violation of any 2nd law. *Doesn't mean that down-dwelling IR can't go to ground.. Just means there's more of it coming up than going down.. And the CO2 acts to create a thermal resistance at the CO2 by raising the temperature in the troposphere. (blanket analogy aside). Remember that conduction/convection has a forcing function of the temp differential.. Lowering that diff is like turning down the voltage and less heat flows from hot to warmish, than from hot to cold. That's the thermal resistance part.

When I first heard we were violating laws --- I was outraged and looked into it. Because it seemed perfectly legit to me. It was just confusion about how EM propagates and the NET EXCHANGE balance. Doesn't mean SOME EM IR can't do doughnuts between the sky and the ground...

I'm outraged NOW by a WHOLE LIST of law violations in other forums. And spending most of my time making certain the guilty get punished.

EDIT EDIT"

BTW: Read a great article about how the Thermo laws didn't anticipate the STATISTICS behind heat transfer. In small transfers, the chances of a particular energy state and EM frequency are random. And for low particle counts, you can actually violate the 2nd law for quite awhile til the odds correct it. Even in the presence of a substantial thermal gradient....

Agreed.. Save one thing...

A photon, or our conception and understanding of the quanta (or discrete bundle) of EM radiation displays characteristics of both a wave and a particle. Meaning as longwave IR photons are coming up from the surface, the force of those photons would interfere with those of the down welling long wave IR photons coming down and the greater force of course would come from the warmer source, and the weaker or cooler forces would be overwhelmed by the warmer forces.*

Now this is where people like Roy Spencer go nuts and claim the energy has to go somewhere and go off on a long winded and thoroughly silly thought experiment on his blog. *

Sure it does, but we don't know where it goes or what happens to it, and we can't just assume it "must" create additional warming in the directions it's heading. but they do..

So what happens to energy when we use it? We know some is used to do the work, some is lost due things like friction, gravity, so on and so forth. ut when we say "used up" is it destroyed? Well no because energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so what happens to energy we used to do the work?

We don't know, they don't know, nobody knows. But I would rather not proclaim the sky is falling and frighten people needlessly or commit to hypotheticals and theories that are only considered because it seems to fit into the situation somewhat.. Nor would I take drastic measures that will lead to untold deaths or unnecessary poverty in places which cannot afford fashionable, yet hardly viable alternatives.

Don't worry.. Be Happy.. That 1st paragraph actually states a similiar idea to Total Net Energy flow. But instead of worrying about the collisions of a 12 gauge shot with a 410 load shot -- consider the effect if 90% of them miss in the air and land on their targets.*

Yes -- there is some cancellation due to Ians "phase" observation. I know this from my optical computing background. A diffraction pattern from laser light is formed by phase cancellation. But as private pilots say -- the sky is a big place and you're not likely to collide if you're 40 miles from an airport or VOR complex.

There is a winner of the your "forces" and a loser --- at the materials exchanging the fire. And that's what still validates the Thermo rules..*

Here's what that cancellation looks like with laser light after a lens works on the phases. That optical computing stuff is amazing. You are looking at the spatial frequencies of some crystal lattice illuminated by a flat field of laser light and then focused with a lens.. At the focal point you can measure all of the vital geometry of that crystal.. The spatial distances between molecules in any direction. Working in that field gave me an unfair advantage in thinking between frequency domains and time or space domains. And the BEAUTY of this simple method was amazing.. ((That''s all a FOUR BEER topic))

Not so much happens if you use INcoherent light (like this Surface IR radiation) because of the non-uniform phase front and frequencies.. Makes those cancellations rarer if you will...

That's pretty amazing seeing as "*the wavelength of visible light (about 4000 to 7000 ångström) is three orders of magnitude longer than the length of typical atomic bonds and atoms themselves (about 1 to 2 Å). Therefore, obtaining information about the spatial arrangement of atoms requires the use of radiation with shorter wavelengths, such as X-ray or neutron"

It must be some new, never before seen technique.

Got a link to the research paper that overthrows decades of fundamental science?