In summary...

[SSDD]

Remember, that energy would directly escape to space if CO2 was not present..

No ian...if CO2 weren't there, the energy would have to use the much slower conveyance mechanism of convection to get to the upper atmosphere...CO2 allows it to move on much more quickly...

 

[SSDD]

Just keep in mind that model predict a tropospheric hotspot for ANY form of warming; not just greenhouse.

good point!

does the lack of tropospheric hotspot warming suggest that the current methodology for determining global temperatures and trends is somehow exaggerating the results? adding phantom warming that isnt really there, otherwise the troposphere would have warmed more?

The lack of a tropospheric hot spot is a predictive failure of the greenhouse hypothesis itself....and again..how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get in real science before it is scrapped and the search begins for a better explanation for observations?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Remember, that energy would directly escape to space if CO2 was not present..

No ian...if CO2 weren't there, the energy would have to use the much slower conveyance mechanism of convection to get to the upper atmosphere...CO2 allows it to move on much more quickly...

No ian...if CO2 weren't there, the energy would have to use the much slower conveyance mechanism of convection to get to the upper atmosphere

IF CO2 didn't intercept the IR, the energy would already have escaped into space. DERP!

 

[IanC]

Remember, that energy would directly escape to space if CO2 was not present..

No ian...if CO2 weren't there, the energy would have to use the much slower conveyance mechanism of convection to get to the upper atmosphere...CO2 allows it to move on much more quickly...

Wow! This points out a huge gap in your understanding. A huge mistake.

Right now, with GHGs, there is an Atmospheric Window centered on 10 microns. That radiation escapes directly to space, from any outward angle from the surface.

If CO2 was not present in the atmosphere then then CO2 band centered on 15 microns would be added to the Atmospheric Window. All the CO2 specific surface radiation would simply fly away to space.

Do I really have to drag out the graph of satellite measured longwave radiation leaving the planet? The amount of 10 micron radiation matches the Planck Curve for roughly 285K, the temperature of the surface. The amount of 15 micron radiation matches a temperature of roughly 200K, minus 70C, very cold and high up in the atmosphere where CO2 radiation canfinally escape without being reabsorbed because the air is so thin.

A planet with no atmosphere radiates solar input as fast as it receives it.

A planet with a non GHG atmosphere stores some solar energy in the air, which returns a portion back to the surface causing (indirectly) a warmer surface average temperature.

A planet with a GHG atmosphere stores the same amount of solar energy PLUS a portion of the outward surface radiation, which leads to a warmer atmosphere, which in turn leads to more returned energy to the surface, which results in an even warmer average surface temperature.

 

[IanC]

There are a great many pathways for energy to escape from the planet. Radiation, conduction, convection. Each with a different efficiency depending on local or global conditions.

GHGs lessen the efficiency of radiation making alternate pathways more usable in a relative way. Increasing GHGs pushes energy to seek the alternative pathways. There must be some increased warming of the surface, otherwise the energy would ALREADY be using those pathways.

 

[SSDD]

I suppose that might be true ian..in a fantasy universe where there actually existed such a thing as a greenhouse effect...got to hand it to you...you sure know how your imagined effects work. Unfortunately, there is no greenhouse effect...there is a gravitothermal atmospheric effects but it doesn't care what the atmosphere is made of...only how much it weighs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I suppose that might be true ian..in a fantasy universe where there actually existed such a thing as a greenhouse effect...got to hand it to you...you sure know how your imagined effects work. Unfortunately, there is no greenhouse effect...there is a gravitothermal atmospheric effects but it doesn't care what the atmosphere is made of...only how much it weighs.

Even your "smart" photons think you're an idiot.

 

[IanC]

I suppose that might be true ian..in a fantasy universe where there actually existed such a thing as a greenhouse effect...got to hand it to you...you sure know how your imagined effects work. Unfortunately, there is no greenhouse effect...there is a gravitothermal atmospheric effects but it doesn't care what the atmosphere is made of...only how much it weighs.

The gravity field is how much of the energy is stored in the atmosphere.

In non GHG atmospheres, energy is transferred by conduction. This energy makes the molecules move faster, which in turn raises the height of the atmosphere. Potential energy that would be released if the molecules lost kinetic speed (temperature).

GHG atmospheres also receive conduction energy from the surface. But they also receive radiation energy absorbed by GHGs. This extra energy is also stored as kinetic and potential energy. The atmosphere's molecules move faster (increased temperature), and rise to a higher altitude (stored potential energy).

All objects radiate according to their temperature (and emissivity). The atmosphere is no different. It's radiation is emitted in all directions so some returns to the surface, changing the rate of heat loss, which changes the equilibrium temperature of 'input energy minus output energy'

 

[elektra]

Exactly. Ice cools things, not CO2.

But we do use CO2 to cool things, it is called dry ice. Dry Ice is pure CO2.

 

[SSDD]

All objects radiate according to their temperature (and emissivity).

In a vacuum...sure..

The atmosphere is no different.

Sure its different...the atmosphere is not a vacuum.

It's radiation is emitted in all directions so some returns to the surface, changing the rate of heat loss, which changes the equilibrium temperature of 'input energy minus output energy'

So you keep saying..and yet, it can't be measured without instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All objects radiate according to their temperature (and emissivity).

In a vacuum...sure..

The atmosphere is no different.

Sure its different...the atmosphere is not a vacuum.

It's radiation is emitted in all directions so some returns to the surface, changing the rate of heat loss, which changes the equilibrium temperature of 'input energy minus output energy'

So you keep saying..and yet, it can't be measured without instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere.

In a vacuum...sure..

No Stefan-Boltzmann exception for "in an atmosphere".

So you keep saying..and yet, it can't be measured without instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere.

Ah, the old switch to turn emissions on and off.
Still can't explain why background radiation from the Big Bang avoids our much warmer atmosphere, but suddenly decides to transit that warm atmosphere to hit a cooler instrument on the surface.

If you ever find a real source that says, "All matter above 0K emits unless..........", you should post it.

Otherwise it's clear you're just talking out of your ass.

 

[SSDD]

No Stefan-Boltzmann exception for "in an atmosphere".

Sure there is...not that I would ever expect you to see it...

This equation represents a radiator, which is not an ideal radiator (as denoted by e) It is radiating into a vacuum...as evidenced by the fact that there is no background noted. The radiator is simply radiating into nothing.

This equation represents a radiator (also not an ideal radiator) radiating into something other than a vacuum...as evidenced by the notation of a background...which, then alters P according to the difference between the temperature of the radiator, and the temperature of the background.

I don't expect you to get it..or to acknowledge your error...but there is what is whether you agree with it or not.

Ah, the old switch to turn emissions on and off.

The fact remains that radiation can't be measured coming from the atmosphere without cooling the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...except in rare instances of temperature inversion....cool the instrument and there is the radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...you may not believe it, but it really doesn't matter what you believe...and it doesn't matter what story you make up in an effort to either explain it, or disregard it...but it is a fact and it says something about the hypothetical movement of energy from cool to warm...that being, it doesn't happen.

 

[IanC]

I am no expert on Infrared thermometers and I don't plan on being one anytime soon.

That said, I can easily think of many designs to make one. Einstein won his Nobel for the photoelectric effect, how a beam of light can produce an electric current in certain materials.

You simply find a compound that reacts specifically to the type of radiation that you are trying to measure. The incident IR causes a current that is proportional to the amount received, hence the temperature via S-B equation.

Shielding the detector could be done by either cooling the instrument or surrounding the detector with a material that has low emissivity at the examined frequency. Or both. The idea is to stop the wanted signal from being swamped by local unwanted interference. The signal is always there, the problem is teasing it out of the background noise.

SSDD has some bizarre notion that individual atomic scale events are controlled by a macroscopic general description, temperature. He has no mechanism for this, and in fact it goes against other Physics Laws such as entropy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No Stefan-Boltzmann exception for "in an atmosphere".

Sure there is...not that I would ever expect you to see it...

This equation represents a radiator, which is not an ideal radiator (as denoted by e) It is radiating into a vacuum...as evidenced by the fact that there is no background noted. The radiator is simply radiating into nothing.

This equation represents a radiator (also not an ideal radiator) radiating into something other than a vacuum...as evidenced by the notation of a background...which, then alters P according to the difference between the temperature of the radiator, and the temperature of the background.

I don't expect you to get it..or to acknowledge your error...but there is what is whether you agree with it or not.

Ah, the old switch to turn emissions on and off.

The fact remains that radiation can't be measured coming from the atmosphere without cooling the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...except in rare instances of temperature inversion....cool the instrument and there is the radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...you may not believe it, but it really doesn't matter what you believe...and it doesn't matter what story you make up in an effort to either explain it, or disregard it...but it is a fact and it says something about the hypothetical movement of energy from cool to warm...that being, it doesn't happen.

This equation represents a radiator, which is not an ideal radiator

A less than ideal radiator is still a radiator. Even in an atmosphere. Even surrounded by warmer matter.

The fact remains that radiation can't be measured coming from the atmosphere without cooling the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...

And the fact that you aren't measuring it is not proof that it doesn't exist.

...but it is a fact and it says something about the hypothetical movement of energy from cool to warm...that being, it doesn't happen.

Magic photons, we know. LOL!

You never explained the mechanism, when 2 identical objects one warmer than the other, reach the identical temperature.
Your fantasy says the emitter suddenly stops. You never explained how it measures the temperature of the cooler object, since the cooler object can't emit in order to broadcast its temperature.

So how does this magic happen?

 

[IanC]

The folly of temperature in SSDD'S world.

Does the planet have an average temperature? Maybe, but is it a useful piece of information?

If you had a cubic centimeter of air at the theoretical global temperature of 15C would the range of individual molecular speeds be greater or less than the range of measured temperature stations from the Arctic through the equator to the Antarctic? The air molecules by far have greater variability and range.

When SSDD says a photon cannot move from lower to higher temperatures, what does that mean?

If two planets were circling each other and one was 1C warmer than the other then SSDD says the cooler planet cannot send even one photon toward the warmer one. Ridiculous or not? Why?

As you look at smaller and smaller objects does his 'theory' become more reasonable? Some people here think so. Where is the cutoff?

Does one molecule have an 'average' speed? Compared to what? The cubic centimeter of air, the planet, the galaxy, the universe? Is there some sort of tag that allows one molecule to recognize the 'temperature' of a different molecule?

It is easy to understand the flow of heat by statistical calculations of large cohorts of particles but it is impossible to determine by looking at any one individual interaction between two molecules.

SSDD is full of shit

 

[SSDD]

SSDD has some bizarre notion that individual atomic scale events are controlled by a macroscopic general description, temperature. He has no mechanism for this, and in fact it goes against other Physics Laws such as entropy.

And since you have absolutely zero evidence to the contrary...it sounds like you are just persecuting me because I don't hold your religious beliefs...I don't need a mechanism for observation of energy movement any more than I need a mechanism for gravity...to suggest that I do is just plain stupid and very dishonest...observation is what it is and when every observation ever made supports one's position, why on earth would I jump on your fantasy band wagon?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD is full of shit

So you say...and still every observation ever made supports my position....you, I am afraid, are the one who is full of shit...but you have your beliefs...you stick to them and ride that crazy train right to the bitter end.

 

[IanC]

SSDD has some bizarre notion that individual atomic scale events are controlled by a macroscopic general description, temperature. He has no mechanism for this, and in fact it goes against other Physics Laws such as entropy.

And since you have absolutely zero evidence to the contrary...it sounds like you are just persecuting me because I don't hold your religious beliefs...I don't need a mechanism for observation of energy movement any more than I need a mechanism for gravity...to suggest that I do is just plain stupid and very dishonest...observation is what it is and when every observation ever made supports one's position, why on earth would I jump on your fantasy band wagon?

I am persecuting you because your belief in magic photons are in contradiction of other physical laws, especially entropy. You believe in a definition of the second law of thermodynamics that was written before the atomic scale world was explored. In fact it was the known deficiencies that caused Planck to invent his constant, little h, that set a limit as to how small distance could be divided. Which led to the evolvement of Quantum Mechanics. Your system is old and flawed and unable to explain the inconsistencies. Mine retains the correct portions of your version, corrects the flaws, and explains what is happening.

 

[SSDD]

I am persecuting you because your belief in magic photons are in contradiction of other physical laws, especially entropy. You believe in a definition of the second law of thermodynamics that was written before the atomic scale world was explored. In fact it was the known deficiencies that caused Planck to invent his constant, little h, that set a limit as to how small distance could be divided. Which led to the evolvement of Quantum Mechanics. Your system is old and flawed and unable to explain the inconsistencies. Mine retains the correct portions of your version, corrects the flaws, and explains what is happening.

Actually, ian, it is you wackos who made up the whole "magic" photons stupidity, as if anything in nature must be intelligent, or magic in order to obey the laws of physics. Specifically, the whole thing is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ridicule where ridicule, or mockery is substituted for actual evidence in an argument. The fact is that every observation ever made shows energy moving only from warm to cool...and every observation ever made shows that it is a one way gross energy movement. There are no observations of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm, nor are there any observations of net energy movement.

And If the physics of energy movement are KNOWN to be different from that described by that quaint old second law of thermodynamics, why then, has the law not been rewritten to reflect this new reality? I can tell you why...it is because the new reality isn't...it is nothing more than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...that's it..and that's all you have so rather than simply address that fact, you engage in various logical fallacies in an effort to divert attention away from your lack of observed, measured, empirical evidence to support your belief and actively engage in an effort to disparage me.

By definition, persecution is to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religious or political beliefs, ethnic or racial origin, gender identity,or sexual orientation....in this case, it is because I don't hold the same religious belief as you....and you have admitted it. How does it feel to be that sort of person Ian?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am persecuting you because your belief in magic photons are in contradiction of other physical laws, especially entropy. You believe in a definition of the second law of thermodynamics that was written before the atomic scale world was explored. In fact it was the known deficiencies that caused Planck to invent his constant, little h, that set a limit as to how small distance could be divided. Which led to the evolvement of Quantum Mechanics. Your system is old and flawed and unable to explain the inconsistencies. Mine retains the correct portions of your version, corrects the flaws, and explains what is happening.

Actually, ian, it is you wackos who made up the whole "magic" photons stupidity, as if anything in nature must be intelligent, or magic in order to obey the laws of physics. Specifically, the whole thing is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ridicule where ridicule, or mockery is substituted for actual evidence in an argument. The fact is that every observation ever made shows energy moving only from warm to cool...and every observation ever made shows that it is a one way gross energy movement. There are no observations of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm, nor are there any observations of net energy movement.

And If the physics of energy movement are KNOWN to be different from that described by that quaint old second law of thermodynamics, why then, has the law not been rewritten to reflect this new reality? I can tell you why...it is because the new reality isn't...it is nothing more than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...that's it..and that's all you have so rather than simply address that fact, you engage in various logical fallacies in an effort to divert attention away from your lack of observed, measured, empirical evidence to support your belief and actively engage in an effort to disparage me.

By definition, persecution is to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religious or political beliefs, ethnic or racial origin, gender identity,or sexual orientation....in this case, it is because I don't hold the same religious belief as you....and you have admitted it. How does it feel to be that sort of person Ian?

Actually, ian, it is you wackos who made up the whole "magic" photons stupidity, as if anything in nature must be intelligent, or magic in order to obey the laws of physics.

Wrong. Your silly claim requires intelligence on the part of emitters or photons.
Real physics says all matter above 0K emits all the time in all directions.

Still waiting for the explanation of how an object emits, stops emitting and starts again just because a warmer object approached and then left the area near that object.
Or how photons from the Big Bang won't enter our warmer atmosphere until, magically, they detect a cooler instrument set up to measure them. Suddenly, intelligently, after traveling for billions of years, unable to travel towards the Earth's surface, they "know" they can. And they predicted this cooler target, when they were deciding to be emitted. Crazy!

And If the physics of energy movement are KNOWN to be different from that described by that quaint old second law of thermodynamics, why then, has the law not been rewritten to reflect this new reality?

Because the actual physics, as opposed to your confused version, does not differ from the 2nd Law or from Stefan-Boltzmann.