LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[Wuwei]

He has confused conduction with convection before.
It may be Alzheimer's.

He has used the word conduction over and over he got it right with what a blanket does, so it's hard to know what he is thinking.

 

[jc456]

However, even if the two objects are not in contact and there is no physical medium to carry heat, the two objects will still eventually reach a common temperature.

I agree, the cooler object will absorb from the warmer object while the warmer object cools down to the temperature of the cooler object. Never said that didn't happen. I claim the cooler object doesn't make the warmer object warmer. I'm still waiting on that evidence.

I claim the cooler object doesn't make the warmer object warmer.




The cooler object emits much less than the warmer object.
How would it make the warmer object warmer?

It doesn't. no exchange of energy to it. none. The only flow is warm to cold. seems you haven't figured that out.

It doesn't.

I've never seen anyone argue it did.

no exchange of energy to it.

Of course there is. Matter above 0K emits, even if warmer matter is nearby.

The only flow is warm to cold.

You're wrong.

seems you haven't figured that out.

I figured out your confusion a long time ago.

You're wrong

Prove it!

View attachment 238256

says T is greater than Tc. not sure what you're implying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I claim the cooler object doesn't make the warmer object warmer.




The cooler object emits much less than the warmer object.
How would it make the warmer object warmer?

It doesn't. no exchange of energy to it. none. The only flow is warm to cold. seems you haven't figured that out.

It doesn't.

I've never seen anyone argue it did.

no exchange of energy to it.

Of course there is. Matter above 0K emits, even if warmer matter is nearby.

The only flow is warm to cold.

You're wrong.

seems you haven't figured that out.

I figured out your confusion a long time ago.

You're wrong

Prove it!

View attachment 238256

says T is greater than Tc. not sure what you're implying.

Tc.....where?

 

[jc456]

It doesn't. no exchange of energy to it. none. The only flow is warm to cold. seems you haven't figured that out.

It doesn't.

I've never seen anyone argue it did.

no exchange of energy to it.

Of course there is. Matter above 0K emits, even if warmer matter is nearby.

The only flow is warm to cold.

You're wrong.

seems you haven't figured that out.

I figured out your confusion a long time ago.

You're wrong

Prove it!

View attachment 238256

says T is greater than Tc. not sure what you're implying.

Tc.....where?

in the equation of SB. and what is the area you're measuring? gas has no area.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It doesn't.

I've never seen anyone argue it did.

no exchange of energy to it.

Of course there is. Matter above 0K emits, even if warmer matter is nearby.

The only flow is warm to cold.

You're wrong.

seems you haven't figured that out.

I figured out your confusion a long time ago.

You're wrong

Prove it!

View attachment 238256

says T is greater than Tc. not sure what you're implying.

Tc.....where?

in the equation of SB. and what is the area you're measuring? gas has no area.

in the equation of SB.

No Tc anywhere in this excerpt.

 

[jc456]

You're wrong

Prove it!

View attachment 238256

says T is greater than Tc. not sure what you're implying.

Tc.....where?

in the equation of SB. and what is the area you're measuring? gas has no area.

in the equation of SB.

No Tc anywhere in this excerpt.

Understood. but you quoted SB and in the SB equation, T is always greater than Tc.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 238256

says T is greater than Tc. not sure what you're implying.

Tc.....where?

in the equation of SB. and what is the area you're measuring? gas has no area.

in the equation of SB.

No Tc anywhere in this excerpt.

Understood. but you quoted SB and in the SB equation, T is always greater than Tc.

Read the excerpt. Just T. No Tc anywhere.

Now if you can show the Stefan-Boltzmann Law has been refuted, I'm willing to listen.
Or you could just admit your error and I'll stop bugging you about it.

 

[jc456]

says T is greater than Tc. not sure what you're implying.

Tc.....where?

in the equation of SB. and what is the area you're measuring? gas has no area.

in the equation of SB.

No Tc anywhere in this excerpt.

Understood. but you quoted SB and in the SB equation, T is always greater than Tc.

Read the excerpt. Just T. No Tc anywhere.

Now if you can show the Stefan-Boltzmann Law has been refuted, I'm willing to listen.
Or you could just admit your error and I'll stop bugging you about it.

It says T is greater than Tc.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tc.....where?

in the equation of SB. and what is the area you're measuring? gas has no area.

in the equation of SB.

No Tc anywhere in this excerpt.

Understood. but you quoted SB and in the SB equation, T is always greater than Tc.

Read the excerpt. Just T. No Tc anywhere.

Now if you can show the Stefan-Boltzmann Law has been refuted, I'm willing to listen.
Or you could just admit your error and I'll stop bugging you about it.

It says T is greater than Tc.

No Tc in the excerpt.
You're still confused.

 

[jc456]

in the equation of SB. and what is the area you're measuring? gas has no area.

in the equation of SB.

No Tc anywhere in this excerpt.

Understood. but you quoted SB and in the SB equation, T is always greater than Tc.

Read the excerpt. Just T. No Tc anywhere.

Now if you can show the Stefan-Boltzmann Law has been refuted, I'm willing to listen.
Or you could just admit your error and I'll stop bugging you about it.

It says T is greater than Tc.

No Tc in the excerpt.
You're still confused.

Nope

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

in the equation of SB.

No Tc anywhere in this excerpt.

Understood. but you quoted SB and in the SB equation, T is always greater than Tc.

Read the excerpt. Just T. No Tc anywhere.

Now if you can show the Stefan-Boltzmann Law has been refuted, I'm willing to listen.
Or you could just admit your error and I'll stop bugging you about it.

It says T is greater than Tc.

No Tc in the excerpt.
You're still confused.

Nope

Ok, show me where the excerpt mentions Tc.

 

[jc456]

Understood. but you quoted SB and in the SB equation, T is always greater than Tc.

Read the excerpt. Just T. No Tc anywhere.

Now if you can show the Stefan-Boltzmann Law has been refuted, I'm willing to listen.
Or you could just admit your error and I'll stop bugging you about it.

It says T is greater than Tc.

No Tc in the excerpt.
You're still confused.

Nope

Ok, show me where the excerpt mentions Tc.

there wasn't. I already explained why I used it. it is you confused. I said nope to the second line.

 

[SSDD]

So, you are agreeing that IR from the earth indirectly causes the atmosphere to heat.

I agree that conduction is the primary means of energy movement through the atmosphere...and that being the case, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible

I don't understand why you say conduction is a primary means of energy movement when you said "radaition is a very efficient mover of energy...if you want to cool a thing, you move energy away from it in the fastest possible mode."

Of course you didn't...because you have next to zero critical thinking skills...What if the atmosphere were the same density as it is now except that so called greenhouse gasses were the bulk of the atmosphere and energy was actually radiated through the troposphere at the speed of light, rather than moving through the atmosphere by the cumbersome and slow means of conduction? The emissivity of the atmosphere would be very high and what happens to the ability of an object when you raise its emissivity?

Everyone knows air is very poor at conduction.

A poor conductor moves energy more slowly than a good conductor...If you are moving energy slowly do you think that means that you will be cooler or warmer? What would happen to the temperature in the atmosphere if air were a better conductor? Or radiation were the primary means of energy transport moving the bulk of energy on to space at the speed of light?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sure follow other narratives, but I was focused on one important energy exchange mechanism out of many others: The surface of the earth is largely warmed by short wave energy from the sun. The earth's heat emits broad band long wave radiation. Some of those wavelengths are captured by CO2 and increase the internal energy of those molecules. The internal energy of CO2 is predominantly transfered to O2 and N2 through collisions. Those collisions increase the temperature of the atmosphere. It's as simple as that. Now what do you think I cherry picked?

Interesting that you can see the problem with your belief, but you can't accept it...climate models assume that radiation is the primary means of movement of energy through the troposphere...they discount conduction entirely and yet, that is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...that is why they fail...they are modeling a radiative greenhouse effect that doesn't exist because conduction is the main mode of energy movement through the troposphere...

We have a Winner!!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

so post up a link to observed empirical evidence from one of your scientists. just one. I'll wait.

Atmospheric gases only absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in longer wavelengths (12–15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the "window" through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space. (Illustration NASA, Robert Rohde)[19]
Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

This graph proves what? Let me guess, your taking your cues from Crick..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I asked for proof observed measured evidence. not a model. come now child, listen.

Hilarity.

INFRARED ABSORPTION BY CH4 , H2 0 AND CO2

David A. Gryvnak
Darrell E. Burch
Robert L. Alt
-Dorianne K: Zgonc

SECTION 5

ABSORPTION BY C02 BETWEEN 500 AND 850 cmut

SAMPLING

The temperatures and total -pressures of the samples studied were varied
over wide ranges representative of the -earth's atmosphere. Samples varied-in
pressure from I atm=-to less than 0.03 atm and were maintained near -one of
three different temperatures: 310 K, 274 K, and 245 K. The highest temperature
corresponds approximately to the-maximum atmospheric temperature in the
tropics. The lowest temperature, 245-K, approximately-represents stratospheric
temperatures. Ideally, somewhat lower temperatures should be employed to cover
the full temperature range of the atmosphere; however, the experimental diffi-
culties associated with operating at lower temperatures -would greatly increase
the time involved in obtaining the data and would also -reduce the accuracy:. As
a compromise, the lower temperature of 245 K was chosen. An intermediate
temperature near 274 K was also employed in order to -provide additional data
on the temperature dependence of the absorption.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a039380.pdf​

Tell me, The gases you just described are less than 0.0136% of our atmosphere. Do they posses the weight in mass necessary to warm our atmosphere? Do you have an Observed, Empirical Experiment to prove your answer?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't understand why you say conduction is a primary means of energy movement when you said

And there in is your problem in understanding... Molecule 1 collides with molecule 2 moving energy kinetically by contact, conduction. This is not energy transfer by LWIR.

 

[Wuwei]

I agree that conduction is the primary means of energy movement through the atmosphere...and that being the case, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible

My argument was that earth LW IR warms the atmosphere, and you agreed and added a non sequitur about conduction.

.What if the atmosphere were the same density as it is now except that so called greenhouse gasses were the bulk of the atmosphere and energy was actually radiated through the troposphere at the speed of light,

Then we would have a planet like Venus which radiates 16,549 W/m². (Have you figured out what happens to that radiation yet?) The earth would not be that hot of course.

 

[SSDD]

I agree that conduction is the primary means of energy movement through the atmosphere...and that being the case, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible

My argument was that earth LW IR warms the atmosphere, and you agreed and added a non sequitur about conduction.

IR does not warm the atmosphere...IR is energy moving away from its source at the speed of light... That glaring problem with your belief is not a non sequitur..it is the glaring error in the hypothesis...

we would have a planet like Venus which radiates 16,549 W/m². (Have you figured out what happens to that radiation yet?) The earth would not be that hot of course.

No..you would have nothing like venus...the atmosphere on venus is 90 times more dense than our own...

I have always been able to explain the radiation...and am perfectly ready to do so when you are able to state in plain english what the equation I gave you says...and hell, I even did more than half of it for you...all you had to do was speak in plain english, a simple subtraction problem..and you can't do it...

When you do, I will be happy to provide you with an explanation for the apparent discrepancy in energy on venus complete with testable, workable formulas to explain...not that you would be able to grasp those formulas either since you can't even state in plain english what a simple subtraction problem says...

 

[Wuwei]

IR does not warm the atmosphere...IR is energy moving away from its source at the speed of light... That glaring problem with your belief is not a non sequitur..it is the glaring error in the hypothesis...

I asked you which step is wrong and you said you would add a seventh step. You did not say which step you disagreed with therefore I assumed you agreed. Again, which step of the following do you disagree with.

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
3. The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
4. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
6. The conservation of energy requires the above.

That process broken down into 6 steps means the air heats up by the amount absorbed by GHGs.

No..you would have nothing like venus...the atmosphere on venus is 90 times more dense than our own...

I have always been able to explain the radiation...and am perfectly ready to do so when you are able to state in plain english what the equation I gave you says...and hell, I even did more than half of it for you...all you had to do was speak in plain english, a simple subtraction problem..and you can't do it...

When you do, I will be happy to provide you with an explanation for the apparent discrepancy in energy on venus complete with testable, workable formulas to explain...not that you would be able to grasp those formulas either since you can't even state in plain english what a simple subtraction problem says...

I gave you what the equation says in plain English several times.
You have been shucking and jiving now for pages rather than simply admitting that you have no idea what happens to the 15,700 W/m². That's a failure on your part.