No Evidence

[Toddsterpatriot]

All objects get colder when they emit.

It’s what I said, you sure your not drunk? Now that we have agreement there, you have evidence of ice on a counter in 70 degree surrounding getting colder?

It’s what I said

LOL!

Now that we have agreement there, you have evidence of ice on a counter in 70 degree surrounding getting colder?

No. Do you?

Nope you said it should while it emits

In this wacky universe, many things happen simultaneously.
So, if the only thing in the system we're studying is ice, yes, ice emitting into the
cold vacuum of space would cool.

In the system you mentioned, the ice at 0C (32F) or below is emitting, but it's also absorbing faster from the 21C (70F) counter and surroundings.

what happens to photons it supposedly emits? does it heat the room?

They traveled in all directions, without regard to the temperature of the target.

 

[jc456]

It’s what I said, you sure your not drunk? Now that we have agreement there, you have evidence of ice on a counter in 70 degree surrounding getting colder?

It’s what I said

LOL!

Now that we have agreement there, you have evidence of ice on a counter in 70 degree surrounding getting colder?

No. Do you?

Nope you said it should while it emits

In this wacky universe, many things happen simultaneously.
So, if the only thing in the system we're studying is ice, yes, ice emitting into the
cold vacuum of space would cool.

In the system you mentioned, the ice at 0C (32F) or below is emitting, but it's also absorbing faster from the 21C (70F) counter and surroundings.

what happens to photons it supposedly emits? does it heat the room?

They traveled in all directions, without regard to the temperature of the target.

and did what exactly? did it warm anything? And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It’s what I said

LOL!

Now that we have agreement there, you have evidence of ice on a counter in 70 degree surrounding getting colder?

No. Do you?

Nope you said it should while it emits

In this wacky universe, many things happen simultaneously.
So, if the only thing in the system we're studying is ice, yes, ice emitting into the
cold vacuum of space would cool.

In the system you mentioned, the ice at 0C (32F) or below is emitting, but it's also absorbing faster from the 21C (70F) counter and surroundings.

what happens to photons it supposedly emits? does it heat the room?

They traveled in all directions, without regard to the temperature of the target.

and did what exactly? did it warm anything? And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?

and did what exactly?

Was absorbed.

did it warm anything?

Depends.

And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?

Plug in the data for the particular cube if you're interested in finding how much power
the ice cube radiates.

 

[SSDD]

So we are at 502 posts and still not the first challenge to the OP...nor will there ever be.

 

[Wuwei]

So we are at 502 posts and still not the first challenge to the OP...nor will there ever be.

You were given the evidence. Your point #2 was invalidated. How many times do we have to say that? That in turn invalidates your point #1.

 

[SSDD]

So we are at 502 posts and still not the first challenge to the OP...nor will there ever be.

You were given the evidence. Your point #2 was invalidated. How many times do we have to say that? That in turn invalidates your point #1.

No...it wasn't...your greenhouse in a bottle experiment only showed how easily you are fooled...evidence that you are easily tricked does not even begin to challenge any of my points...greenhouse in a bottle...what a laugh...do the experiment yourself and follow the format from the script I provided...watch your "greenhouse" effect disappear when the bottles are vented...laughing right out loud in your face.

 

[Wuwei]

So we are at 502 posts and still not the first challenge to the OP...nor will there ever be.

You were given the evidence. Your point #2 was invalidated. How many times do we have to say that? That in turn invalidates your point #1.

No...it wasn't...your greenhouse in a bottle experiment only showed how easily you are fooled...evidence that you are easily tricked does not even begin to challenge any of my points...greenhouse in a bottle...what a laugh...do the experiment yourself and follow the format from the script I provided...watch your "greenhouse" effect disappear when the bottles are vented...laughing right out loud in your face.

What is wrong with you!! You get so ill-tempered when you forget we went through that once before. I went through the fact in Post #402 that a tightly sealed bottle only influences the temperature by 0.012%, and that's hardly measurable error on top of the fact that the CO2 bottle heats several degrees!!!.

When it comes to the atmosphere CO2 loses its energy gained by resonant absorption to the air. When a photon has the same energy as a resonance frequency of a GHG molecule it can absorb the photon and gain vibratory energy. That GHG molecule very seldom releases that energy by re-emitting a photon of the same frequency.

The reason is that molecules in a gas have average speeds of around 500 meters per second, and around 0.2 nSec between collisions. This is at room temperature and pressure. The average relaxation time that a CO2 molecule can hold the vibration state is much longer: 13 microsec. A random molecule is 26000 times more likely to hit the vibrating GHG molecule before it has a chance to emit a photon. That random molecule gains energy from the vibration and turns into heat.

Besides that the evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

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.
3. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
4. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
5. The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?

.

 

[jc456]

Nope you said it should while it emits

In this wacky universe, many things happen simultaneously.
So, if the only thing in the system we're studying is ice, yes, ice emitting into the
cold vacuum of space would cool.

In the system you mentioned, the ice at 0C (32F) or below is emitting, but it's also absorbing faster from the 21C (70F) counter and surroundings.

what happens to photons it supposedly emits? does it heat the room?

They traveled in all directions, without regard to the temperature of the target.

and did what exactly? did it warm anything? And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?

and did what exactly?

Was absorbed.

did it warm anything?

Depends.

And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?

View attachment 232661

Plug in the data for the particular cube if you're interested in finding how much power
the ice cube radiates.

So no observed evidence!

 

[Wuwei]

Plug in the data for the particular cube if you're interested in finding how much power the ice cube radiates.

This is a help for our simple friends here who are science challenged.
Stefan Boltzmann Law Calculator - Omni

He will see that ice emits about 300 W/m²

 

[polarbear]

So we are at 502 posts and still not the first challenge to the OP...nor will there ever be.

You were given the evidence. Your point #2 was invalidated. How many times do we have to say that? That in turn invalidates your point #1.

No...it wasn't...your greenhouse in a bottle experiment only showed how easily you are fooled...evidence that you are easily tricked does not even begin to challenge any of my points...greenhouse in a bottle...what a laugh...do the experiment yourself and follow the format from the script I provided...watch your "greenhouse" effect disappear when the bottles are vented...laughing right out loud in your face.

Its not as if the experiment could not be carried out without bottling up the CO2. It would stay in an open top aquarium. So it`s not as if you need the bottle for experiments like that except for the fact that the outcome would be a nothing-burger if that parcel of air is not bottled up preventing convection.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In this wacky universe, many things happen simultaneously.
So, if the only thing in the system we're studying is ice, yes, ice emitting into the
cold vacuum of space would cool.

In the system you mentioned, the ice at 0C (32F) or below is emitting, but it's also absorbing faster from the 21C (70F) counter and surroundings.

what happens to photons it supposedly emits? does it heat the room?

They traveled in all directions, without regard to the temperature of the target.

and did what exactly? did it warm anything? And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?

and did what exactly?

Was absorbed.

did it warm anything?

Depends.

And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?

View attachment 232661

Plug in the data for the particular cube if you're interested in finding how much power
the ice cube radiates.

So no observed evidence!

Except for every experiment used to find the Stefan-Boltzmann.
And every one since that backed it up.

 

[jc456]

what happens to photons it supposedly emits? does it heat the room?

They traveled in all directions, without regard to the temperature of the target.

and did what exactly? did it warm anything? And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?

and did what exactly?

Was absorbed.

did it warm anything?

Depends.

And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?

View attachment 232661

Plug in the data for the particular cube if you're interested in finding how much power
the ice cube radiates.

So no observed evidence!

Except for every experiment used to find the Stefan-Boltzmann.
And every one since that backed it up.

Then post one

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They traveled in all directions, without regard to the temperature of the target.

and did what exactly? did it warm anything? And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?

and did what exactly?

Was absorbed.

did it warm anything?

Depends.

And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?

View attachment 232661

Plug in the data for the particular cube if you're interested in finding how much power
the ice cube radiates.

So no observed evidence!

Except for every experiment used to find the Stefan-Boltzmann.
And every one since that backed it up.

Then post one

http://physics.wooster.edu/JrIS/Files/Carter.pdf

 

[SSDD]

What is wrong with you!! You get so ill-tempered when you forget we went through that once before. I went through the fact in Post #402 that a tightly sealed bottle only influences the temperature by 0.012%, and that's hardly measurable error on top of the fact that the CO2 bottle heats several degrees!!!.

When it comes to the atmosphere CO2 loses its energy gained by resonant absorption to the air. When a photon has the same energy as a resonance frequency of a GHG molecule it can absorb the photon and gain vibratory energy. That GHG molecule very seldom releases that energy by re-emitting a photon of the same frequency.

The reason is that molecules in a gas have average speeds of around 500 meters per second, and around 0.2 nSec between collisions. This is at room temperature and pressure. The average relaxation time that a CO2 molecule can hold the vibration state is much longer: 13 microsec. A random molecule is 26000 times more likely to hit the vibrating GHG molecule before it has a chance to emit a photon. That random molecule gains energy from the vibration and turns into heat.

Besides that the evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

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.
3. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
4. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
5. The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?

.

Your model is wrong...and I disagree because I did the experiment myself, 3 times and got the same results as the author...observable results trump your failed models every time.

 

[SSDD]

In this wacky universe, many things happen simultaneously.
So, if the only thing in the system we're studying is ice, yes, ice emitting into the
cold vacuum of space would cool.

In the system you mentioned, the ice at 0C (32F) or below is emitting, but it's also absorbing faster from the 21C (70F) counter and surroundings.

what happens to photons it supposedly emits? does it heat the room?

They traveled in all directions, without regard to the temperature of the target.

and did what exactly? did it warm anything? And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?

and did what exactly?

Was absorbed.

did it warm anything?

Depends.

And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?

View attachment 232661

Plug in the data for the particular cube if you're interested in finding how much power
the ice cube radiates.

So no observed evidence!

he doesn't dare do the experiment himself...the results would challenge his beliefs and we can't have that.

 

[karpenter]

Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.

Nope
Not To Worry

We're Gonna Zap It With A New Magnetic Field
Create A New Atmosphere Just He Way We Like It
Just Like We're Going To Do On Mars

And We'll All Live Happily Ever After

 

[jc456]

what happens to photons it supposedly emits? does it heat the room?

They traveled in all directions, without regard to the temperature of the target.

and did what exactly? did it warm anything? And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?

and did what exactly?

Was absorbed.

did it warm anything?

Depends.

And again, I asked a few posts back, have any observed data that shows the ice cube radiated?

View attachment 232661

Plug in the data for the particular cube if you're interested in finding how much power
the ice cube radiates.

So no observed evidence!

he doesn't dare do the experiment himself...the results would challenge his beliefs and we can't have that.

What’s funny is my coffee never gets hotter in the cup. I’ve put ice near the cup all kinds of furniture and the coffee always cools to room temperature.

 

[Wuwei]

Your model is wrong...and I disagree because I did the experiment myself, 3 times and got the same results as the author...observable results trump your failed models every time.

Air heats in an atmosphere with GHGs because of these simple steps:

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.
3. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
4. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
5. The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?

 

[jc456]

Your model is wrong...and I disagree because I did the experiment myself, 3 times and got the same results as the author...observable results trump your failed models every time.

Air heats in an atmosphere with GHGs because of these simple steps:

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.
3. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
4. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
5. The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?

Which step says the air gets warm by IR? Cause that’s what you’re trying to say. We’re still waiting on that observation

 

[SSDD]

Your model is wrong...and I disagree because I did the experiment myself, 3 times and got the same results as the author...observable results trump your failed models every time.

Air heats in an atmosphere with GHGs because of these simple steps:

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.
3. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
4. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
5. The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?

Yeah..I heard your model ad nauseam...the observable, measurable, repeatable evidence proves your understanding wrong.