No Evidence

[SSDD]

579 posts and the OP still hasn't been challenged.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

579 posts and the OP still hasn't been challenged.

 

[Wuwei]

579 posts and the OP still hasn't been challenged.

You are lying again. We invalidated your second contention, and that invalidates your first contention in your OP. Here it is again. You have never answered this.

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 nanoSec 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 kinetic energy from the vibration and turns into heat.

That measured evidence shows that the air heats up as given by these simple steps:

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the vibration modes of GHGs in the lower troposphere.
2. That absorbed EM energy by the GHGs is random.
3. The GHG vibration energy is almost all transfered to the air as kinetic energy through collisions.
4. Gain of random kinetic energy in air is thermal energy.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss to the GHGs.
6. 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?

That is also related to the question that you didn't answer:
What happens to the 15,700 W/m² EM radiation from Venus?

Your OP has been challenged but you never countered the challenges

.

 

[jc456]

cold to warm yep. you can post observation I'm wrong.

Can you expand your point?

sure, show me an ice cube radiating toward hot coffee

The formula is too complex?

doesn't show that the ice cube will radiate toward hot coffee. nope.

Does the ice cube radiate on its own?
If it does, why would it stop if hot coffee came close?

cause it is absorbing the radiation from the coffee.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can you expand your point?

sure, show me an ice cube radiating toward hot coffee

The formula is too complex?

doesn't show that the ice cube will radiate toward hot coffee. nope.

Does the ice cube radiate on its own?
If it does, why would it stop if hot coffee came close?

cause it is absorbing the radiation from the coffee.

Of course it absorbs radiation from the coffee.
If it's outside, it is also absorbing radiation from the atmosphere and from CMB and from anything in line of sight.
So why do you feel it stops radiating?

 

[jc456]

sure, show me an ice cube radiating toward hot coffee

The formula is too complex?

doesn't show that the ice cube will radiate toward hot coffee. nope.

Does the ice cube radiate on its own?
If it does, why would it stop if hot coffee came close?

cause it is absorbing the radiation from the coffee.

Of course it absorbs radiation from the coffee.
If it's outside, it is also absorbing radiation from the atmosphere and from CMB and from anything in line of sight.
So why do you feel it stops radiating?

it's melting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The formula is too complex?

doesn't show that the ice cube will radiate toward hot coffee. nope.

Does the ice cube radiate on its own?
If it does, why would it stop if hot coffee came close?

cause it is absorbing the radiation from the coffee.

Of course it absorbs radiation from the coffee.
If it's outside, it is also absorbing radiation from the atmosphere and from CMB and from anything in line of sight.
So why do you feel it stops radiating?

it's melting.

Melting ice doesn't radiate? Link?

 

[jc456]

doesn't show that the ice cube will radiate toward hot coffee. nope.

Does the ice cube radiate on its own?
If it does, why would it stop if hot coffee came close?

cause it is absorbing the radiation from the coffee.

Of course it absorbs radiation from the coffee.
If it's outside, it is also absorbing radiation from the atmosphere and from CMB and from anything in line of sight.
So why do you feel it stops radiating?

it's melting.

Melting ice doesn't radiate? Link?

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat and eventually ends up in a warm puddle that is emitting the same area temperature it is in now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does the ice cube radiate on its own?
If it does, why would it stop if hot coffee came close?

cause it is absorbing the radiation from the coffee.

Of course it absorbs radiation from the coffee.
If it's outside, it is also absorbing radiation from the atmosphere and from CMB and from anything in line of sight.
So why do you feel it stops radiating?

it's melting.

Melting ice doesn't radiate? Link?

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat and eventually ends up in a warm puddle that is emitting the same area temperature it is now.

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat

Matter that's absorbing can't emit? Nice!

Link?

 

[jc456]

cause it is absorbing the radiation from the coffee.

Of course it absorbs radiation from the coffee.
If it's outside, it is also absorbing radiation from the atmosphere and from CMB and from anything in line of sight.
So why do you feel it stops radiating?

it's melting.

Melting ice doesn't radiate? Link?

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat and eventually ends up in a warm puddle that is emitting the same area temperature it is now.

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat

Matter that's absorbing can't emit? Nice!

Link?

why does the ice melt and does its surface area change in transition?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course it absorbs radiation from the coffee.
If it's outside, it is also absorbing radiation from the atmosphere and from CMB and from anything in line of sight.
So why do you feel it stops radiating?

it's melting.

Melting ice doesn't radiate? Link?

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat and eventually ends up in a warm puddle that is emitting the same area temperature it is now.

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat

Matter that's absorbing can't emit? Nice!

Link?

why does the ice melt and does its surface area change in transition?

Excellent questions, but first I'd love to see that link...…..

 

[jc456]

it's melting.

Melting ice doesn't radiate? Link?

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat and eventually ends up in a warm puddle that is emitting the same area temperature it is now.

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat

Matter that's absorbing can't emit? Nice!

Link?

why does the ice melt and does its surface area change in transition?

Excellent questions, but first I'd love to see that link...…..

me too. got one?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Melting ice doesn't radiate? Link?

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat and eventually ends up in a warm puddle that is emitting the same area temperature it is now.

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat

Matter that's absorbing can't emit? Nice!

Link?

why does the ice melt and does its surface area change in transition?

Excellent questions, but first I'd love to see that link...…..

me too. got one?

No, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

 

[jc456]

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat and eventually ends up in a warm puddle that is emitting the same area temperature it is now.

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat

Matter that's absorbing can't emit? Nice!

Link?

why does the ice melt and does its surface area change in transition?

Excellent questions, but first I'd love to see that link...…..

me too. got one?

No, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

so you've never seen an ice cube melt before? Dude, it will disappear.

 

[jc456]

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat and eventually ends up in a warm puddle that is emitting the same area temperature it is now.

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat

Matter that's absorbing can't emit? Nice!

Link?

why does the ice melt and does its surface area change in transition?

Excellent questions, but first I'd love to see that link...…..

me too. got one?

No, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

BTW, if, as you say, the ice is emitting, are you saying it is warming the coffee? hmmmm

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat

Matter that's absorbing can't emit? Nice!

Link?

why does the ice melt and does its surface area change in transition?

Excellent questions, but first I'd love to see that link...…..

me too. got one?

No, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

so you've never seen an ice cube melt before? Dude, it will disappear.

Your erroneous claim was that warming ice doesn't emit, dude.

So no link to back you up?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it can't it's warming up from absorbing the heat

Matter that's absorbing can't emit? Nice!

Link?

why does the ice melt and does its surface area change in transition?

Excellent questions, but first I'd love to see that link...…..

me too. got one?

No, I don't have a link that supports your erroneous claim.

BTW, if, as you say, the ice is emitting, are you saying it is warming the coffee? hmmmm

BTW, if, as you say, the ice is emitting, are you saying it is warming the coffee?

BTW, the hotter coffee emits more, so it cools and the ice warms.
Even as they both emit, both absorb.

 

[IanC]

The ice cube is always emitting, in an amount proportional to its temperature, area and emissivity. As long as those three things remain the same then so will the amount of radiation.

So far warming or cooling has not been mentioned .

An ice cube in space would quickly deplete its internal energy by emitting smaller and smaller amounts of radiation as its temperature decreased until it reached the same 'temperature' as space.

An ice cube in a minus20 freezer would cool to minus20 and then continue to radiate the amount proportional to minus20.

An ice cube in a 5C fridge would still radiate according to its temperature but it would now be absorbing more radiation from its surroundings than it was emitting. It is now warming rather than cooling.

An ice cube in a 25C environment warms even faster because there is now a large disparity between incoming absorbed radiation and outgoing emitted radiation.

An object radiates in proportion to its temperature and emissivity. An object warms or cools according to the net transfer of energy between the environment and object.

 

[Wuwei]

The ice cube is always emitting, in an amount proportional to its temperature, area and emissivity. As long as those three things remain the same then so will the amount of radiation.

So far warming or cooling has not been mentioned .

An ice cube in space would quickly deplete its internal energy by emitting smaller and smaller amounts of radiation as its temperature decreased until it reached the same 'temperature' as space.

An ice cube in a minus20 freezer would cool to minus20 and then continue to radiate the amount proportional to minus20.

An ice cube in a 5C fridge would still radiate according to its temperature but it would now be absorbing more radiation from its surroundings than it was emitting. It is now warming rather than cooling.

An ice cube in a 25C environment warms even faster because there is now a large disparity between incoming absorbed radiation and outgoing emitted radiation.

An object radiates in proportion to its temperature and emissivity. An object warms or cools according to the net transfer of energy between the environment and object.

Of course that is true, but JC has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that he is totally incapable of understanding it. He keeps asking the same questions over and over but never understands the answers. Probably a troll?

.

 

[IanC]

The ice cube is always emitting, in an amount proportional to its temperature, area and emissivity. As long as those three things remain the same then so will the amount of radiation.

So far warming or cooling has not been mentioned .

An ice cube in space would quickly deplete its internal energy by emitting smaller and smaller amounts of radiation as its temperature decreased until it reached the same 'temperature' as space.

An ice cube in a minus20 freezer would cool to minus20 and then continue to radiate the amount proportional to minus20.

An ice cube in a 5C fridge would still radiate according to its temperature but it would now be absorbing more radiation from its surroundings than it was emitting. It is now warming rather than cooling.

An ice cube in a 25C environment warms even faster because there is now a large disparity between incoming absorbed radiation and outgoing emitted radiation.

An object radiates in proportion to its temperature and emissivity. An object warms or cools according to the net transfer of energy between the environment and object.

Of course that is true, but JC has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that he is totally incapable of understanding it. He keeps asking the same questions over and over but never understands the answers. Probably a troll?

.

What level of IQ is considered mild retardation? Poor jc is well over to the left of the curve.