No Evidence

[SSDD]

So now you've flipped? CO2 loses its energy by radiation?

Did you think no one would notice the change?

Can you point to any where that I have said that CO2 never radiates energy it absorbs? Anywhere at all? Keep up skid mark...is imagining what I have said really the best you can do?

 

[SSDD]

A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere can not hold on to absorbed energy...and there is always somewhere else for it to go..it is a huge space...an ideal place for IR to go..it is called space...

You are an epitome of self-contradictions. You showed this email dialog from Prof. Happer more than once

IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY.

So how can IR go to space if it is immediately absorbed?

You just said that space is an "ideal place for IR to go". But the fact is that Happer (and you) also said absorbed IR heats the atmosphere.

Troll

.

And do you read that to mean that no CO2 ever radiates anything? Is that what you get out of that? Once again...interpreting rather than actually reading what it says. My bet is that there are more than a billion CO2 molecules...so one in a billion gets to actually radiate a photon...does that say to you that no CO2 molecule ever radiates a photon?

 

[SSDD]

[

Obviously, CO2 absorbs energy from IR photons and from collisions. It loses energy to IR photons and to collisions.You contended that collisions take place more often than emission. Those collisions would pass thermal energy primarily to nitrogen, oxygen and other CO2 molecules. N2 and O2 are neither GHGs and do not radiate in the IR

Do you think it matters whether they radiate in the IR or not? If they radiate the energy they have absorbed, then they are shedding the energy that they absorbed...it doesn't matter whether it is shed as IR, or some other frequency...The question is whether climate science has been observing the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate in and including that in the radiation at the TOA or whether they have only been looking at IR in narrow frequencies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

Obviously, CO2 absorbs energy from IR photons and from collisions. It loses energy to IR photons and to collisions.You contended that collisions take place more often than emission. Those collisions would pass thermal energy primarily to nitrogen, oxygen and other CO2 molecules. N2 and O2 are neither GHGs and do not radiate in the IR

Do you think it matters whether they radiate in the IR or not? If they radiate the energy they have absorbed, then they are shedding the energy that they absorbed...it doesn't matter whether it is shed as IR, or some other frequency...The question is whether climate science has been observing the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate in and including that in the radiation at the TOA or whether they have only been looking at IR in narrow frequencies.

The question is whether climate science has been observing the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate in and including that in the radiation at the TOA

Why don't you post the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate at? Idiot.

 

[SSDD]

[

Obviously, CO2 absorbs energy from IR photons and from collisions. It loses energy to IR photons and to collisions.You contended that collisions take place more often than emission. Those collisions would pass thermal energy primarily to nitrogen, oxygen and other CO2 molecules. N2 and O2 are neither GHGs and do not radiate in the IR

Do you think it matters whether they radiate in the IR or not? If they radiate the energy they have absorbed, then they are shedding the energy that they absorbed...it doesn't matter whether it is shed as IR, or some other frequency...The question is whether climate science has been observing the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate in and including that in the radiation at the TOA or whether they have only been looking at IR in narrow frequencies.

The question is whether climate science has been observing the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate in and including that in the radiation at the TOA

Why don't you post the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate at? Idiot.

Feel free....idiot. I am not the one who claims in one sentence that everything radiates and then in the next, that the only way to radiate energy out into space is via so called greenhouse gasses. N2 and O2 radiate...and it doesn't matter whether they radiate in the IR bands or not...the fact that the energy is escaping the atmosphere is all that matters...

Or do you want to claim that O2 and N2 don't radiate as well?

Never mind...I doubt that you could find it on your own...here are the emission spectra for O2 and N2...

 

[Crick]

I think you will have a difficult time transferring energy from CO2 to N2 or O2 via radiation.

 

[SSDD]

I think you will have a difficult time transferring energy from CO2 to N2 or O2 via radiation.

No one claimed that radiation was needed did they? CO2 transfers energy to N2 and O2 via collision...then the energy is conducted and convected to the upper troposphere where radiation is the only means of moving energy on into space...O2 and N2 radiate energy..and it doesn't matter whether the energy is moved out in the form of IR or not..so long as it is moving into space...and common sense should tell you that more energy is moved out via radiation from O2 and N2 than from a trace gas in the atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

Obviously, CO2 absorbs energy from IR photons and from collisions. It loses energy to IR photons and to collisions.You contended that collisions take place more often than emission. Those collisions would pass thermal energy primarily to nitrogen, oxygen and other CO2 molecules. N2 and O2 are neither GHGs and do not radiate in the IR

Do you think it matters whether they radiate in the IR or not? If they radiate the energy they have absorbed, then they are shedding the energy that they absorbed...it doesn't matter whether it is shed as IR, or some other frequency...The question is whether climate science has been observing the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate in and including that in the radiation at the TOA or whether they have only been looking at IR in narrow frequencies.

The question is whether climate science has been observing the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate in and including that in the radiation at the TOA

Why don't you post the frequencies O2 and N2 radiate at? Idiot.

Feel free....idiot. I am not the one who claims in one sentence that everything radiates and then in the next, that the only way to radiate energy out into space is via so called greenhouse gasses. N2 and O2 radiate...and it doesn't matter whether they radiate in the IR bands or not...the fact that the energy is escaping the atmosphere is all that matters...

Or do you want to claim that O2 and N2 don't radiate as well?

claims in one sentence that everything radiates and then in the next, that the only way to radiate energy out into space is via so called greenhouse gasses.

Are you kidding? The surface radiates out into space but the path is blocked at certain frequencies.
Strangely, those frequencies are those absorbed by GHGs.
Claiming those GHGs increase the departure of IR from the surface is like claiming the Hoover Dam increases the velocity of water in the Colorado River.

N2 and O2 radiate...and it doesn't matter whether they radiate in the IR bands or not...

That is awesome! What bands do they radiate in?

 

[Crick]

60 GHz produces a wavelength of 5 microns. That is microwave.

Nitrogen, at the upper edge (re frequency) of IR

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

60 GHz produces a wavelength of 5 microns. That is microwave.

I wonder if dippy thinks the Earth is radiating much energy thru microwaves?

 

[Wuwei]

And do you read that to mean that no CO2 ever radiates anything? Is that what you get out of that? Once again...interpreting rather than actually reading what it says. My bet is that there are more than a billion CO2 molecules...so one in a billion gets to actually radiate a photon...does that say to you that no CO2 molecule ever radiates a photon?

Wow do you have a short memory. And as usual creating a strawman and being a troll. I always said there is a small probability that CO2 radiates immediately what it just absorbed. I have said that 2/7 of CO2 is in a vibration excited state. In your usual self contradiction you said IR ideally goes to space. You also quote Hopper who says IR heats the atmosphere. You and your pal Billy said IR does not heat the atmosphere.

You are confused big time. Check the boxes you believe are true:
☐ Much 15 micron near earth IR goes to space.
☐ Near earth 15 micron IR heats the atmosphere
☐ Near earth 15 micron IR does not heat the atmosphere
☐ Science doesn't know where earth surface 15 micron IR goes
☐ Let's digress and wonder why rocks don't fall up.
☐ All the above.

So far you have seemed to believe all of the above.

Which is it? Or which are they? Can you ever make up your mind? Can you ever stop your self-contradiction? Can you ever stop evading questions? Do you enjoy being a troll? So many questions!

.

 

[SSDD]

60 GHz produces a wavelength of 5 microns. That is microwave.

Nitrogen, at the upper edge (re frequency) of IR

Nitrogen emission spectrum.

 

[SSDD]

Wow do you have a short memory. And as usual creating a strawman and being a troll. I always said there is a small probability that CO2 radiates immediately what it just absorbed.

Always? Really. Maybe you should look back and do a recheck on your position...You were under the impression that radiation was the main means of energy transport through the troposphere till quite recently...only after several posts showing how often CO2 molecules actually radiate a photon did you come to accept it and even then you immediately began trying to explain that as a necessity of a radiative greenhouse effect...you are absolutely hilarious..

 

[Crick]

60 GHz produces a wavelength of 5 microns. That is microwave.

Nitrogen, at the upper edge (re frequency) of IR

Nitrogen emission spectrum.

Mine has the advantage of actual numbers identifying the frequencies involved. I used to love telling my physics professor that the answer to a test question was a warmish shade of cerulean blue but she did not grade me well for the practice.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

60 GHz produces a wavelength of 5 microns. That is microwave.

Nitrogen, at the upper edge (re frequency) of IR

Nitrogen emission spectrum.

How hot does the nitrogen have to be to emit your spectrum?

 

[SSDD]

Should have figured that you couldn't figure it out without the numbers...some engineer...what a laugh. Do you still have training wheels on your bike? Kiddie rails and bumpers on your bed? You get around in a wheeled walker to keep from falling down and bumping your head?

 

[Crick]

So we will still be left attempting to use colors to estimate the wavelength of a specific line of emission. And I am waiting with bated breath your answer to Todd's question: how hot does N2 have to be radiate the spectrum you've provided. Why don't you give us a link to the source of that spectrum graphic. That would probably tell us. But I'm willing to guess you'll refuse because it will be a temperature that exists nowhere in the Earth's atmosphere. Prove me wrong.

 

[IanC]

Of the three main CO2 wavelengths, only the 15 micron one has any significant function in atmospheric physics. Even though the other two are much 'colder' than the coldest O2 or N2 wavelengths.

 

[Crick]

So, it seems we have determined (about a century after the fact) that neither nitrogen or oxygen are greenhouse gases, neither are involved, under atmospheric conditions, in the emission of energy to space. Without GHGs in our atmosphere, it would be completely transparent to radiated IR which would shoot directly to space leaving the Earth's surface 33C cooler than it is. That -50F Arctic air mass that just passed through would have been about -110F. Instead, within a few meters of the Earth's surface, the GHGs present (CO2, CH4, NO2, H2O) absorb a significant portion of the infrared that the surface radiates. Slowing the release of that infrared raises the equilibrium temperature of the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere. They call that the greenhouse effect.

 

[IanC]

So, it seems we have determined (about a century after the fact) that neither nitrogen or oxygen are greenhouse gases, neither are involved, under atmospheric conditions, in the emission of energy to space. Without GHGs in our atmosphere, it would be completely transparent to radiated IR which would shoot directly to space leaving the Earth's surface 33C cooler than it is. That -50F Arctic air mass that just passed through would have been about -110F. Instead, within a few meters of the Earth's surface, the GHGs present (CO2, CH4, NO2, H2O) absorb a significant portion of the infrared that the surface radiates. Slowing the release of that infrared raises the equilibrium temperature of the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere. They call that the greenhouse effect.

Yup, that pretty well covers it.