Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
SO we add 16 zeros to your decimal... 0.000000000000000024410 Tell me again how this very small amount of 'back radiation' from CO2 can do anything?Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.24410^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.
Thank you. I had no idea what he was talking about. I generally ignore him when he says something screwy.What a fucking retard you are. Wu had thee numbers, all with 4 sig figs, and descending powers of ten. The last number was missing a space so you decided it was a 6 sig fig number raised to the 16th power. When that was too difficult to calculate you mashed things up and multiplied by 10^-16 instead.
Nobody with scientific training would have been confused with Wu's line of calculation. That you went totally out to lunch because of a missing space just shows how stupid you are.
The correct calculation is 10^-16, which is what I posted even though he missed the proper form. Speaking of stupid... LOL you idiots never cease to amaze me..SO we add 16 zeros to your decimal... 0.000000000000000024410 Tell me again how this very small amount of 'back radiation' from CO2 can do anything?Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.24410^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.
What a fucking retard you are. Wu had thee numbers, all with 4 sig figs, and descending powers of ten. The last number was missing a space so you decided it was a 6 sig fig number raised to the 16th power. When that was too difficult to calculate you mashed things up and multiplied by 10^-16 instead.
Nobody with scientific training would have been confused with Wu's line of calculation. That you went totally out to lunch because of a missing space just shows how stupid you are.
And water vapor blows a huge hole in your hypothesis... Water vapor in the atmosphere is the reason we have never gone outside the 14 deg C average temperature range for over 4.5 billion years. Even at concentrations above 7000ppm.So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere? What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?
There is no energy reservoir.....what bit of energy that so called greenhouse gasses actually emit in the form of IR moves on to space at the speed of light rather than by the cumbersome process of conduction/convection...add more so called greenhouse gas molecules to the atmosphere and you have a greater number of them managing to emit a photon which skips the conduction/convection elevator to the top of the troposphere and moves directly to space....there is no back radiation, and "scattering" is so negligible as to be irrelevant...
The process that you imagine energy moving through the troposphere is simply, and completely wrong.
All of the atmosphere is an energy reserve. Kinetic energy stored as temperature, potential energy stored as height in the gravity field, latent energy stored by phase change.
You made the casual unsupported statement that more molecules of a GHG means more opportunity to radiate a photon to space. I say that GHGs only radiate to space once their density is low enought that a photonescapes rather than gets reabsorbed.
If the emission concentration is xx per cubic centimetre then you have to go up in the amosphere until that concentratin is reached, the emission height. If you double the GHG concentration, the emission concentration is still the same but you have to go farther up into the atmosphere where the overall density of air is 1/2 of what it was. There will only be the same amout of the GHG capable of radiating to space but it will be at a colder height.
Adding more of a GHG does not increase escaping radiation. It decreases it because the new height has less energy to convert into radiation.
So, where is the energy coming from for your claim of extra cooling and which wavelengths account for it?
View attachment 263304
My hypoothesis is that adding more of an existing GHG reduces escaping radiation in the wavelengths affected by the increased GHG. I explained my reasoning.
You say water vapour blows a hole in that statement. Where is the hole, what energy are you talking about and which wavelengths.
The correct calculation is 10^-16, which is what I posted even though he missed the proper form. Speaking of stupid... LOL you idiots never cease to amaze me..SO we add 16 zeros to your decimal... 0.000000000000000024410 Tell me again how this very small amount of 'back radiation' from CO2 can do anything?Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.24410^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.
What a fucking retard you are. Wu had thee numbers, all with 4 sig figs, and descending powers of ten. The last number was missing a space so you decided it was a 6 sig fig number raised to the 16th power. When that was too difficult to calculate you mashed things up and multiplied by 10^-16 instead.
Nobody with scientific training would have been confused with Wu's line of calculation. That you went totally out to lunch because of a missing space just shows how stupid you are.
Those guys often make a fool of themselves when trying to make a fool of others.The correct calculation is 10^-16,
10^-16 for the number of molecules?
And water vapor blows a huge hole in your hypothesis... Water vapor in the atmosphere is the reason we have never gone outside the 14 deg C average temperature range for over 4.5 billion years. Even at concentrations above 7000ppm.So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere? What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?
There is no energy reservoir.....what bit of energy that so called greenhouse gasses actually emit in the form of IR moves on to space at the speed of light rather than by the cumbersome process of conduction/convection...add more so called greenhouse gas molecules to the atmosphere and you have a greater number of them managing to emit a photon which skips the conduction/convection elevator to the top of the troposphere and moves directly to space....there is no back radiation, and "scattering" is so negligible as to be irrelevant...
The process that you imagine energy moving through the troposphere is simply, and completely wrong.
All of the atmosphere is an energy reserve. Kinetic energy stored as temperature, potential energy stored as height in the gravity field, latent energy stored by phase change.
You made the casual unsupported statement that more molecules of a GHG means more opportunity to radiate a photon to space. I say that GHGs only radiate to space once their density is low enought that a photonescapes rather than gets reabsorbed.
If the emission concentration is xx per cubic centimetre then you have to go up in the amosphere until that concentratin is reached, the emission height. If you double the GHG concentration, the emission concentration is still the same but you have to go farther up into the atmosphere where the overall density of air is 1/2 of what it was. There will only be the same amout of the GHG capable of radiating to space but it will be at a colder height.
Adding more of a GHG does not increase escaping radiation. It decreases it because the new height has less energy to convert into radiation.
So, where is the energy coming from for your claim of extra cooling and which wavelengths account for it?
View attachment 263304
My hypoothesis is that adding more of an existing GHG reduces escaping radiation in the wavelengths affected by the increased GHG. I explained my reasoning.
You say water vapour blows a hole in that statement. Where is the hole, what energy are you talking about and which wavelengths.
Water Vapor emits LWIR as it rises in the atmospheric column, when it cools enough to re-nucleate into a water droplet. This phase change happens at various altitudes and starts at 12um and elongates out to over 130um.. Water vapor at just 36% relative humidity, at ground level, is capable of absorbing all the LWIR energy CO2 can absorb and loses by collision. Once captured by water vapor, the cooling of the air mass, as it rises will place the resulting release of LWIR out of reach of any further interaction with CO2 in our atmosphere simply because its wavelength will be bigger than 16um. At just 150 meters, the air has cooled by 30 degrees from the surface temperature, which will place its emission out side of the range (>16um) that CO2 can interfere with.
GHG game over...
The correct calculation is 10^-16, which is what I posted even though he missed the proper form. Speaking of stupid... LOL you idiots never cease to amaze me..SO we add 16 zeros to your decimal... 0.000000000000000024410 Tell me again how this very small amount of 'back radiation' from CO2 can do anything?Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.24410^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.
What a fucking retard you are. Wu had thee numbers, all with 4 sig figs, and descending powers of ten. The last number was missing a space so you decided it was a 6 sig fig number raised to the 16th power. When that was too difficult to calculate you mashed things up and multiplied by 10^-16 instead.
Nobody with scientific training would have been confused with Wu's line of calculation. That you went totally out to lunch because of a missing space just shows how stupid you are.
The correct calculation is 10^-16,
10^-16 for the number of molecules?
The amount of re-radiated LWIR, by CO2, is so small that it is negligible. I'm sorry that this conflicts with your religious beleif's but it is what it is..The correct calculation is 10^-16, which is what I posted even though he missed the proper form. Speaking of stupid... LOL you idiots never cease to amaze me..SO we add 16 zeros to your decimal... 0.000000000000000024410 Tell me again how this very small amount of 'back radiation' from CO2 can do anything?Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.24410^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.
What a fucking retard you are. Wu had thee numbers, all with 4 sig figs, and descending powers of ten. The last number was missing a space so you decided it was a 6 sig fig number raised to the 16th power. When that was too difficult to calculate you mashed things up and multiplied by 10^-16 instead.
Nobody with scientific training would have been confused with Wu's line of calculation. That you went totally out to lunch because of a missing space just shows how stupid you are.
The correct calculation is 10^-16,
10^-16 for the number of molecules?
Wouldnt 10^-16 th of any characteristic for a molecule put it past the quantum limit for size? I tnink Billy Boob should just own up to his mistake and try to learn from this encounter.
I understand Planks Curve very well. It is you who is having a problem with understanding the emissions side of the equation.It radiates according to its temperature and emissivity, resulting in a range of possible wavelengths, with different amounts for each wavelength. Until you understand the basic idea behind a Planck Curve you will be lost
Here it is again with my typos corrected. It is not negligible.The amount of re-radiated LWIR, by CO2, is so small that it is negligible. I'm sorry that this conflicts with your religious beleif's but it is what it is..
Here it is again with my typos corrected. It is not negligible.The amount of re-radiated LWIR, by CO2, is so small that it is negligible. I'm sorry that this conflicts with your religious beleif's but it is what it is..
The equipartition principle requires that 2/9 of the CO2 energy is in a vibration mode.
At STP there are 1.012 x 10^22 CO2 molecules per cubic meter in air at 400ppm.
Number in excitation state 1.01 10^22 x 2/9 = 0.244 x 10^22
Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.244 x 10^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.
The radiation is not limited to the surface. In fact the surface radiation adds to the above radiation that naturally occurs. If you do the math you will find that at 15 microns the radiation density of a cubic meter is over 100 Watts.
Its worse than that report... They don't even touch on the spectral shift of incoming radiation that changes where energy is absorbed on earths surface. The Oceans have lost about 12% of the radiation that is passed through our atmosphere where water vapor can not impede it. The shift in energy from 0.6um to 1.9um allows the atmosphere to reflect most of it that was once unimpeded from hitting earths oceans and warming them to 700 meters. That loss is very well recorded in the last 12 months.REPORT: Earth Has Not Warmed For Past 19 Years
we might be going into a deep cooling period
This is a back-of-the-envelope calculation I posted somewhere before. It shows that the energy of CO2 15 micron radiation per cubic meter is around 175 Joules.The problem is that all of those molecules are COLLIDING with other atmospheric molecules 30,000 times during the potential time the energy can reside before the dipole moment occurs and the photon is re-emitted.
Water vapor alone, of just 36% relative humidity, will absorb all the energy, near surface, that CO2 can absorb and lose by collision at 1 atmosphere pressure.
Here it is again with my typos corrected. It is not negligible.The amount of re-radiated LWIR, by CO2, is so small that it is negligible. I'm sorry that this conflicts with your religious beleif's but it is what it is..
The equipartition principle requires that 2/9 of the CO2 energy is in a vibration mode.
At STP there are 1.012 x 10^22 CO2 molecules per cubic meter in air at 400ppm.
Number in excitation state 1.01 10^22 x 2/9 = 0.244 x 10^22
Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.244 x 10^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.
The radiation is not limited to the surface. In fact the surface radiation adds to the above radiation that naturally occurs. If you do the math you will find that at 15 microns the radiation density of a cubic meter is over 100 Watts.
The problem is that all of those molecules are COLLIDING with other atmospheric molecules 30,000 times during the potential time the energy can reside before the dipole moment occurs and the photon is re-emitted. The odds are 30,000 to 1 that the energy will be lost kinetically to other molecules in our atmosphere. Water vapor alone, of just 36% relative humidity, will absorb all the energy, near surface, that CO2 can absorb and lose by collision at 1 atmosphere pressure. This leaves very little energy (less than 0.01%) that can be re-radiated by the CO2 molecule. This does not stop other molecules from emitting LWIR. Your potential of 100 watts, according to recent studies, is lost to convention and conduction in most of our atmosphere (roughly 86%).
Once that energy is carried away in water vapor, it will cool by 30 deg F in the first 150 meters, lowering its temperature and elongating the wave length of IR (greater than 16um) to the point that CO2 can do nothing to stop its loss to space. Water vapor is kicking CO2's ass and you folks cant see the forest due to the trees.
An experiment I ask you folks to do in a desert and again in a high water vapor region proves this out.
In a desert, the temp can start below freezing and sore to over 100 degrees by 10am. In four hours we can blow by the range of temperature a high water vapor region gets in a whole day. By 4pm it will be near 120 degrees. Once the sun sets, the cooling is rapid and we can be near freezing again in less than 4 hours as there is no atmospheric MASS (water vapor) to slow the energy release. The CO2 levels are nearly the same in both regions so it is ruled out by empirical experiment. The dry atmosphere can swing 90-110 degrees and the the water vapor laden atmosphere can only swing 70-80 degrees due to the weight/mass in that region, slowing both incoming and outgoing radiation.
This is basic atmospheric physics.. You folks have your noses so buried into complex computer models and calculations that your missing the very basic concepts that disprove your hypothesis.
CO2 absorbs and radiates in a different band. Water absorption is negligible at 15 microns
You two are like talking to a brick....
The energy absorbed by CO2 is LOST BY COLLISION, NOT RADIATION, in over 86% of our atmosphere. In regions that are dry (ie: little atmospheric mass and the only region CO2 re-emits LWIR of any consequence) the energy is lost to space at a 1.47 times faster rate than an atmosphere of 36% relative humidity.
Its the simple things you people are totally ignorant of and that is why your models FAIL without exception.
CO2 absorbs and radiates in a different band. Water absorption is negligible at 15 microns
Incorrect:
Water Vapor is an incredible absorber at 15um.. Once the number of molecules is greater than about 5 times that of CO2, Collision with and energy loss to them is almost totally assured.
View attachment 263672
