Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[SSDD]

My 'model' says roughly a degree of warming influence per doubling of CO2. There Has been about 1C warming in 150 years and it is possible that CO2 has caused some of it, although it would be nearly impossible to prove.

.

That would be the same model that used to say 6 degrees of warming influence per doubling of CO2...it is the same model...it has just been tweaked and tweaked to produce a number that is closer to observations...the grossly misunderstood physics which predicted 6 degrees of warming have not been changed a bit...your model sucks and it always will because it is describing an effect that simply is not happening.

 

[SSDD]

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

When are you going to learn how to read your own graph? Water would be able to absorb roughly half of 15 micron radiation IF it wasnt already absorbed in the first few metres by CO2. Anything less than 100% absorbance mean a weak reaction either because of molecular activity or small fraction in the atmosphere.

The blue hump is the amount of Surface Radiation that transits the atmosphere and escapes to space directly. This is called the Atmospheric Window and it spans 8-12 microns roughly.

When are you going to grasp that water and oxygen and nitrogen end up with that radiation anyway because damned near every CO2 molecule that absorbs a photon loses that energy via a collision with another molecule? The energy is then conducted and convected to the top of the troposphere...

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

When are you going to learn how to read your own graph? Water would be able to absorb roughly half of 15 micron radiation IF it wasn't already absorbed in the first few meters by CO2. Anything less than 100% absorbance mean a weak reaction either because of molecular activity or small fraction in the atmosphere.

The blue hump is the amount of Surface Radiation that transits the atmosphere and escapes to space directly. This is called the Atmospheric Window and it spans 8-12 microns roughly.

Your the one having issues in reading the graph. Are you trying to insinuate water does not absorb in this region? Really?

Once again you miss the forest due to the trees...

 

[gtopa1]

Dunno 'bout the Science stuff 'cause all I seen is tham thar "models" what's all wrong in their predictions...which means they're worth nutthin!! Now is the earth warming? If 1770 was unusually cold then yes 'cause it's hotter than then. Is the earth going to heat sterilise itself?? Dunno. I suppose there could be a nuke war one day.

Greg

 

[Wuwei]

When are you going to grasp that water and oxygen and nitrogen end up with that radiation anyway

In other words O2 and N2 and the rest of the atmosphere warm up.

because damned near every CO2 molecule that absorbs a photon loses that energy via a collision with another molecule?

Except for the 1.35 10^22 molecules per cubic meter which re-radiate.

The energy is then conducted and convected to the top of the troposphere...

Convected not conducted.

.

 

[IanC]

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

When are you going to learn how to read your own graph? Water would be able to absorb roughly half of 15 micron radiation IF it wasnt already absorbed in the first few metres by CO2. Anything less than 100% absorbance mean a weak reaction either because of molecular activity or small fraction in the atmosphere.

The blue hump is the amount of Surface Radiation that transits the atmosphere and escapes to space directly. This is called the Atmospheric Window and it spans 8-12 microns roughly.

When are you going to grasp that water and oxygen and nitrogen end up with that radiation anyway because damned near every CO2 molecule that absorbs a photon loses that energy via a collision with another molecule? The energy is then conducted and convected to the top of the troposphere...

You are either dishonest, or stupid, in two ways with that comment.

You say that the surface radiation is absorbed and passed along to the rest of the molecules of air but you also claim that no energy is added to the air. That is not possible. Where did the energy go?

You say that the energy CO2 gains from absorbing a photon is thermalized by molecular collision. True. But then you deny that the energy in the atmosphere turns thermal energy into excited CO2 molecules by the opposite reaction in other collisions.

You only see one side of the coin. You cannot have one side without the other. Where do you think the CO2 at the emission height gets the energy to expel photons to space? Radiation comes in near the surface, bounces around by many means and in many forms for a while, then leaves as radiation further up. But because there is a difference in temperature between the surface and the emission height there is less leaving to space than entering at the surface. The excess returns to the surface by various pathways.

 

[SSDD]

In other words O2 and N2 and the rest of the atmosphere warm up.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that O2 and N2 are the warming gasses, along with water vapor...CO2 is a cooling gas. And you don't seem to grasp the ramifications of that fact to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis.

Except for the 1.35 10^22 molecules per cubic meter which re-radiate.

Got any actual evidence of that or is it just a back of the envelope wild assed guess because Dr Will Happer says something quite different and his reputation outshines yours somewhat.

Convected not conducted.

Both...The energy continues to conduct from molecule to molecule even as the mass of air is moved...

 

[SSDD]

You say that the surface radiation is absorbed and passed along to the rest of the molecules of air but you also claim that no energy is added to the air. That is not possible. Where did the energy go?

Your own interpretation since I never said any such thing.

You say that the energy CO2 gains from absorbing a photon is thermalized by molecular collision. True. But then you deny that the energy in the atmosphere turns thermal energy into excited CO2 molecules by the opposite reaction in other collisions.{/quote]

I never said that either...although because of the sheer scarcity of CO2 molecules, the number that collect energy via a collision would be vanishingly small and of those that did collect some energy via collision, the vast majority would then lose the energy via another collision.

You only see one side of the coin. You cannot have one side without the other. Where do you think the CO2 at the emission height gets the energy to expel photons to space?

I think that most energy emitted into space is not 15 micron radiation...you seem to be under the impression that energy doesn't get out of the atmosphere unless CO2 emits it. The fact is that CO2 is a bit player and has zero or less impact on the temperature of the planet. The fact is that N2 and O2, along with water vapor are the primary warming gasses in the atmosphere...The only effect CO2 has is a very slight cooling effect.

 

[Wuwei]

You don't seem to grasp the fact that O2 and N2 are the warming gasses, along with water vapor...CO2 is a cooling gas. And you don't seem to grasp the ramifications of that fact to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis.

"Warming gases" and "cooling gases." That makes no sense as it is stated. Please elaborate on what you think the processes are.

Got any actual evidence of that or is it just a back of the envelope wild assed guess because Dr Will Happer says something quite different and his reputation outshines yours somewhat.

I gave rational. Happer did not. Find a source that gives a rational to Happer's number. Otherwise it's a wild guess on his part.

Both...The energy continues to conduct from molecule to molecule even as the mass of air is moved...

Yes conduction happens, but it's minuscule compared to convection. You can see it for yourself. Try multiplying the thermal conductivity of air with the lapse rate for one meter and you will find it is minuscule.


.

 

[SSDD]

You don't seem to grasp the fact that O2 and N2 are the warming gasses, along with water vapor...CO2 is a cooling gas. And you don't seem to grasp the ramifications of that fact to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis.

"Warming gases" and "cooling gases." That makes no sense as it is stated. Please elaborate on what you think the processes are.

Got any actual evidence of that or is it just a back of the envelope wild assed guess because Dr Will Happer says something quite different and his reputation outshines yours somewhat.

I gave rational. Happer did not. Find a source that gives a rational to Happer's number. Otherwise it's a wild guess on his part.

Both...The energy continues to conduct from molecule to molecule even as the mass of air is moved...

Yes conduction happens, but it's minuscule compared to convection. You can see it for yourself. Try multiplying the thermal conductivity of air with the lapse rate for one meter and you will find it is minuscule.


.

Been through it all before...if you don't grasp the difference between warming and cooling, you are even further behind the curve than I thought...and I am not going to subject others to the tedium of going over it all again...if you must relive your defeats, do it from the privacy of your own computer by reviewing any previous incarnation of this discussion.

 

[Wuwei]

Been through it all before...if you don't grasp the difference between warming and cooling, you are even further behind the curve than I thought...and I am not going to subject others to the tedium of going over it all again...if you must relive your defeats, do it from the privacy of your own computer by reviewing any previous incarnation of this discussion.

That's what I thought. You have no argument. I have stuck to the physical sciences. If you disagree with me you disagree with science. If you disagree with science you have no argument.

.

 

[IanC]

SSDD said-

"
↑
You only see one side of the coin. You cannot have one side without the other. Where do you think the CO2 at the emission height gets the energy to expel photons to space?
SSDD-I think that most energy emitted into space is not 15 micron radiation...you seem to be under the impression that energy doesn't get out of the atmosphere unless CO2 emits it. The fact is that CO2 is a bit player and has zero or less impact on the temperature of the planet. The fact is that N2 and O2, along with water vapor are the primary warming gasses in the atmosphere...The only effect CO2 has is a very slight cooling effect."

I dont think most of the radiation escaping to space is 15 micron. It is a combination of reflected shortwave, IR that transits the atmosphere at Atmospheric Window wavelengths, and greenhouse gas emissions that are smaller amounts than the was originally absorbed.

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. It absorbs a lot of radiation near the surface and it radiates less than that at the emission height where it is cooler.

How does the extra energy leave? What molecules? What wavelengths? Why do you never explain yourself?

 

[IanC]

You don't seem to grasp the fact that O2 and N2 are the warming gasses, along with water vapor...CO2 is a cooling gas. And you don't seem to grasp the ramifications of that fact to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis.

Define the difference between a warming gas and a cooling gas.

I know the difference between a greenhouse gas and a non greenhouse gas.

 

[SSDD]

N2, O2 and water vapor are the gasses in the atmosphere that are actually holding energy...The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures and no mechanism by which to delay energy from escaping to space...they are merely a conduit...a bypass from the cumbersome conduction / convection highway to the top of the troposphere

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

N2, O2 and water vapor are the gasses in the atmosphere that are actually holding energy...The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures and no mechanism by which to delay energy from escaping to space...they are merely a conduit...a bypass from the cumbersome conduction / convection highway to the top of the troposphere

The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures

Wow! What a nonsensical claim.

 

[Wuwei]

N2, O2 and water vapor are the gasses in the atmosphere that are actually holding energy...The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures and no mechanism by which to delay energy from escaping to space...they are merely a conduit...a bypass from the cumbersome conduction / convection highway to the top of the troposphere

Those are really bizarre statements with no explanation or link. We asked for detail. Do you have any?


.

 

[SSDD]

N2, O2 and water vapor are the gasses in the atmosphere that are actually holding energy...The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures and no mechanism by which to delay energy from escaping to space...they are merely a conduit...a bypass from the cumbersome conduction / convection highway to the top of the troposphere

Those are really bizarre statements with no explanation or link. We asked for detail. Do you have any?


.

Are you going to deny now that N2 and O2 gain energy via collisions with CO2 and other so called greenhouse gas molecules?

 

[Wuwei]

Are you going to deny now that N2 and O2 gain energy via collisions with CO2 and other so called greenhouse gas molecules?

All molecules including CO2, water, and other GHGs gain and lose energy by collisions. GHGs are the only ones which also gain energy from earth surface long wave IR radiation.

So what. You are still avoiding an explanation of your statement,

N2, O2 and water vapor are the gasses in the atmosphere that are actually holding energy...The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures ​

It is only something you simply made up, and it's bizarre with no basis in physics.


.

 

[SSDD]

Are you going to deny now that N2 and O2 gain energy via collisions with CO2 and other so called greenhouse gas molecules?

All molecules including CO2, water, and other GHGs gain and lose energy by collisions. GHGs are the only ones which also gain energy from earth surface long wave IR radiation.

So what. You are still avoiding an explanation of your statement,

N2, O2 and water vapor are the gasses in the atmosphere that are actually holding energy...The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures ​

It is only something you simply made up, and it's bizarre with no basis in physics.


.

Do feel free to show some observed, measured evidence that supports your claim that so called greenhouse gasses other than water vapor are able to "hold" or retain the energy they absorb...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you going to deny now that N2 and O2 gain energy via collisions with CO2 and other so called greenhouse gas molecules?

All molecules including CO2, water, and other GHGs gain and lose energy by collisions. GHGs are the only ones which also gain energy from earth surface long wave IR radiation.

So what. You are still avoiding an explanation of your statement,

N2, O2 and water vapor are the gasses in the atmosphere that are actually holding energy...The so called greenhouse gasses have no capacity to hold energy at atmospheric temperatures ​

It is only something you simply made up, and it's bizarre with no basis in physics.


.

Do feel free to show some observed, measured evidence that supports your claim that so called greenhouse gasses other than water vapor are able to "hold" or retain the energy they absorb...

Do feel free to show some observed, measured evidence that supports your claim that so called greenhouse gasses other than water vapor are able to "hold" or retain the energy they absorb...

Are these greenhouse gasses all solids at absolute zero wherever they're observed?

Are these greenhouse gasses all gasses at various temperatures and altitudes?​