Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[SSDD]

So you want to cover your ignorance and shame by calling me a liar. Misinterpretation is one way you have of avoiding the question again: Where does the hot surface radiation go?

Not covering at all...just pointing out what sort of person you are...and we have been through where the radiation goes...over and over...the fact that you choose not to believe it is irrelevant to the fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can not account for the temperature on venus...not even close...Even if you assumed the now wildly outdated 6 degrees per doubling of CO2...that means that once you account for the difference between incoming solar radiation you get to add 18 doublings to the temperarature of venus according to the greenhouse hypothesis...that gives you 108 degrees....not even close...if you use the more accepted figure today of less than a degree per doubling you get to add about 11 degrees....

As I have said multiple times:

Venus.....Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas. Since the atmosphere of Venus is above 10kPa, convection occurs. Convection, and the action of auto-compression causes the potential energy to convert enthalpy, pressure and hence to kinetic energy the 50% of the gas that is descending in the atmosphere of Venus.

This happens in accord with the equation

H = PV=U

Where

H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V - Specific Volume (m^3)
U = Specific internal energy (kinetic energy)

Half of the very large mass of the atmosphere of Venus holds a VERY large amount of potential energy.....hence the 16,000W/m2 at the surface.

That is the long and short of it...the fact that you don't believe it, but instead believe in the greenhouse hypothesis which is so far off the temperature of venus so as to be laughable is just comic relief.

 

[SSDD]

You'll have to keep repeating yourself because you're wrong ... and you know it ... "it's the liar who calls others 'liars' first" ... so be careful ...

..

I suppose since you are new here, you haven't had time to notice the sheer number of lies good ole wuwei tells...which is one of the reasons I don't talk to him so much any more...it is very tedious correcting everything he claims that I have said..and pointing out to him that I have, in fact, already answered his endlessly tedious questions...as if he thinks he will get a different answer by asking again......

By the way....you seem to be assuming that some gas is necessary to radiate all the energy from the earth...a great deal of energy radiates directly out into space...The absorption by CO2 represents a very small part of the energy moving through the atmosphere..and rare indeed is the CO2 molecule which actually gets to emit a photon...since most of them lose any energy they absorb to collisions with other molecules...mostly O2 and N2

 

[Wuwei]

...and we have been through where the radiation goes...over and over...

No we haven't. What you posted over and over is the following.

Venus.....Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas. Since the atmosphere of Venus is above 10kPa, convection occurs. Convection, and the action of auto-compression causes the potential energy to convert enthalpy, pressure and hence to kinetic energy the 50% of the gas that is descending in the atmosphere of Venus.

This happens in accord with the equation

H = PV=U

Where

H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V - Specific Volume (m^3)
U = Specific internal energy (kinetic energy)

Half of the very large mass of the atmosphere of Venus holds a VERY large amount of potential energy.....hence the 16,000W/m2 at the surface.

Over and over you tell us your model of why you think the surface is hot. I already know how it gets hot.

Please read this carefully because it is the crux of the tedious epicycles and the question you refuse to answer.

The surface was measured to be hot. We know that because it was measured. It radiates. Where does the 16,000 W/m² radiation from the surface go?

You keep deflecting from that question. Again, the question is not where the heat that radiates comes from. The question is where does it go after leaving the surface?

.

 

[Wuwei]

I suppose since you are new here, you haven't had time to notice the sheer number of lies good ole wuwei tells...which is one of the reasons I don't talk to him so much any more...it is very tedious correcting everything he claims that I have said..and pointing out to him that I have, in fact, already answered his endlessly tedious questions...as if he thinks he will get a different answer by asking again......

Reinydays, don't believe him he is lying through his teeth.

.and rare indeed is the CO2 molecule which actually gets to emit a photon...since most of them lose any energy they absorb to collisions with other molecules...mostly O2 and N2

That was proven to be wrong. Air collisions do not have enough energy to affect CO2 in the bending mode of vibration. CO2 reradiating is the primary mode of excitation relaxation.
.

 

[ReinyDays]

By the way....you seem to be assuming that some gas is necessary to radiate all the energy from the earth...a great deal of energy radiates directly out into space...The absorption by CO2 represents a very small part of the energy moving through the atmosphere..and rare indeed is the CO2 molecule which actually gets to emit a photon...since most of them lose any energy they absorb to collisions with other molecules...mostly O2 and N2

Bingo ... this is the greenhouse effect ...

Without the atmosphere, the Earth radiates directly into space ... with the atmosphere, this energy transfer is a bit slower ... this extra time in the atmosphere is reflected in a slightly higher temperature ... CAGW Theory holds that a miniscule amount of extra carbon dioxide will cause hypercanes to make landfall in Florida every fifteen minutes by 2050 ... or kill the billions of people ... hockey sticks falling from the sky ... flooding rains and severe drought at the same time in the same place ... us humans are fucked ...

Don't you hear every other form of life on the planet cheering? ...

 

[Wuwei]

They all say the same thing....energy doesn't move spontaneously from a lower state to a higher state..

I gave you 8 references for the various ways of expressing the 2nd law of thermodynamics here:
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

You came back with a new expression of the 2nd law:

They all say the same thing....energy doesn't move spontaneously from a lower state to a higher state..

That is not the second law.​

You are dragging out this tedium and boxed yourself in a corner again. None of the 8 references I quoted use the words "spontaneous" nor "net" nor "energy". And none of them preclude radiation exchange. So in your wonderland of fake physics you are obligated to disagree with all 8 of those statements of the second law.

If you think I am lying or reinterpreting what you are trying to say, please try to explain in more detail what you are thinking so nobody has to interpret how you think. Saying I'm lying doesn't work anymore.

 

[ReinyDays]

Reinydays, don't believe him he is lying through his teeth.

I'm very quick to forgive someone who repeats the lies they tell themselves ... I'm more concerned about bringing up Kung Pow with you ...

Opps ... see what I mean? ... you bet I'm quick to forgive, as I need soooooooo much forgiveness myself ...

 

[Wuwei]

I'm very quick to forgive someone who repeats the lies they tell themselves ... I'm more concerned about bringing up Kung Pow with you ...

Well Kung Pow was meant to be funny. SSDD is bitter and ill-tempered.

 

[ReinyDays]

Well Kung Pow was meant to be funny. SSDD is bitter and ill-tempered.

I admire a man who can take a hard elbow to the ribs and still laugh ... SSDD gets his nose broken down at this local tavern whenever he says anything ... less pain here on the internet ...

I have been meaning to ask you a question ... kinda sorta related to the topic of this thread ... we have a 15 micron photon leave the Earth's surface but it never reaches the carbon dioxide molecule unless both nitrogen and oxygen can't absorb at 15 microns ... which is true ... a little after our carbon dioxide absorbs the 15 micron photon, it re-emits a 15 micron photon that also can't be absorb by nitrogen or oxygen ...

My Walmart thermometer is measuring the average temperature of nitrogen and oxygen ... and it's rising at about 1ºC/hr here in the morning sun ... correct me if I'm wrong, but none of that energy comes from 15 micron radiation ... somehow, carbon dioxide has to divide this 15 micron energy into two longer wavelength photons, at least one of which has to be able to be absorbed by something other than carbon dioxide; preferably nitrogen or oxygen, but argon and water vapor are available ...

No ... you don't have to type it all in ... better to refer me to a good source reference ... let me worry about the two hour drive to my local university, or four to one with any "QD" books in the stacks ...

 

[Wuwei]

The American Institute of Physics has good up to date references which are probably more than you want to know. The history also covers skeptic's controversies.

The Discovery of Global Warming February 2018.
Simple Models of Climate

Discovery of Global warming February 2019.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The Discovery of Global Warming February 2019.
The Modern Temperature Trend

The increased morning warmth comes from the sun short wave radiation hitting and warming the earth and the earth emitting long wave radiation. I agree that CO2 doesn't have much immediate influence with a rising sun.

I have not found a simple source for how the bending vibration states of 15 micron transfers to linear kinetic motion. I don't think anyone has bothered to simplify it. CO2 in a pure bending mode is not quenched by a collision.

The transfer of CO2 internal energy to kinetic energy is a slower process and involves higher excitation states than the 15 micron. The bending mode combined with a vibration mode has a high enough energy that it can more readily interact with N2 and O2.

Some of the details are here, mostly covering higher temperatures.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/771554.pdf
This covers lower temperatures.
https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3478579/109243.pdf
.

 

[SSDD]

Bingo ... this is the greenhouse effect ...

An atmospheric thermal effect...nothing at all like the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science and upon which are based the insane, economy busting, culture changing political actions being suggested.

 

[SSDD]

I suppose since you are new here, you haven't had time to notice the sheer number of lies good ole wuwei tells...which is one of the reasons I don't talk to him so much any more...it is very tedious correcting everything he claims that I have said..and pointing out to him that I have, in fact, already answered his endlessly tedious questions...as if he thinks he will get a different answer by asking again......

Reinydays, don't believe him he is lying through his teeth.

.and rare indeed is the CO2 molecule which actually gets to emit a photon...since most of them lose any energy they absorb to collisions with other molecules...mostly O2 and N2

That was proven to be wrong. Air collisions do not have enough energy to affect CO2 in the bending mode of vibration. CO2 reradiating is the primary mode of excitation relaxation.
.

Really? How did you "prove" it wrong? Another of your imaginary models which you believe to be real? Perhaps you should speak to William Happer about your "proof" because he is under the impression that collisions prevent nearly all CO2 molecules from radiating..

 

[SSDD]

I'm very quick to forgive someone who repeats the lies they tell themselves ... I'm more concerned about bringing up Kung Pow with you ...

Well Kung Pow was meant to be funny. SSDD is bitter and ill-tempered.

Lying again....I am known among my circle as mister sunshine.....do you ever tell the truth about anything?

 

[SSDD]

Well Kung Pow was meant to be funny. SSDD is bitter and ill-tempered.

I admire a man who can take a hard elbow to the ribs and still laugh ... SSDD gets his nose broken down at this local tavern whenever he says anything ... less pain here on the internet ....

I don't drink at the local taverns...I play music in most of them...Mostly blues, some rock and jazz...and the patrons pay to see me do it.

Yet another "model" which bears little resemblance to realty...there is a great deal of that going on these days...and it is a real detriment to science...

 

[Wuwei]

Really? How did you "prove" it wrong? Another of your imaginary models which you believe to be real? Perhaps you should speak to William Happer about your "proof" because he is under the impression that collisions prevent nearly all CO2 molecules from radiating..

Mr Happer didn't know what the collision cross sections are and made a rash conclusion. You must have forgotten that I cited a paper that had those cross sections and the author found that at 15C there was not enough energy for collisions to quench the pure bending mode.
.

 

[Wuwei]

I'm very quick to forgive someone who repeats the lies they tell themselves ... I'm more concerned about bringing up Kung Pow with you ...

Well Kung Pow was meant to be funny. SSDD is bitter and ill-tempered.

Lying again....I am known among my circle as mister sunshine.....do you ever tell the truth about anything?

Why do you call it lying when I only know you through your postings. Here you are being ill-tempered again on the internet. With the anonymity of this forum mister sunshine's sun sets and he becomes ill tempered.

What is ironic is that this post proves my point. Your id is showing.

.

 

[Wuwei]

You haven't addressed the dilemma I posed here:
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
I know the reason why. You have two choices:

1. The famous scientists behind the various statements of the second law are idiots and don't know what they are talking about.
2. Radiation exchange is allowed by the 2nd law. So the current understanding of green house back radiation is not invalidated.

Neither option is palatable to you. You are cornered and that is why you dare not answer. Simply invoking abusive invectives is your only resort. What I don't understand is that there are lots of ways to approach invalidation of AGW, but you choose to set yourself up as a science laughing stock and defy basic physics.

.

 

[ReinyDays]

The American Institute of Physics has good up to date references which are probably more than you want to know ...

Touché ... three links that say I'm old, link that says I'm stupid and a link that tells me to shut up ... yeah, I lived through some of that "history" ... it'll take me a while to read four of the five, I'm just not emotional ready yet for more than ten or twelve states of carbon dioxide ... my dog died a couple years ago and it's been rough for me without him ... [0,1,1,1] --> [0,0,0,1] v-t transitions was his thing, not mine ...

But I will be keeping my elbows to myself from now on ... payback is a bitch ...

 

[ReinyDays]

An atmospheric thermal effect...nothing at all like the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science and upon which are based the insane, economy busting, culture changing political actions being suggested.

The greenhouse effect is one of many atmospheric thermal effects, the one you described to a tee a few posts ago ... I've already discredited this non-sense description you keep throwing in my face ... it's wrong, what you said above is right ... that's what we define as the greenhouse effect ... none one likes the word "greenhouse", but we're stuck with it ...

For future reference ... if you read something that sounds stupid ... don't shove it in my face demanding I explain ... most likely I'll agree with you that it's stupid ... "greenhouse effect as described by climate science" from that blerb a couple dozen pages ago is stupid ... and speaks more to the quality of students entering our nation's vocational schools ...

 

[ReinyDays]

I don't drink at the local taverns...I play music in most of them...Mostly blues, some rock and jazz...and the patrons pay to see me do it.

A musician arguing with an oceanographer about fluid mechanics ... I self-identify as an uneducated construction laborer who dropped out of high school ... many many construction companies won't hire anyone who has been to college, no high school diploma is a plus ... a little knowledge makes people highly and hard to train ... by the time my employers figure out I lied, I've established myself as the only person in the company who can finish concrete ... can't be fired with nine yards sitting on the ground ...

... What I don't understand is that there are lots of ways to approach invalidation of AGW, but you choose to set yourself up as a science laughing stock and defy basic physics.

This is the sad part for me ... SSDD's posts on other threads are good, sound, and very informative ... and I'm not so sure he's all that far off-base in this thread ... it's just the term "greenhouse effect" triggers a mental block ... and it appears to be because some moron used the term incorrectly in the distant past ... "Can't sing the Blues unless you've lived the Blues" I guess ...