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.
I've watched thunderheads explode upward and they do it rather quickly. hmmmmmmmResidency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height. Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.
This bullshit is soooooooo funny!
Evaporation to cloud formation only takes minutes to hours? Water vapour collects and holds photons until it condenses? Hahahaha.
Notice how he likes to put in terms like 'residency time' to act as if he knew what he was talking about? Sheer Cliff Clavin bafflegab. Hilarious!
So you've never witnessed a thunderhead blowing upward? Wow, you've missed one beautiful sight. I feel bad for you.Here comes JC to rescue Billy Bob. Two of a kind.
From Wkipedia,I've watched thunderheads explode upward and they do it rather quickly. hmmmmmmmResidency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height. Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.
This bullshit is soooooooo funny!
Evaporation to cloud formation only takes minutes to hours? Water vapour collects and holds photons until it condenses? Hahahaha.
Notice how he likes to put in terms like 'residency time' to act as if he knew what he was talking about? Sheer Cliff Clavin bafflegab. Hilarious!
What percentage of the water cycle is done by thunderstorms?
BTW, I agree with you. I think thunderstorms are an important air conditioner, especially in the tropics. They remove massive amounts or energy from the surface while increasing the local albedo. Many orders of magnitude more efficient than radiation. That is why ocean water seldom gets above ~30C.
From Wkipedia,I've watched thunderheads explode upward and they do it rather quickly. hmmmmmmmResidency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height. Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.
This bullshit is soooooooo funny!
Evaporation to cloud formation only takes minutes to hours? Water vapour collects and holds photons until it condenses? Hahahaha.
Notice how he likes to put in terms like 'residency time' to act as if he knew what he was talking about? Sheer Cliff Clavin bafflegab. Hilarious!
What percentage of the water cycle is done by thunderstorms?
BTW, I agree with you. I think thunderstorms are an important air conditioner, especially in the tropics. They remove massive amounts or energy from the surface while increasing the local albedo. Many orders of magnitude more efficient than radiation. That is why ocean water seldom gets above ~30C.
"Cumulonimbus, from the Latin cumulus ("heap") and nimbus ("rainstorm", "storm cloud"), is a dense towering vertical cloud [1] associated with thunderstorms and atmospheric instability, forming from water vapor carried by powerful upward air currents. If observed during a storm, these clouds may be referred to as thunderheads. Cumulonimbus can form alone, in clusters, or along cold front squall lines."
I'd say closer to 100% of the water vapor as it is building. It generally is cooler underneath as expected.From Wkipedia,I've watched thunderheads explode upward and they do it rather quickly. hmmmmmmmResidency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height. Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.
This bullshit is soooooooo funny!
Evaporation to cloud formation only takes minutes to hours? Water vapour collects and holds photons until it condenses? Hahahaha.
Notice how he likes to put in terms like 'residency time' to act as if he knew what he was talking about? Sheer Cliff Clavin bafflegab. Hilarious!
What percentage of the water cycle is done by thunderstorms?
BTW, I agree with you. I think thunderstorms are an important air conditioner, especially in the tropics. They remove massive amounts or energy from the surface while increasing the local albedo. Many orders of magnitude more efficient than radiation. That is why ocean water seldom gets above ~30C.
"Cumulonimbus, from the Latin cumulus ("heap") and nimbus ("rainstorm", "storm cloud"), is a dense towering vertical cloud [1] associated with thunderstorms and atmospheric instability, forming from water vapor carried by powerful upward air currents. If observed during a storm, these clouds may be referred to as thunderheads. Cumulonimbus can form alone, in clusters, or along cold front squall lines."
Do you consider that a direct answer to my direct question?
Billyboob said water vapour cycles in minutes to hours. I said that was ridiculous.
You said thunderstorms move air and water vapour quickly and I agreed.
The question is how much of the day-to-day water cycle is done by thunderstorms? 1%? 50%, 100%?
What are the usual precursors to a thunderstorm? Excess warmth. Once started it continues until the available warmth is exhausted.
I'd say closer to 100% of the water vapor as it is building. It generally is cooler underneath as expected.From Wkipedia,I've watched thunderheads explode upward and they do it rather quickly. hmmmmmmmThis bullshit is soooooooo funny!
Evaporation to cloud formation only takes minutes to hours? Water vapour collects and holds photons until it condenses? Hahahaha.
Notice how he likes to put in terms like 'residency time' to act as if he knew what he was talking about? Sheer Cliff Clavin bafflegab. Hilarious!
What percentage of the water cycle is done by thunderstorms?
BTW, I agree with you. I think thunderstorms are an important air conditioner, especially in the tropics. They remove massive amounts or energy from the surface while increasing the local albedo. Many orders of magnitude more efficient than radiation. That is why ocean water seldom gets above ~30C.
"Cumulonimbus, from the Latin cumulus ("heap") and nimbus ("rainstorm", "storm cloud"), is a dense towering vertical cloud [1] associated with thunderstorms and atmospheric instability, forming from water vapor carried by powerful upward air currents. If observed during a storm, these clouds may be referred to as thunderheads. Cumulonimbus can form alone, in clusters, or along cold front squall lines."
Do you consider that a direct answer to my direct question?
Billyboob said water vapour cycles in minutes to hours. I said that was ridiculous.
You said thunderstorms move air and water vapour quickly and I agreed.
The question is how much of the day-to-day water cycle is done by thunderstorms? 1%? 50%, 100%?
What are the usual precursors to a thunderstorm? Excess warmth. Once started it continues until the available warmth is exhausted.
you asked the question. I answered 100% what is so hard for you to understand?I'd say closer to 100% of the water vapor as it is building. It generally is cooler underneath as expected.From Wkipedia,I've watched thunderheads explode upward and they do it rather quickly. hmmmmmmm
What percentage of the water cycle is done by thunderstorms?
BTW, I agree with you. I think thunderstorms are an important air conditioner, especially in the tropics. They remove massive amounts or energy from the surface while increasing the local albedo. Many orders of magnitude more efficient than radiation. That is why ocean water seldom gets above ~30C.
"Cumulonimbus, from the Latin cumulus ("heap") and nimbus ("rainstorm", "storm cloud"), is a dense towering vertical cloud [1] associated with thunderstorms and atmospheric instability, forming from water vapor carried by powerful upward air currents. If observed during a storm, these clouds may be referred to as thunderheads. Cumulonimbus can form alone, in clusters, or along cold front squall lines."
Do you consider that a direct answer to my direct question?
Billyboob said water vapour cycles in minutes to hours. I said that was ridiculous.
You said thunderstorms move air and water vapour quickly and I agreed.
The question is how much of the day-to-day water cycle is done by thunderstorms? 1%? 50%, 100%?
What are the usual precursors to a thunderstorm? Excess warmth. Once started it continues until the available warmth is exhausted.
That makes no sense. At least to me.
you asked the question. I answered 100% what is so hard for you to understand?I'd say closer to 100% of the water vapor as it is building. It generally is cooler underneath as expected.From Wkipedia,What percentage of the water cycle is done by thunderstorms?
BTW, I agree with you. I think thunderstorms are an important air conditioner, especially in the tropics. They remove massive amounts or energy from the surface while increasing the local albedo. Many orders of magnitude more efficient than radiation. That is why ocean water seldom gets above ~30C.
"Cumulonimbus, from the Latin cumulus ("heap") and nimbus ("rainstorm", "storm cloud"), is a dense towering vertical cloud [1] associated with thunderstorms and atmospheric instability, forming from water vapor carried by powerful upward air currents. If observed during a storm, these clouds may be referred to as thunderheads. Cumulonimbus can form alone, in clusters, or along cold front squall lines."
Do you consider that a direct answer to my direct question?
Billyboob said water vapour cycles in minutes to hours. I said that was ridiculous.
You said thunderstorms move air and water vapour quickly and I agreed.
The question is how much of the day-to-day water cycle is done by thunderstorms? 1%? 50%, 100%?
What are the usual precursors to a thunderstorm? Excess warmth. Once started it continues until the available warmth is exhausted.
That makes no sense. At least to me.
so you don't think that all the water vapor in that area of the atmosphere does not move upward then? Really. So what is the percentage?you asked the question. I answered 100% what is so hard for you to understand?I'd say closer to 100% of the water vapor as it is building. It generally is cooler underneath as expected.From Wkipedia,
"Cumulonimbus, from the Latin cumulus ("heap") and nimbus ("rainstorm", "storm cloud"), is a dense towering vertical cloud [1] associated with thunderstorms and atmospheric instability, forming from water vapor carried by powerful upward air currents. If observed during a storm, these clouds may be referred to as thunderheads. Cumulonimbus can form alone, in clusters, or along cold front squall lines."
Do you consider that a direct answer to my direct question?
Billyboob said water vapour cycles in minutes to hours. I said that was ridiculous.
You said thunderstorms move air and water vapour quickly and I agreed.
The question is how much of the day-to-day water cycle is done by thunderstorms? 1%? 50%, 100%?
What are the usual precursors to a thunderstorm? Excess warmth. Once started it continues until the available warmth is exhausted.
That makes no sense. At least to me.
100% of the water cycle is thunderstorms? Get a grip. Why do you even respond?
CAGW requires that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping. (hence the term "back radiation") While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters). BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing. The CO2 level is nearly the same as all other places on earth, why doesn't it magically retain the heat? Because it cant. Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .
The simple physics of our atmosphere lays the CAGW meme waste.. The math doesn't add up and this is why every model fails..
CAGW requires
I'm not interested in the liberal push to waste trillions on "green energy" while punishing carbon.
I'm interested in the discussion of the physics.
that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping
Good, let's that about that.
While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth
We were talking about energy emitted from the Earth's surface.
they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters).
Do you feel an outgoing IR photon has a longer path than a surface bound IR photon?
BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing.
Do you think the wide temperature swing is proof that CO2 isn't a GHG?
Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .
Why does the mass slow the IR photons?
A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.
A dry atmosphere has little mass, while a wet atmosphere has much greater mass. IN a desert this low mass allows rapid escape of LWIR. IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water and the slower rate of convection rise (vs direct LWIR photo escape) slows the rate of heat loss in the atmosphere.
From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process. The lack of a mid tropospheric hot spot shows that CO2 is NOT making the process take longer, which would result in an area of increased heat and water vapor.
WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA and then emits at a much longer wave length which CO2 can not receive or re-emit.
'back radiation' is a poor term designed to deflect from and cloud basic provable, observable, measurable, science. Not only can you not prove its origin, you cant define it or model it.
A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.
But you said......"retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation"
Is the water vapor somehow retaining heat without absorbing IR photons from the surface?
IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water
Great. Now when this water vapor emits a photon, in which direction will it travel?
From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process.
Why? Because it doesn't absorb photons, can't absorb photons, or it won't re-emit or won't re-emit toward the ground or it does emit toward the ground but somehow the photons never reach the ground?
WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA
Instead of a fraction of a second for an IR photon to exit the atmosphere, it heats water vapor and the water vapor has to travel to the TOA before it releases a photon? How long does that take? Days, weeks, months?
Residency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height. Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.
Residency time is in minuets to hours.
Water near the ground absorbs a photon and travels to the TOA in minutes?
I don't believe that.
Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets
In which direction can the photon travel?
From Wkipedia,I've watched thunderheads explode upward and they do it rather quickly. hmmmmmmmResidency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height. Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.
This bullshit is soooooooo funny!
Evaporation to cloud formation only takes minutes to hours? Water vapour collects and holds photons until it condenses? Hahahaha.
Notice how he likes to put in terms like 'residency time' to act as if he knew what he was talking about? Sheer Cliff Clavin bafflegab. Hilarious!
What percentage of the water cycle is done by thunderstorms?
BTW, I agree with you. I think thunderstorms are an important air conditioner, especially in the tropics. They remove massive amounts or energy from the surface while increasing the local albedo. Many orders of magnitude more efficient than radiation. That is why ocean water seldom gets above ~30C.
"Cumulonimbus, from the Latin cumulus ("heap") and nimbus ("rainstorm", "storm cloud"), is a dense towering vertical cloud [1] associated with thunderstorms and atmospheric instability, forming from water vapor carried by powerful upward air currents. If observed during a storm, these clouds may be referred to as thunderheads. Cumulonimbus can form alone, in clusters, or along cold front squall lines."
Do you consider that a direct answer to my direct question?
Billyboob said water vapour cycles in minutes to hours. I said that was ridiculous.
You said thunderstorms move air and water vapour quickly and I agreed.
The question is how much of the day-to-day water cycle is done by thunderstorms? 1%? 50%, 100%?
What are the usual precursors to a thunderstorm? Excess warmth. Once started it continues until the available warmth is exhausted.
CAGW requires
I'm not interested in the liberal push to waste trillions on "green energy" while punishing carbon.
I'm interested in the discussion of the physics.
that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping
Good, let's that about that.
While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth
We were talking about energy emitted from the Earth's surface.
they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters).
Do you feel an outgoing IR photon has a longer path than a surface bound IR photon?
BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing.
Do you think the wide temperature swing is proof that CO2 isn't a GHG?
Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .
Why does the mass slow the IR photons?
A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.
A dry atmosphere has little mass, while a wet atmosphere has much greater mass. IN a desert this low mass allows rapid escape of LWIR. IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water and the slower rate of convection rise (vs direct LWIR photo escape) slows the rate of heat loss in the atmosphere.
From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process. The lack of a mid tropospheric hot spot shows that CO2 is NOT making the process take longer, which would result in an area of increased heat and water vapor.
WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA and then emits at a much longer wave length which CO2 can not receive or re-emit.
'back radiation' is a poor term designed to deflect from and cloud basic provable, observable, measurable, science. Not only can you not prove its origin, you cant define it or model it.
A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.
But you said......"retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation"
Is the water vapor somehow retaining heat without absorbing IR photons from the surface?
IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water
Great. Now when this water vapor emits a photon, in which direction will it travel?
From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process.
Why? Because it doesn't absorb photons, can't absorb photons, or it won't re-emit or won't re-emit toward the ground or it does emit toward the ground but somehow the photons never reach the ground?
WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA
Instead of a fraction of a second for an IR photon to exit the atmosphere, it heats water vapor and the water vapor has to travel to the TOA before it releases a photon? How long does that take? Days, weeks, months?
Residency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height. Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.
Residency time is in minuets to hours.
Water near the ground absorbs a photon and travels to the TOA in minutes?
I don't believe that.
Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets
In which direction can the photon travel?
You forget the initial absorption at ground level. Then re-emitted to the atmosphere, at longer black body wavelengths, where it is either cascaded through certain molecules and out to space, Absorbed by others and then rises through the atmosphere as heated water and is then released to space, or is re-emitted towards the earth going back through the wall of molecules that would absorb and re-emit back towards space. The amount of energy that is actually reabsorbed by the ground is near zero during the day and negative at night.
Above about 3-5 meters the chances of photons reaching the ground in the LWIR wavelengths is near zero. At top of cloud boundary where water re-nucleates and LWIR is released those photons have zero chance at hitting the earths surface due to water vapor and clouds.
The range of residency time is from near zero when in the photon state and 3-5 hours ( time it takes water to rise to 30,000 feet through the air coulomb) in the heat state.
From Wkipedia,I've watched thunderheads explode upward and they do it rather quickly. hmmmmmmmThis bullshit is soooooooo funny!
Evaporation to cloud formation only takes minutes to hours? Water vapour collects and holds photons until it condenses? Hahahaha.
Notice how he likes to put in terms like 'residency time' to act as if he knew what he was talking about? Sheer Cliff Clavin bafflegab. Hilarious!
What percentage of the water cycle is done by thunderstorms?
BTW, I agree with you. I think thunderstorms are an important air conditioner, especially in the tropics. They remove massive amounts or energy from the surface while increasing the local albedo. Many orders of magnitude more efficient than radiation. That is why ocean water seldom gets above ~30C.
"Cumulonimbus, from the Latin cumulus ("heap") and nimbus ("rainstorm", "storm cloud"), is a dense towering vertical cloud [1] associated with thunderstorms and atmospheric instability, forming from water vapor carried by powerful upward air currents. If observed during a storm, these clouds may be referred to as thunderheads. Cumulonimbus can form alone, in clusters, or along cold front squall lines."
Do you consider that a direct answer to my direct question?
Billyboob said water vapour cycles in minutes to hours. I said that was ridiculous.
You said thunderstorms move air and water vapour quickly and I agreed.
The question is how much of the day-to-day water cycle is done by thunderstorms? 1%? 50%, 100%?
What are the usual precursors to a thunderstorm? Excess warmth. Once started it continues until the available warmth is exhausted.
If it so ridicules Ian, why don't you tell me the difference between air at 10% humidity, 30% humidity, 50% humidity, at sea level, under light breeze, Rise time of 25,000 feet ?
CAGW requires
I'm not interested in the liberal push to waste trillions on "green energy" while punishing carbon.
I'm interested in the discussion of the physics.
that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping
Good, let's that about that.
While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth
We were talking about energy emitted from the Earth's surface.
they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters).
Do you feel an outgoing IR photon has a longer path than a surface bound IR photon?
BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing.
Do you think the wide temperature swing is proof that CO2 isn't a GHG?
Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .
Why does the mass slow the IR photons?
A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.
A dry atmosphere has little mass, while a wet atmosphere has much greater mass. IN a desert this low mass allows rapid escape of LWIR. IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water and the slower rate of convection rise (vs direct LWIR photo escape) slows the rate of heat loss in the atmosphere.
From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process. The lack of a mid tropospheric hot spot shows that CO2 is NOT making the process take longer, which would result in an area of increased heat and water vapor.
WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA and then emits at a much longer wave length which CO2 can not receive or re-emit.
'back radiation' is a poor term designed to deflect from and cloud basic provable, observable, measurable, science. Not only can you not prove its origin, you cant define it or model it.
A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.
But you said......"retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation"
Is the water vapor somehow retaining heat without absorbing IR photons from the surface?
IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water
Great. Now when this water vapor emits a photon, in which direction will it travel?
From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process.
Why? Because it doesn't absorb photons, can't absorb photons, or it won't re-emit or won't re-emit toward the ground or it does emit toward the ground but somehow the photons never reach the ground?
WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA
Instead of a fraction of a second for an IR photon to exit the atmosphere, it heats water vapor and the water vapor has to travel to the TOA before it releases a photon? How long does that take? Days, weeks, months?
Residency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height. Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.
Residency time is in minuets to hours.
Water near the ground absorbs a photon and travels to the TOA in minutes?
I don't believe that.
Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets
In which direction can the photon travel?
You forget the initial absorption at ground level. Then re-emitted to the atmosphere, at longer black body wavelengths, where it is either cascaded through certain molecules and out to space, Absorbed by others and then rises through the atmosphere as heated water and is then released to space, or is re-emitted towards the earth going back through the wall of molecules that would absorb and re-emit back towards space. The amount of energy that is actually reabsorbed by the ground is near zero during the day and negative at night.
Above about 3-5 meters the chances of photons reaching the ground in the LWIR wavelengths is near zero. At top of cloud boundary where water re-nucleates and LWIR is released those photons have zero chance at hitting the earths surface due to water vapor and clouds.
The range of residency time is from near zero when in the photon state and 3-5 hours ( time it takes water to rise to 30,000 feet through the air coulomb) in the heat state.
A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.
A dry atmosphere has little mass, while a wet atmosphere has much greater mass. IN a desert this low mass allows rapid escape of LWIR. IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water and the slower rate of convection rise (vs direct LWIR photo escape) slows the rate of heat loss in the atmosphere.
From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process. The lack of a mid tropospheric hot spot shows that CO2 is NOT making the process take longer, which would result in an area of increased heat and water vapor.
WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA and then emits at a much longer wave length which CO2 can not receive or re-emit.
'back radiation' is a poor term designed to deflect from and cloud basic provable, observable, measurable, science. Not only can you not prove its origin, you cant define it or model it.
A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.
But you said......"retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation"
Is the water vapor somehow retaining heat without absorbing IR photons from the surface?
IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water
Great. Now when this water vapor emits a photon, in which direction will it travel?
From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process.
Why? Because it doesn't absorb photons, can't absorb photons, or it won't re-emit or won't re-emit toward the ground or it does emit toward the ground but somehow the photons never reach the ground?
WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA
Instead of a fraction of a second for an IR photon to exit the atmosphere, it heats water vapor and the water vapor has to travel to the TOA before it releases a photon? How long does that take? Days, weeks, months?
Residency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height. Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.
Residency time is in minuets to hours.
Water near the ground absorbs a photon and travels to the TOA in minutes?
I don't believe that.
Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets
In which direction can the photon travel?
You forget the initial absorption at ground level. Then re-emitted to the atmosphere, at longer black body wavelengths, where it is either cascaded through certain molecules and out to space, Absorbed by others and then rises through the atmosphere as heated water and is then released to space, or is re-emitted towards the earth going back through the wall of molecules that would absorb and re-emit back towards space. The amount of energy that is actually reabsorbed by the ground is near zero during the day and negative at night.
Above about 3-5 meters the chances of photons reaching the ground in the LWIR wavelengths is near zero. At top of cloud boundary where water re-nucleates and LWIR is released those photons have zero chance at hitting the earths surface due to water vapor and clouds.
The range of residency time is from near zero when in the photon state and 3-5 hours ( time it takes water to rise to 30,000 feet through the air coulomb) in the heat state.
You forget the initial absorption at ground level
No I didn't. Not even once.
Then re-emitted to the atmosphere, at longer black body wavelengths, where it is either cascaded through certain molecules and out to space,
Straight out to space?
Or does some of the energy happen to be directed downward at any point during this process?
Absorbed by others and then rises through the atmosphere as heated water and is then released to space,
Why only to space?
The amount of energy that is actually reabsorbed by the ground is near zero during the day and negative at night
Why? Magic energy shield at ground level?
Above about 3-5 meters the chances of photons reaching the ground in the LWIR wavelengths is near zero.
Why?
That's the beauty of science, I am entitled to my perceptions as long as I can prove them by empirical evidence. Something I can do and most alarmists can not.. I can call many of the things you post bull shit and pseudoscience..... I can also say why...A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.
A dry atmosphere has little mass, while a wet atmosphere has much greater mass. IN a desert this low mass allows rapid escape of LWIR. IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water and the slower rate of convection rise (vs direct LWIR photo escape) slows the rate of heat loss in the atmosphere.
From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process. The lack of a mid tropospheric hot spot shows that CO2 is NOT making the process take longer, which would result in an area of increased heat and water vapor.
WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA and then emits at a much longer wave length which CO2 can not receive or re-emit.
'back radiation' is a poor term designed to deflect from and cloud basic provable, observable, measurable, science. Not only can you not prove its origin, you cant define it or model it.
A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.
But you said......"retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation"
Is the water vapor somehow retaining heat without absorbing IR photons from the surface?
IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water
Great. Now when this water vapor emits a photon, in which direction will it travel?
From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process.
Why? Because it doesn't absorb photons, can't absorb photons, or it won't re-emit or won't re-emit toward the ground or it does emit toward the ground but somehow the photons never reach the ground?
WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA
Instead of a fraction of a second for an IR photon to exit the atmosphere, it heats water vapor and the water vapor has to travel to the TOA before it releases a photon? How long does that take? Days, weeks, months?
Residency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height. Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.
Residency time is in minuets to hours.
Water near the ground absorbs a photon and travels to the TOA in minutes?
I don't believe that.
Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets
In which direction can the photon travel?
You forget the initial absorption at ground level. Then re-emitted to the atmosphere, at longer black body wavelengths, where it is either cascaded through certain molecules and out to space, Absorbed by others and then rises through the atmosphere as heated water and is then released to space, or is re-emitted towards the earth going back through the wall of molecules that would absorb and re-emit back towards space. The amount of energy that is actually reabsorbed by the ground is near zero during the day and negative at night.
Above about 3-5 meters the chances of photons reaching the ground in the LWIR wavelengths is near zero. At top of cloud boundary where water re-nucleates and LWIR is released those photons have zero chance at hitting the earths surface due to water vapor and clouds.
The range of residency time is from near zero when in the photon state and 3-5 hours ( time it takes water to rise to 30,000 feet through the air coulomb) in the heat state.
There is actually some wheat in all that chaff. Unfortunately how can people tell which is which?
You are correct to say that most of the GHG reactive IR is absorbed within metres of the surface.
You are incorrect to say that all the latent heat in clouds is absorbed before it hits the surface. The IR that can freely escape through the atmospheric window can also freely return to the surface from the clouds.
Even if you only bullshit half the time, it's still all bullshit because there is no way to tell what's true and what is not.
You should stick to political statements where it doesn't matter if it's true.
A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.
But you said......"retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation"
Is the water vapor somehow retaining heat without absorbing IR photons from the surface?
IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water
Great. Now when this water vapor emits a photon, in which direction will it travel?
From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process.
Why? Because it doesn't absorb photons, can't absorb photons, or it won't re-emit or won't re-emit toward the ground or it does emit toward the ground but somehow the photons never reach the ground?
WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA
Instead of a fraction of a second for an IR photon to exit the atmosphere, it heats water vapor and the water vapor has to travel to the TOA before it releases a photon? How long does that take? Days, weeks, months?
Residency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height. Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.
Residency time is in minuets to hours.
Water near the ground absorbs a photon and travels to the TOA in minutes?
I don't believe that.
Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets
In which direction can the photon travel?
You forget the initial absorption at ground level. Then re-emitted to the atmosphere, at longer black body wavelengths, where it is either cascaded through certain molecules and out to space, Absorbed by others and then rises through the atmosphere as heated water and is then released to space, or is re-emitted towards the earth going back through the wall of molecules that would absorb and re-emit back towards space. The amount of energy that is actually reabsorbed by the ground is near zero during the day and negative at night.
Above about 3-5 meters the chances of photons reaching the ground in the LWIR wavelengths is near zero. At top of cloud boundary where water re-nucleates and LWIR is released those photons have zero chance at hitting the earths surface due to water vapor and clouds.
The range of residency time is from near zero when in the photon state and 3-5 hours ( time it takes water to rise to 30,000 feet through the air coulomb) in the heat state.
You forget the initial absorption at ground level
No I didn't. Not even once.
Then re-emitted to the atmosphere, at longer black body wavelengths, where it is either cascaded through certain molecules and out to space,
Straight out to space?
Or does some of the energy happen to be directed downward at any point during this process?
Absorbed by others and then rises through the atmosphere as heated water and is then released to space,
Why only to space?
The amount of energy that is actually reabsorbed by the ground is near zero during the day and negative at night
Why? Magic energy shield at ground level?
Above about 3-5 meters the chances of photons reaching the ground in the LWIR wavelengths is near zero.
Why?
No, there is no magic shield. What there is however is the absorptive properties of the surface and the fact that atmosphere above it is cooler. Warming caused by the cooler can not happen without energy use.
Which leads us to your last question about why only 3-5 meters above the earth..? The word is CONDUCTION. As air rolls in this lower section of the atmosphere its direct contact and radiateive flow is to the cooler atmosphere.
The AGW hypothesis is that CO2 trapping LWIR is fully responsible for the warming of the near surface atmosphere. Yet they ignore the very basics of physics and natural process that fully explains the warming that we have seen.
The absence of a mid tropospheric hot spot is evidence that CO2 is not down ward radiating (actually any direction) enough to create heat build up in water vapor. The only potential heat increase is near surface where it directly affects the ground during the day.
Lets look at why anything above 5 meters has a very low probability of affecting the surface. Look at the deserts at night. They have virtually the same levels of CO2 as the rest of the planet yet at night, just after dusk, as the ground is radiating at its greatest, CO2 it is incapable of retaining the heat. It releases heat at a rate 3 times faster than an atmosphere of 30% humidity because LWIR is not stopped or slowed by CO2 alone in our open atmosphere.
IF a photon is released towards the ground and it is intercepted by another molecule does that molecule have to re-emit it back towards ground or can it emit it towards space? As the altitude of the molecule grows from the ground the chances a photon can be re-emitted towards the ground become less and less. The laws of probability become near zero at just five meters at levels of 1000ppm. At our current level of 400ppm its less than that.
