Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[Crick]

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.

Can you explain further?

The laws of probability become near zero at just five meters at levels of 1000 ppm.

Near 0% chance that a photon can be emitted downward? Seems unlikely, but please, expound.

Billy Bob, you seem to be confused here as to the difference between TO THE GROUND and TOWARDS THE GROUND. At any point in it's travels, the directional odds of photon emission from a gas molecule are precisely equal in all directions. If we were at, say geosynchronous orbit we might say there's a reduction in the odds because the Earth itself subtends less of our view. But within the atmophere, there is very, very little drop in the geometric probabilities.

Your argument here is blatant nonsense.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Laws of probability - random distribution

A molecule can emit in a range of 360x360

That same molecule at 5 meters can radiate towards another round object (earth) 80x80

The calculations are a bit more complex than above but this photo kind of gives you a glimpse of how it is derived. As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes. Then we add in how many other molecules it will encounter and their heights... The numbers become astronomically high that a surface emitted and then atmosphere re-emitted photon will actually return to earth.

 

[Crick]

Still blatant nonsense. The horizon at 5 meters altitude is 8 ,000 meters. Thus our down angle is atan(5/8000) = 0.036 degrees. Thus the odds of striking the Earth from a random emission is 179.928/180.072 = 0.99920032:1

You are a fucking idiot.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Warming caused by the cooler can not happen without energy use.

We aren't talking about that, we're talking about matter above 0K radiating in all directions.

Which leads us to your last question about why only 3-5 meters above the earth..? The word is CONDUCTION.

Again, we aren't talking about that, we're talking about matter above 0K radiating in all directions.

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.

How fast does the ground radiate on the Moon when the Sun sets?

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.

Who ever claimed it is CO2 alone? How can the ground radiate faster in the dry air? Is the dry air colder?

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?

It can be re-emitted in any direction. It can even emit a photon that actually hits the ground, even if the ground is warmer than the molecule that emitted it.

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.

Can you explain further?

The laws of probability become near zero at just five meters at levels of 1000ppm.

Near 0% chance that a photon can be emitted downward? Seems unlikely, but please, expound.

All matter radiates in all directions above O deg Kelvin. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute, what does that potential energy do? What is it capable of? Can our output of CO2 influence what it does?

In my previous posts I have shown that it is essentially meaningless.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Still blatant nonsense. The horizon at 5 meters altitude is 8 ,000 meters. Thus our down angle is atan(5/8000) = 0.036 degrees. Thus the odds of striking the Earth from a random emission is 179.928/180.072 = 0.99920032:1

You are a fucking idiot.

Your LA LA LA LA is duly noted..

 

[Crick]

The laws of probability become near zero at just five meters at levels of 1000ppm.

I want to hear an explanation as to how the probability of a photon being emitted TOWARDS the Earth become near zero at 5 meters altitude because you have certainly not explained that.

All matter radiates in all directions above O deg Kelvin. That is not in dispute.

That is excellent to hear. I expect you to participate correcting SSDD the next time he makes such a claim.

What is in dispute, what does that potential energy do?

Photon do not possess potential energy. They are all kinetic.

What is it capable of? Can our output of CO2 influence what it does?

That would depend on its frequency, but basically they can increase the energy state of a receiving molecule. The amount of energy that may be contained in a single photon, since there is no limit to the frequency it can exhibit, is limited only by it's collapse into a black hole once it has gathered around 2GJ of energy.

Photons emitted by CO2 can most certainly cause warming. And it would be nice to see you address your error concerning water vapor at the ToA.

In my previous posts I have shown that it is essentially meaningless.

You've shown no such thing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Warming caused by the cooler can not happen without energy use.

We aren't talking about that, we're talking about matter above 0K radiating in all directions.

Which leads us to your last question about why only 3-5 meters above the earth..? The word is CONDUCTION.

Again, we aren't talking about that, we're talking about matter above 0K radiating in all directions.

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.

How fast does the ground radiate on the Moon when the Sun sets?

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.

Who ever claimed it is CO2 alone? How can the ground radiate faster in the dry air? Is the dry air colder?

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?

It can be re-emitted in any direction. It can even emit a photon that actually hits the ground, even if the ground is warmer than the molecule that emitted it.

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.

Can you explain further?

The laws of probability become near zero at just five meters at levels of 1000ppm.

Near 0% chance that a photon can be emitted downward? Seems unlikely, but please, expound.

All matter radiates in all directions above O deg Kelvin. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute, what does that potential energy do? What is it capable of? Can our output of CO2 influence what it does?

In my previous posts I have shown that it is essentially meaningless.

What is in dispute, what does that potential energy do? What is it capable of?

It's certainly capable of hitting a warmer object.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Laws of probability - random distribution

A molecule can emit in a range of 360x360

That same molecule at 5 meters can radiate towards another round object (earth) 80x80

The calculations are a bit more complex than above but this photo kind of gives you a glimpse of how it is derived. As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes. Then we add in how many other molecules it will encounter and their heights... The numbers become astronomically high that a surface emitted and then atmosphere re-emitted photon will actually return to earth.

As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes.

Diminishes, slowly, yet still far, far higher than 0% chance. You see your error now?

 

[Crick]

Still blatant nonsense. The horizon at 5 meters altitude is 8 ,000 meters. Thus our down angle is atan(5/8000) = 0.036 degrees. Thus the odds of striking the Earth from a random emission is 179.928/180.072 = 0.99920032:1

You are a fucking idiot.

Your LA LA LA LA is duly noted..
View attachment 75536

You're the one with your fingers stuck in your monkey ears.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Warming caused by the cooler can not happen without energy use.

We aren't talking about that, we're talking about matter above 0K radiating in all directions.

Which leads us to your last question about why only 3-5 meters above the earth..? The word is CONDUCTION.

Again, we aren't talking about that, we're talking about matter above 0K radiating in all directions.

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.

How fast does the ground radiate on the Moon when the Sun sets?

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.

Who ever claimed it is CO2 alone? How can the ground radiate faster in the dry air? Is the dry air colder?

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?

It can be re-emitted in any direction. It can even emit a photon that actually hits the ground, even if the ground is warmer than the molecule that emitted it.

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.

Can you explain further?

The laws of probability become near zero at just five meters at levels of 1000ppm.

Near 0% chance that a photon can be emitted downward? Seems unlikely, but please, expound.

All matter radiates in all directions above O deg Kelvin. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute, what does that potential energy do? What is it capable of? Can our output of CO2 influence what it does?

In my previous posts I have shown that it is essentially meaningless.

What is in dispute, what does that potential energy do? What is it capable of?

It's certainly capable of hitting a warmer object.

But it does nothing to the warmer object.. It can not because it can not overcome the law of thermal travel; Hotter object to Cooler Object. The shear numbers of photons overwhelms what little might return from CO2 or other items radiating in our atmosphere.

400ppm radiating simply can not heat up a warmer object because it, itself is cooler. Physical laws apply.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Laws of probability - random distribution

A molecule can emit in a range of 360x360

That same molecule at 5 meters can radiate towards another round object (earth) 80x80

The calculations are a bit more complex than above but this photo kind of gives you a glimpse of how it is derived. As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes. Then we add in how many other molecules it will encounter and their heights... The numbers become astronomically high that a surface emitted and then atmosphere re-emitted photon will actually return to earth.

As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes.

Diminishes, slowly, yet still far, far higher than 0% chance. You see your error now?

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere... as that height increases, that other mass increases also..

 

[numan]

'
I know how difficult it is for most people to understand global heating and the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. Over the years, I went from fairly easy acceptance of the scientific research, then a period of critical uncertainty as I gained some understanding of the complexity of the problem, and then firm acceptance of anthropogenic global warming as I realized how inevitable it was under the present inputs into the global system.

It is perhaps useful to compare the situation on Earth with our so-called "sister planet", Venus, almost the same size as Earth but with an atmosphere 96.5% carbon dioxide, using the Ideal Gas Law.

Reduced to basic form, the Ideal Gas Law is expressed as:

PV = NkT, where

P = pressure, V = volume, N = number of particles in the volume, k = Boltzmann's Constant, and T = temperature.

For Earth, the average pressure at planetary surface is 101.3 kilopascals or 101 300 Joules of energy per cubic metre.

The surface density of the atmosphere is 1.225 kilogrammes per cubic metre. The atmosphere consists mainly of diatomic molecules of nitrogen and oxygen -- 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen.

The average molecular mass of these is 28.8 -- giving the average molecule a mass of 4.820 x 10^-26 kg. Dividing 1.225 kg by 4.820 kg, one arrives at 2.541 x 10^25 particles per cubic metre.

Boltzmann's Constant = 1.381 x 10^-23 Joules per degree Kelvin.

Dividing PV by the particle number and Boltzmann's Constant, we get a temperature of 288 K, or in more familiar terms, 15 degrees Celsius.

This is very close to the measured surface temperature of the Earth, but it is not precise. Actually, in the absence of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the temperature would be at or below the freezing point of water, and the oceans would be a solid block of ice.

The main problem in using the Ideal Gas Law for the Earth is that the Earth is not a good approximation to a thermodynamic ideal "black body".

The situation is much different when one turns to the planet Venus, which much more closely approximates an ideal black body. Its atmosphere is quite uniform and well mixed, and its cloud cover is also uniform. Venus has the highest albedo (reflectivity) of all the planets in the Solar System -- it immediately reflects fully 70% of all the solar radiation which it receives. Only 30% of solar radiation contributes to warming the planet. The situation is exactly reversed for the planet Earth. The Earth has an albedo of only 30%, and 70% of incident radiation is absorbed by our planet. It is important to remember these facts.

The surface pressure of Venus is 92 times that of the Earth -- a pressure of 9 319 600 Joules per cubic metre.

The surface density of the Venusian atmosphere is 53 times that of the Earth -- 65 kg per cubic metre. Dividing 65 kg by the mass of a carbon dioxide -- 7.310 x 10^-26 kg -- gives the particle number per cubic metre: 8.90 x 10^26.

Again, dividing PV by the particle number and Boltzmann's Constant gives a temperature of 482.9 K, or 209.7 degrees Celsius.

That is more than 300 K less than the measured surface temperature of 787 K (514 degrees Celsius).

The reason Venus is so much hotter than one would calculate by pressure alone IS BECAUSE OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE GREENHOUSE EFFECT!!!

Naturally, the first thing a global warming Denialist would think of is that Venus is a third closer to the Sun than the Earth is, receiving a little more than twice the radiation as the Earth does, and so would of course be warmer.
This plausible chain of thought is totally fallacious!!

Remember, Venus has an albedo of 70%!

Believe it or not, Venus absorbs less radiation from the Sun than the Earth does!
.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Warming caused by the cooler can not happen without energy use.

We aren't talking about that, we're talking about matter above 0K radiating in all directions.

Which leads us to your last question about why only 3-5 meters above the earth..? The word is CONDUCTION.

Again, we aren't talking about that, we're talking about matter above 0K radiating in all directions.

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.

How fast does the ground radiate on the Moon when the Sun sets?

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.

Who ever claimed it is CO2 alone? How can the ground radiate faster in the dry air? Is the dry air colder?

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?

It can be re-emitted in any direction. It can even emit a photon that actually hits the ground, even if the ground is warmer than the molecule that emitted it.

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.

Can you explain further?

The laws of probability become near zero at just five meters at levels of 1000ppm.

Near 0% chance that a photon can be emitted downward? Seems unlikely, but please, expound.

All matter radiates in all directions above O deg Kelvin. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute, what does that potential energy do? What is it capable of? Can our output of CO2 influence what it does?

In my previous posts I have shown that it is essentially meaningless.

What is in dispute, what does that potential energy do? What is it capable of?

It's certainly capable of hitting a warmer object.

But it does nothing to the warmer object.. It can not because it can not overcome the law of thermal travel; Hotter object to Cooler Object. The shear numbers of photons overwhelms what little might return from CO2 or other items radiating in our atmosphere.

400ppm radiating simply can not heat up a warmer object because it, itself is cooler. Physical laws apply.

But it does nothing to the warmer object..

How does a photon do nothing to any object it hits?

It can not because it can not overcome the law of thermal travel;

Law of thermal travel? Sounds like something you made up.

Hotter object to Cooler Object.

We aren't talking about objects, we're talking about photons.

The shear numbers of photons overwhelms what little might return from CO2

Overwhelms? What does that mean? At least you're admitting photons from CO2 can return to the surface.

400ppm radiating simply can not heat up a warmer object because it, itself is cooler.

Can't heat it up? Every photon that hits adds heat to an object, warmer or not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Laws of probability - random distribution

A molecule can emit in a range of 360x360

That same molecule at 5 meters can radiate towards another round object (earth) 80x80

The calculations are a bit more complex than above but this photo kind of gives you a glimpse of how it is derived. As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes. Then we add in how many other molecules it will encounter and their heights... The numbers become astronomically high that a surface emitted and then atmosphere re-emitted photon will actually return to earth.

As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes.

Diminishes, slowly, yet still far, far higher than 0% chance. You see your error now?

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere... as that height increases, that other mass increases also..

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere...

How does "the other matter" excuse your confusion about the direction photons travel when emitted?

I mean 0% is an enormous error, you have to admit.

 

[Wuwei]

This point - counterpoint dialog between Tod and Billy Bob is entertaining. Like watching a snake eat a mouse. Will the Law of Thermal Travel bring Tod to his knees? I sit on the edge of my seat wondering who is going to get the upper hand.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Warming caused by the cooler can not happen without energy use.

We aren't talking about that, we're talking about matter above 0K radiating in all directions.

Which leads us to your last question about why only 3-5 meters above the earth..? The word is CONDUCTION.

Again, we aren't talking about that, we're talking about matter above 0K radiating in all directions.

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.

How fast does the ground radiate on the Moon when the Sun sets?

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.

Who ever claimed it is CO2 alone? How can the ground radiate faster in the dry air? Is the dry air colder?

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?

It can be re-emitted in any direction. It can even emit a photon that actually hits the ground, even if the ground is warmer than the molecule that emitted it.

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.

Can you explain further?

The laws of probability become near zero at just five meters at levels of 1000ppm.

Near 0% chance that a photon can be emitted downward? Seems unlikely, but please, expound.

All matter radiates in all directions above O deg Kelvin. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute, what does that potential energy do? What is it capable of? Can our output of CO2 influence what it does?

In my previous posts I have shown that it is essentially meaningless.

What is in dispute, what does that potential energy do? What is it capable of?

It's certainly capable of hitting a warmer object.

But it does nothing to the warmer object.. It can not because it can not overcome the law of thermal travel; Hotter object to Cooler Object. The shear numbers of photons overwhelms what little might return from CO2 or other items radiating in our atmosphere.

400ppm radiating simply can not heat up a warmer object because it, itself is cooler. Physical laws apply.

But it does nothing to the warmer object..

How does a photon do nothing to any object it hits?

It can not because it can not overcome the law of thermal travel;

Law of thermal travel? Sounds like something you made up.

Hotter object to Cooler Object.

We aren't talking about objects, we're talking about photons.

The shear numbers of photons overwhelms what little might return from CO2

Overwhelms? What does that mean? At least you're admitting photons from CO2 can return to the surface.

400ppm radiating simply can not heat up a warmer object because it, itself is cooler.

Can't heat it up? Every photon that hits adds heat to an object, warmer or not.

So you believe in magical photons which deny the laws of thermal dynamics..?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Laws of probability - random distribution

A molecule can emit in a range of 360x360

That same molecule at 5 meters can radiate towards another round object (earth) 80x80

The calculations are a bit more complex than above but this photo kind of gives you a glimpse of how it is derived. As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes. Then we add in how many other molecules it will encounter and their heights... The numbers become astronomically high that a surface emitted and then atmosphere re-emitted photon will actually return to earth.

As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes.

Diminishes, slowly, yet still far, far higher than 0% chance. You see your error now?

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere... as that height increases, that other mass increases also..

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere...

How does "the other matter" excuse your confusion about the direction photons travel when emitted?

I mean 0% is an enormous error, you have to admit.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling... Then the earth didn't comply with their directive and less than 0.03 hundredths of a degree could even remotely be attributed to CO2 'back radiation'. So they lowered their estimates to 1 deg C per doubling and the pause happened throwing this prediction into the garbage.. now they are toying with 0.3 to 0.6 deg C per doubling .. Yet the empirical evidence says that we are at a zero influence attribution to CO2 today...

SO either your photons are having little to no effect or the water cycle on earth is laying the runaway theory falsified... To date no one has done the science to determine which it is.. Historical evidence suggests that CO2 and its 'back radiation' have had no effect in the past. So i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Are photons being emitted? Yes... Can they strike cooler objects? Yes.. It is the effect on the cooler matter that no one has proven through empirical, observed evidence.. You would have some magical photons that can defy thermal dynamics and heat transfer laws to have an impact.

 

[mamooth]

So you believe in magical photons which deny the laws of thermal dynamics..?

Ah, "thermal dynamics" again.

This is our doctoral student.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So you believe in magical photons which deny the laws of thermal dynamics..?

Ah, "thermal dynamics" again.

This is our doctoral student.

And this is one of our resident ass clowns...

 

[Billy_Bob]

'
I know how difficult it is for most people to understand global heating and the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. Over the years, I went from fairly easy acceptance of the scientific research, then a period of critical uncertainty as I gained some understanding of the complexity of the problem, and then firm acceptance of anthropogenic global warming as I realized how inevitable it was under the present inputs into the global system.

It is perhaps useful to compare the situation on Earth with our so-called "sister planet", Venus, almost the same size as Earth but with an atmosphere 96.5% carbon dioxide, using the Ideal Gas Law.

Reduced to basic form, the Ideal Gas Law is expressed as:

PV = NkT, where

P = pressure, V = volume, N = number of particles in the volume, k = Boltzmann's Constant, and T = temperature.

For Earth, the average pressure at planetary surface is 101.3 kilopascals or 101 300 Joules of energy per cubic metre.

The surface density of the atmosphere is 1.225 kilogrammes per cubic metre. The atmosphere consists mainly of diatomic molecules of nitrogen and oxygen -- 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen.

The average molecular mass of these is 28.8 -- giving the average molecule a mass of 4.820 x 10^-26 kg. Dividing 1.225 kg by 4.820 kg, one arrives at 2.541 x 10^25 particles per cubic metre.

Boltzmann's Constant = 1.381 x 10^-23 Joules per degree Kelvin.

Dividing PV by the particle number and Boltzmann's Constant, we get a temperature of 288 K, or in more familiar terms, 15 degrees Celsius.

This is very close to the measured surface temperature of the Earth, but it is not precise. Actually, in the absence of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the temperature would be at or below the freezing point of water, and the oceans would be a solid block of ice.

The main problem in using the Ideal Gas Law for the Earth is that the Earth is not a good approximation to a thermodynamic ideal "black body".

The situation is much different when one turns to the planet Venus, which much more closely approximates an ideal black body. Its atmosphere is quite uniform and well mixed, and its cloud cover is also uniform. Venus has the highest albedo (reflectivity) of all the planets in the Solar System -- it immediately reflects fully 70% of all the solar radiation which it receives. Only 30% of solar radiation contributes to warming the planet. The situation is exactly reversed for the planet Earth. The Earth has an albedo of only 30%, and 70% of incident radiation is absorbed by our planet. It is important to remember these facts.

The surface pressure of Venus is 92 times that of the Earth -- a pressure of 9 319 600 Joules per cubic metre.

The surface density of the Venusian atmosphere is 53 times that of the Earth -- 65 kg per cubic metre. Dividing 65 kg by the mass of a carbon dioxide -- 7.310 x 10^-26 kg -- gives the particle number per cubic metre: 8.90 x 10^26.

Again, dividing PV by the particle number and Boltzmann's Constant gives a temperature of 482.9 K, or 209.7 degrees Celsius.

That is more than 300 K less than the measured surface temperature of 787 K (514 degrees Celsius).

The reason Venus is so much hotter than one would calculate by pressure alone IS BECAUSE OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE GREENHOUSE EFFECT!!!

Naturally, the first thing a global warming Denialist would think of is that Venus is a third closer to the Sun than the Earth is, receiving a little more than twice the radiation as the Earth does, and so would of course be warmer.
This plausible chain of thought is totally fallacious!!

Remember, Venus has an albedo of 70%!

Believe it or not, Venus absorbs less radiation from the Sun than the Earth does!
.

You make one very wild assumption. One you can never hope to prove.. That you use the word "denialist" tips your hat at having nothing in the realm of empirical evidence. You have a handle on the gas laws but you lack any credibility on what CO2 does in either atmosphere. You have conjecture and that is all. More importantly, your models, that you rely on as if they were empirical evidence, fail all predictive attempts with the real world showing us you don't know how or why the system works.

Earths albedo varies with season and water content. Venus is 210 deg C in the sun and -200 deg C in the night.. Your magical CO2 cant seem to hold the heat in...