Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

He only ignores it going from excited CO2 to the air in the lower atmospere.

He is quite happy to acknowledge that the air can excite a CO2 molecule in the higher atmosphere to produce radiation that escapes to space and causes cooling.

Directional bias in isotropic atomic processes seems to be his game. First with photons, and now collisions.

 

[IanC]

He only ignores it going from excited CO2 to the air in the lower atmospere.

He is quite happy to acknowledge that the air can excite a CO2 molecule in the higher atmosphere to produce radiation that escapes to space and causes cooling.

Directional bias in isotropic atomic processes seems to be his game. First with photons, and now collisions.

Yes. But he may also be confused about how time is involved.

For example, the CO2 in the upper atmosphere COULD get rid of the energy absorbed from the surface IF it was given time to catch up. But both processes are happening at the same time. There is no catching up.

SSDD sees the absorption at lower height to be equal to emission at higher altitude. He assumes all the energy gets out. That is why he endlessly repeats ''absorption and emission doesn't equal warming'. He just doesn't get that the two amounts are unequal, and that the difference must travel out of the atmosphere by a different pathway or be stored (which causes warming).

 

[Wuwei]

Yes. But he may also be confused about how time is involved.

For example, the CO2 in the upper atmosphere COULD get rid of the energy absorbed from the surface IF it was given time to catch up. But both processes are happening at the same time. There is no catching up.

SSDD sees the absorption at lower height to be equal to emission at higher altitude. He assumes all the energy gets out. That is why he endlessly repeats ''absorption and emission doesn't equal warming'. He just doesn't get that the two amounts are unequal, and that the difference must travel out of the atmosphere by a different pathway or be stored (which causes warming).

Yes, also left unexplained is that the earth is radiating about 400 W/m^2 while it is inputing only about 160 from the sun. If all that 400 escapes, the earth would cool way down until it is also radiating 160.

 

[SSDD]

Energy being transferred among molecules via conduction has absolutely nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is the whole f'ing point you moron...there is no radiative greenhouse effect....

Once again, you demonstrate conclusively that you don't even know what this conversation is about...you finally grasp that it isn't infrared radiation that is heating the atmosphere, but conduction and convection..and still you cling to the idea that somehow infrared emitting from CO2 molecules is causing warming...how much more wrong can you be?..than to actually describe the reality of what warms the atmosphere but hold to the failed hypothesis?

If a CO2 molecule excited by IR strikes an air molecule. That is the energy path of conduction of IR energy to air. If you don't understand that you don't understand what heat is.

I see you are frustrated because you lost an argument, and return to ranting. Ranting by you generally means you have run out of valid ideas.

Poor idiot...the more you talk the more apparent it becomes that you don't know what you are talking about.

Conduction, by definition is not radiation. Conduction is energy moving through a medium...in this case the medium is air...

IR does not warm the air...there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Conduction is what warms the air.

Conduction is one of three pathways that warm the air. It is also the main pathway for stored energy to return to the surface.

So now you are claiming back conduction and back convection as well as back radiation? You are laughable ian...absolutely laughable.

 

[SSDD]

Poor idiot...the more you talk the more apparent it becomes that you don't know what you are talking about.

Conduction, by definition is not radiation. Conduction is energy moving through a medium...in this case the medium is air...

IR does not warm the air...there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Conduction is what warms the air.

More ranting from you I see. Are you trying to hide the fact that you don't understand, or that you are trolling, or both.

What you don't understand is that transfer of energy from IR to CO2 and from CO2 to air via collision is a two step process - an indirect process. You are ignoring one of the steps.

Your reply ignores the fact that CO2 in an excited state can transfer energy to the air by conduction.

Do you believe that CO2 in an internal excited state cannot transfer energy to an air molecule?

Afraid that it is you who doesn't get it...if the CO2 molecule emits a theoretical photon, then it is radiation we are talking about...if it loses the energy via collision, then it is conduction...

Bottom line...IR can not warm the air... the air is warmed via conduction.

 

[IanC]

Energy being transferred among molecules via conduction has absolutely nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is the whole f'ing point you moron...there is no radiative greenhouse effect....

Once again, you demonstrate conclusively that you don't even know what this conversation is about...you finally grasp that it isn't infrared radiation that is heating the atmosphere, but conduction and convection..and still you cling to the idea that somehow infrared emitting from CO2 molecules is causing warming...how much more wrong can you be?..than to actually describe the reality of what warms the atmosphere but hold to the failed hypothesis?

If a CO2 molecule excited by IR strikes an air molecule. That is the energy path of conduction of IR energy to air. If you don't understand that you don't understand what heat is.

I see you are frustrated because you lost an argument, and return to ranting. Ranting by you generally means you have run out of valid ideas.

Poor idiot...the more you talk the more apparent it becomes that you don't know what you are talking about.

Conduction, by definition is not radiation. Conduction is energy moving through a medium...in this case the medium is air...

IR does not warm the air...there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Conduction is what warms the air.

Conduction is one of three pathways that warm the air. It is also the main pathway for stored energy to return to the surface.

So now you are claiming back conduction and back convection as well as back radiation? You are laughable ian...absolutely laughable.

Unlike radiation, which can and does flow in multiple directions unimpeded, conduction only flows in one direction at a time. That does not mean that it always flows in the same direction. Energy from the atmosphere travels back to the surface every day by conduction.

Likewise, release of latent heat does not always occur at altitude, anytime you see frost forming part of the released energy is going into the surface. Or condensation.

The surface cools faster than the air. As soon as the surface temperature is cooler than the air temperature, conduction reverses direction.

Measured 'surface temperatures' are a misnomer. They are actually air temperatures taken in an enclosure at 1.5 metres. The actual surface is much more volatile, with larger swings in temperature.

 

[SSDD]

Unlike radiation, which can and does flow in multiple directions unimpeded, conduction only flows in one direction at a time. That does not mean that it always flows in the same direction. Energy from the atmosphere travels back to the surface every day by conduction.

Energy does not move spontaneously, by any means, from cool to warm...sorry ian. Don't like it...get the 2nd law of thermodynamics changed to say that sometimes, some amount of energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm.

 

[SSDD]

Yes. But he may also be confused about how time is involved.

For example, the CO2 in the upper atmosphere COULD get rid of the energy absorbed from the surface IF it was given time to catch up. But both processes are happening at the same time. There is no catching up.

SSDD sees the absorption at lower height to be equal to emission at higher altitude. He assumes all the energy gets out. That is why he endlessly repeats ''absorption and emission doesn't equal warming'. He just doesn't get that the two amounts are unequal, and that the difference must travel out of the atmosphere by a different pathway or be stored (which causes warming).

Yes, also left unexplained is that the earth is radiating about 400 W/m^2 while it is inputing only about 160 from the sun. If all that 400 escapes, the earth would cool way down until it is also radiating 160.

The whole average input from the sun is bullshit...you are modeling a flat earth that does not rotate and exists in perpetual twilight 4 times further away from the sun than we are and pretending that it is analogous to where we actually live. It is that bullshit model that is the basis of the whole scam....and you are ignoring the oceans entirely which hold a vast store of energy..orders of magnitude more than the atmosphere..and we are mostly ignorant of what changes have happened in the deep oceans over the past 150 years, and are just becoming aware of how much energy is being delivered to them via volcanic activity.

Your model is bullshit. How about you go and find some actual evidence that there is a radiative greenhouse effect. It should be easy to demonstrate. Lets see how much heating or cooling result from changing the concentration of CO2 up and down over a body of water...and show the changes in increments of 0.000001. With all the billions upon billions that have been flushed down the drain on this scam, surely someone bothered to check. Wonder how far the results are buried to assure that no one ever sees them?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Energy being transferred among molecules via conduction has absolutely nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is the whole f'ing point you moron...there is no radiative greenhouse effect....

Once again, you demonstrate conclusively that you don't even know what this conversation is about...you finally grasp that it isn't infrared radiation that is heating the atmosphere, but conduction and convection..and still you cling to the idea that somehow infrared emitting from CO2 molecules is causing warming...how much more wrong can you be?..than to actually describe the reality of what warms the atmosphere but hold to the failed hypothesis?

If a CO2 molecule excited by IR strikes an air molecule. That is the energy path of conduction of IR energy to air. If you don't understand that you don't understand what heat is.

I see you are frustrated because you lost an argument, and return to ranting. Ranting by you generally means you have run out of valid ideas.

Lab work?

 

[IanC]

Energy does not move spontaneously, by any means, from cool to warm...sorry ian. Don't like it...get the 2nd law of thermodynamics changed to say that sometimes, some amount of energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm

Here is yet another example of how you only see one side of the coin.

There are two 'modes' of energy transfer. I think of them as ''passive' or 'active'.

Passive is when both objects are cooling. The objects slow the cooling of the other by reducing the area of exposure to the cold environment. There is a special case where initially the warm object can overwhelm the cooling of the cool object but that initial condition is soon superceded by cooling of both objects on their journey towards absolute zero.

The second mode is active. When there is an outside source of energy being added to an object, that object will warm up until its radiation matches the input from the outside source. The temperature will then stay constant as long as the input continues.

The Earth has an active source of energy but it is both variable, and intermittent for any single location on the Earth.

SSDD only uses the rules for passive cooling, and ignores the rules for active heating. The active heating is what creates the temperature differences and gradients in the first place.

 

[IanC]

Energy being transferred among molecules via conduction has absolutely nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is the whole f'ing point you moron...there is no radiative greenhouse effect....

Once again, you demonstrate conclusively that you don't even know what this conversation is about...you finally grasp that it isn't infrared radiation that is heating the atmosphere, but conduction and convection..and still you cling to the idea that somehow infrared emitting from CO2 molecules is causing warming...how much more wrong can you be?..than to actually describe the reality of what warms the atmosphere but hold to the failed hypothesis?

If a CO2 molecule excited by IR strikes an air molecule. That is the energy path of conduction of IR energy to air. If you don't understand that you don't understand what heat is.

I see you are frustrated because you lost an argument, and return to ranting. Ranting by you generally means you have run out of valid ideas.

Lab work?

There is a vast amount of lab work done on atmospheric radiative physics. Much of it done before the current fad of doomsday CAGW.

 

[Wuwei]

...if the CO2 molecule emits a theoretical photon, then it is radiation we are talking about...if it loses the energy via collision, then it is conduction...

Bottom line...IR can not warm the air... the air is warmed via conduction.

Yes, I can agree with that.

You have agreed with these facts:
1. IR can strike and excite CO2.
2. CO2 transfers excitation energy to an air molecule via conduction.

Whether you realize it or not, you are describing a two stage process that occurs in the atmosphere, where the end result is that IR striking a CO2 molecule eventually turns into heat via conduction.

In short whether you realize it or not you are agreeing that IR from the earth can result in a warmer atmosphere.

 

[Wuwei]

The whole average input from the sun is bullshit...you are modeling a flat earth that does not rotate and exists in perpetual twilight 4 times further away from the sun than we are and pretending that it is analogous to where we actually live. It is that bullshit model that is the basis of the whole scam...

The average 162 W/m^2 is a number that comes from easily measurable data.

What do you think the average input from the sun is if not 162?

 

[IanC]

The whole average input from the sun is bullshit...you are modeling a flat earth that does not rotate and exists in perpetual twilight 4 times further away from the sun than we are and pretending that it is analogous to where we actually live. It is that bullshit model that is the basis of the whole scam...

The average 162 W/m^2 is a number that comes from easily measurable data.

What do you think the average input from the sun is if not 162?

I think the average should only include total solar minus albedo. 340-100=240.

The energy absorbed by the atmosphere is still connected to the surface via conduction.

That still leaves a considerable deficit at the surface to be explained. Even more if you include the 100 being moved into the atmosphere by thermals and the water cycle.

 

[Wuwei]

The whole average input from the sun is bullshit...you are modeling a flat earth that does not rotate and exists in perpetual twilight 4 times further away from the sun than we are and pretending that it is analogous to where we actually live. It is that bullshit model that is the basis of the whole scam...

The average 162 W/m^2 is a number that comes from easily measurable data.

What do you think the average input from the sun is if not 162?

I think the average should only include total solar minus albedo. 340-100=240.

The energy absorbed by the atmosphere is still connected to the surface via conduction.

That still leaves a considerable deficit at the surface to be explained. Even more if you include the 100 being moved into the atmosphere by thermals and the water cycle.

I was using the number from Trenberth's diagram. I won't argue the point. The number depends on cloud cover etc, as you say. I'm sure there are a lot of estimates that differ from Trenberth's.

 

[polarbear]

Both of you (Ian-Wuw) are obviously confused.
Solar irradiance - Wikipedia
Average annual solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth's atmosphere is roughly 1361 W/m2.[24] The Sun's rays are attenuated as they pass through the atmosphere, leaving maximum normal surface irradiance at approximately 1000 W /m2 at sea level on a clear day. When 1361 W/m2 is arriving above the atmosphere (when the sun is at the zenith in a cloudless sky), direct sun is about 1050 W/m2, and global radiation on a horizontal surface at ground level is about 1120 W/m2.[25] The latter figure includes radiation scattered or reemitted by atmosphere and surroundings.

The 1360 Watts/m^2 is the integral of the Watts\m^2\nanometer of the yellow portion (top of atmosphere)
and of the 1360 Watts/m^2 only 1050 Watts/m^2 make it to the surface.
The 1360 value for m^2 is the steradian and they converted that to a flat surface m^2 equivalent and averaged it for a horizontal surface as it would be at zenith.
What matters is that only 77 % makes it through the atmosphere going from the top down to the surface.
All the arguments are what happens at 15 micrometers which would be 15 000 nanometers,
Instead of 23 % absorption the absorption at that wavelength is 100% were it not for the CO2.

The CO2 cuts both ways ! The warmers choose to look only at the amount of energy it blocks from radiating up and out and for good reason have no interest how much energy coming from the sun between 14 and 16 micrometers is blocked from heating the surface due to CO2.
The spectral radiance for 6000 deg K is 0.902 Watts/(sr nm m^2) ..down dwelling and blocked.
And for 300 K 0.0066 Watts/(sr nm m^2) blocked from radiating up.
The amount which is blocked going down dwarfs the portion which is blocked from going up at the spectral band from 14 to 16 micrometers and that`s why the only temperature that increases with CO2 is that in the computer models and not the real world.
Have a nice day!

 

[Billy_Bob]

The fact is ian, that IR does not warm the air, so the fact that is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses means nothing with regard to the temperature.

You think IR does not warm the air? Then which of these do you think are false?

1. IR strikes and excites CO2.
2. CO2 transfers excitation energy to an air molecule via conduction.

CO2 does not warm so your conduction theory is wrong. The energy residency time of CO2 is less than 0.002ns Thus the energy does not reside in the molecule to warm it. It is expelled almost immediately. This is why they were counting on water vapor to warm faster and hold the energy that it can not trap.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fact is ian, that IR does not warm the air, so the fact that is absorbed by CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses means nothing with regard to the temperature.

You think IR does not warm the air? Then which of these do you think are false?

1. IR strikes and excites CO2.
2. CO2 transfers excitation energy to an air molecule via conduction.

CO2 does not warm so your conduction theory is wrong. The energy residency time of CO2 is less than 0.002ns Thus the energy does not reside in the molecule to warm it. It is expelled almost immediately. This is why they were counting on water vapor to warm faster and hold the energy that it can not trap.

The energy residency time of CO2 is less than 0.002ns Thus the energy does not reside in the molecule to warm it. It is expelled almost immediately.

Where does it go next?

 

[Wuwei]

Both of you (Ian-Wuw) are obviously confused.

....... of the 1360 Watts/m^2 only 1050 Watts/m^2 make it to the surface.
The 1360 value for m^2 is the steradian and they converted that to a flat surface m^2 equivalent and averaged it for a horizontal surface as it would be at zenith.

I don't think we are obviously confused.

The value you give of 1050 W/m^2 is for the zenith, as you say, or at noon at the equator. The whole earth is not seeing noon. The average W/m^2 is given by the total sun's watts hitting the earth divided by the area of the entire earth.

The dark side is not receiving any radiation, so that is equivalent to dividing the radiation by 2. Secondly, because of Lambert's cosine law, the parts of the earth near the poles or east and west of the zenith receive less radiation than the zenith. If you integrate over the exposed surface to the sun using the cosine law, you drop the average by another factor of 2.

So a total drop of a factor of 4 from your 1050 is 262 W/m^2. That is more in line with IanC's value.

 

[SSDD]

There are two 'modes' of energy transfer. I think of them as ''passive' or 'active'.

Doesn't matter...energy can not spontaneously move from cool to warm.