Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[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?

Another molecule and it has only a 4/10,000,000 of being absorbed by another CO2 molecule. Which means it has to hit a molecule that has a longer residency time, like water vapor, which actually warms it slightly and rises as it now cools before it is released to space at a much longer wave length that CO2 is helpless to prevent escape.

Another molecule and it has only a 4/10,000,000 of being absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

You might want to recheck your math.
Any links you can provide explaining your "covailent bond" theory of photon repulsion would be appreciated.

 

[polarbear]

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.

You missed the whole point (as usual). Who cares what the "average" is when including the dark side and the polar regions. If you care so much about it in order to correct the models then you should correct the figures for the up going IR watts/m^2 for these regions also. But no...not only do the warmers prefer to conflate it all as an average they also conflate the entire spectral band for the so called average temperature, because it conveniently conceals the fact that the IR outside the 14 to 16 micrometer band does not matter because none of that is specific to ppm CO2. You just don`t like the fact that the CO2 blocks way more down dwelling heat in that window as preventing heat from radiating up. But none of that will matter to the likes of you because none of you will ever concede that the models are wrong. By now even people least interested in math have noticed that all the models always erred on the high side. And since there is no desire to correct this flaw degrades the whole thing to nothing more than a hoax.

 

[Wuwei]

You missed the whole point (as usual). Who cares what the "average" is when including the dark side and the polar regions. If you care so much about it in order to correct the models then you should correct the figures for the up going IR watts/m^2 for these regions also. But no...not only do the warmers prefer to conflate it all as an average they also conflate the entire spectral band for the so called average temperature, because it conveniently conceals the fact that the IR outside the 14 to 16 micrometer band does not matter because none of that is specific to ppm CO2. You just don`t like the fact that the CO2 blocks way more down dwelling heat in that window as preventing heat from radiating up. But none of that will matter to the likes of you because none of you will ever concede that the models are wrong. By now even people least interested in math have noticed that all the models always erred on the high side. And since there is no desire to correct this flaw degrades the whole thing to nothing more than a hoax.

You missed the whole point. A model like Trenberth's is not meant to predict anything. It is not meant to model differences between night and day; or differences between equatorial and arctic regions.

It is an energy budget. That's all. What are the gross energy flows - the sun input, conduction, albedo reflections, back radiation, etc. Some numbers are accurate, but most are educated guesses.

You should not be aiming your wrath at me. I am not a chicken little warmer and I think the dynamics of the atmosphere are too complex to model with any degree of accuracy for the present, let alone the future. I simply don't like the fantasy science from people like SSDD and his minions. I take no stance about what the future climate holds. If deniers want to deny, they should at least stick to reality. Aim your wrath at someone else.

 

[SSDD]

And it is a piss poor energy budget...it is upon that cartoon that the models are based...and the primary reason the models have failed so spectacularly...when you base a physical model upon a terribly flawed understanding of physics, failure is the only outcome and the climate models have provided failure in spades.

 

[Wuwei]

...when you base a physical model upon a terribly flawed understanding of physics, failure is the only outcome...

That is exactly your problem.

 

[SSDD]

...when you base a physical model upon a terribly flawed understanding of physics, failure is the only outcome...

That is exactly your problem.

Sorry guy...it isn't me making fundamental errors at every turn..You don't seem to grasp the ramifications of conduction being the main energy pathway to the upper atmosphere...conduction being a slower, more cumbersome means of energy transport than radiation is responsible for warming...radiation, on the other hand, moves energy at the speed of light...more radiative gasses like CO2 in the atmosphere results in more energy being transported to the upper atmosphere via radiation...being the more rapid means of energy movement, the result would be a cooler atmosphere...more radiative gasses, more energy moving via radiation as opposed to conduction....cooler...not warmer.

It isn't me who believes that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, you are reducing its ability to shed energy.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...it isn't me making fundamental errors at every turn..You don't seem to grasp the ramifications of conduction being the main energy pathway to the upper atmosphere...conduction being a slower, more cumbersome means of energy transport than radiation is responsible for warming...radiation, on the other hand, moves energy at the speed of light...more radiative gasses like CO2 in the atmosphere results in more energy being transported to the upper atmosphere via radiation...being the more rapid means of energy movement, the result would be a cooler atmosphere...more radiative gasses, more energy moving via radiation as opposed to conduction....cooler...not warmer.

It isn't me who believes that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, you are reducing its ability to shed energy.

I was referring to your inability to understand the basics of radiation physics.

 

[IanC]

It isn't me who believes that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, you are reducing its ability to shed energy.

Increasing the emmisivity of the atmosphere allows it to radiate energy to space but it also allows it to absorb energy from the surface.

The surface is warmer than the air that radiates to space. Therefore more energy is gained than expelled, resulting in warming.

 

[IanC]

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.

Half of the terrestrial day sees the surface gaining energy from an outside source. It is not acting 'spontaneously' during that period.

 

[SSDD]

I was referring to your inability to understand the basics of radiation physics.

I understand radiative physics just fine...I don't accept your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...You appear to be saying that because I don't have the same faith in the unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable as you...then I just don't understand... I understand that you believe that people who don't share your faith must be wrong...is that about the size of it?

 

[SSDD]

It isn't me who believes that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, you are reducing its ability to shed energy.

Increasing the emmisivity of the atmosphere allows it to radiate energy to space but it also allows it to absorb energy from the surface.

It absorbs and emits...IR does not warm the air...the only thing in the air that it can warm is water vapor.

 

[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.

Half of the terrestrial day sees the surface gaining energy from an outside source. It is not acting 'spontaneously' during that period.

Of course it is...what work do you think is being done to make the surface emit IR? What work is being done to force what smalll amount of energy emitted as IR by so called greenhouse gasses move towards the warmer surface? You can move energy from cool to warm..but you have to do work to make it happen...what work is being done to make it happen?

 

[IanC]

It isn't me who believes that by increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, you are reducing its ability to shed energy.

Increasing the emmisivity of the atmosphere allows it to radiate energy to space but it also allows it to absorb energy from the surface.

It absorbs and emits...IR does not warm the air...the only thing in the air that it can warm is water vapor.

In what way is the absorption of IR different in water vapour than CO2?

How does water vapour warm but CO2 doesn't. Describe the mechanism.

 

[IanC]

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.

Half of the terrestrial day sees the surface gaining energy from an outside source. It is not acting 'spontaneously' during that period.

Of course it is...what work do you think is being done to make the surface emit IR? What work is being done to force what smalll amount of energy emitted as IR by so called greenhouse gasses move towards the warmer surface? You can move energy from cool to warm..but you have to do work to make it happen...what work is being done to make it happen?

I don't think the transfer of energy by radiation is classified as 'work'.

Your bizarre interpretation of the S-B equation says the amount of radiation produced by the warm object is controlled by the temperature of the cool object that is absorbing it.

The temperature difference between the surface and the CO2 molecules a few metres away is small. Therefore the amount of 15 micron radiation will be small. Much smaller than if the radiation was transmitted directly to the muchly colder temperature of space.

How do you reconcile the large difference in the amount of energy lost from the surface?

The temperature of the surface is a function of both the amount of surface input from the Sun minus the surface output of IR. If you reduce the 15 micron output from the surface, how can it not cause surface to warm to a higher temperature when the Sun is shining on it?

 

[SSDD]

Your bizarre interpretation of the S-B equation says the amount of radiation produced by the warm object is controlled by the temperature of the cool object that is absorbing it.

Nothing "bizarre" about it ian...that is what the equation describing the exchange of energy outside a vacuum states.

T^4 being the temperature of the radiator Tc^4 being the temperature of its surroundings. Alter the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings and P (the amount of radiation being emitted) changes. Bizarre, and just plain incapable of reading an equation is believing that the equation says anything else.

You claim it describes net energy flow but there is no expression there from which to derive net energy flow...you claim net energy flow is real, but can't seem to show any actual evidence of such an energy flow...you believe that energy can move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state even though the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that it can't. Your beliefs are bizarre ian.

Your hypothesis has failed on its face...why do you continue to defend it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your bizarre interpretation of the S-B equation says the amount of radiation produced by the warm object is controlled by the temperature of the cool object that is absorbing it.

Nothing "bizarre" about it ian...that is what the equation describing the exchange of energy outside a vacuum states.

T^4 being the temperature of the radiator Tc^4 being the temperature of its surroundings. Alter the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings and P (the amount of radiation being emitted) changes. Bizarre, and just plain incapable of reading an equation is believing that the equation says anything else.

You claim it describes net energy flow but there is no expression there from which to derive net energy flow...you claim net energy flow is real, but can't seem to show any actual evidence of such an energy flow...you believe that energy can move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state even though the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that it can't. Your beliefs are bizarre ian.

Your hypothesis has failed on its face...why do you continue to defend it?

You ever provide any sources that explicitly back up your "one-way flow" theory?
It feels like you've been making that claim for years......and you're still alone. Weird.

 

[SSDD]

Your bizarre interpretation of the S-B equation says the amount of radiation produced by the warm object is controlled by the temperature of the cool object that is absorbing it.

Nothing "bizarre" about it ian...that is what the equation describing the exchange of energy outside a vacuum states.

T^4 being the temperature of the radiator Tc^4 being the temperature of its surroundings. Alter the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings and P (the amount of radiation being emitted) changes. Bizarre, and just plain incapable of reading an equation is believing that the equation says anything else.

You claim it describes net energy flow but there is no expression there from which to derive net energy flow...you claim net energy flow is real, but can't seem to show any actual evidence of such an energy flow...you believe that energy can move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state even though the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that it can't. Your beliefs are bizarre ian.

Your hypothesis has failed on its face...why do you continue to defend it?

You ever provide any sources that explicitly back up your "one-way flow" theory?
It feels like you've been making that claim for years......and you're still alone. Weird.

Right there...to bad you can't read an equation....then there is every observation and measurement ever made...but do feel free to provide an observed, measured example of two way energy flow if you like...

we both know no such example will be forthcoming since there are none....but you will go to the corona of the sun which remains a mystery but the work required to move the energy from the surface to the corona is becoming understood....spontaneous is the key word...do try and remember.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your bizarre interpretation of the S-B equation says the amount of radiation produced by the warm object is controlled by the temperature of the cool object that is absorbing it.

Nothing "bizarre" about it ian...that is what the equation describing the exchange of energy outside a vacuum states.

T^4 being the temperature of the radiator Tc^4 being the temperature of its surroundings. Alter the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings and P (the amount of radiation being emitted) changes. Bizarre, and just plain incapable of reading an equation is believing that the equation says anything else.

You claim it describes net energy flow but there is no expression there from which to derive net energy flow...you claim net energy flow is real, but can't seem to show any actual evidence of such an energy flow...you believe that energy can move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state even though the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that it can't. Your beliefs are bizarre ian.

Your hypothesis has failed on its face...why do you continue to defend it?

You ever provide any sources that explicitly back up your "one-way flow" theory?
It feels like you've been making that claim for years......and you're still alone. Weird.

Right there...to bad you can't read an equation....then there is every observation and measurement ever made...but do feel free to provide an observed, measured example of two way energy flow if you like...

we both know no such example will be forthcoming since there are none....but you will go to the corona of the sun which remains a mystery but the work required to move the energy from the surface to the corona is becoming understood....spontaneous is the key word...do try and remember.

Right there...to bad you can't read an equation....

I can read an equation. The equation doesn't say one way flow.
Neither does anything else. Your faith is touching, and apparently singular. Weird.

then there is every observation and measurement ever made...

Of course there have been many examples of 2 way flow provided. Flow of radiation from cooler to warmer.
CMB is one of the most famous. How did that "cool energy" get permission to flow toward our hot atmosphere
in order to hit the radio telescope used by Penzias and Wilson?

we both know no such example will be forthcoming since there are none

Still no back up for your claim, since there is none.

but you will go to the corona of the sun which remains a mystery

I'm not interested in the "mystery of the corona".
I am interested in the non-spontaneous flow from the cool surface.
Still waiting for your explanation.

but the work required to move the energy from the surface to the corona is becoming understood

By all means, share your understanding.

 

[IanC]

Your bizarre interpretation of the S-B equation says the amount of radiation produced by the warm object is controlled by the temperature of the cool object that is absorbing it.

Nothing "bizarre" about it ian...that is what the equation describing the exchange of energy outside a vacuum states.

T^4 being the temperature of the radiator Tc^4 being the temperature of its surroundings. Alter the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings and P (the amount of radiation being emitted) changes. Bizarre, and just plain incapable of reading an equation is believing that the equation says anything else.

You claim it describes net energy flow but there is no expression there from which to derive net energy flow...you claim net energy flow is real, but can't seem to show any actual evidence of such an energy flow...you believe that energy can move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state even though the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that it can't. Your beliefs are bizarre ian.

Your hypothesis has failed on its face...why do you continue to defend it?

You are missing the point. I am going along with your bizarre interpretation and showing the implications.

Because the surface 15 micron radiation is controlled by the temperature of the CO2 that is absorbing it, very little is produced.

What is the difference in temperature between the surface and the temperature of the air where the exchange takes place in the first few metres? A few degrees?

If CO2 wasn't there then the radiation would directly escape to space at almost full power.

Hey, I'm just trying to play by your rules. And your rules say CO2 makes a huge difference in how much 15 micron energy the surface can produce, and cool with.

 

[SSDD]

Right there...to bad you can't read an equation....

I can read an equation. The equation doesn't say one way flow.
Neither does anything else. Your faith is touching, and apparently singular. Weird.

Of course it does...it says that the output of the radiator is dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....which expression in that equation do you think describes the output of the surroundings to the radiator relative to the energy being received from the radiator?

then there is every observation and measurement ever made...

Of course there have been many examples of 2 way flow provided. Flow of radiation from cooler to warmer.
CMB is one of the most famous. How did that "cool energy" get permission to flow toward our hot atmosphere
in order to hit the radio telescope used by Penzias and Wilson?

been through that till it is pointless to go though it further...CMB was first detected via a resonant radio frequency...if you want to detect the actual CMB IR radiation, you must have an instrument cooled to less than 2.75K...