Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

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

I have no bizarre interpretation...I am simply stating what the equation says...you on the other hand are interpreting it to be describing net energy flow when it clearly is not...and you will go so far as to perform perfectly shitty math by pointlessly applying the distributive property to a reduced equation as if that would change the physical reality that the first equation already described...you are the one who is interpreting and altering equations in an attempt to make your magic real ian..not me. I am satisfied with what the equation says and feel no need to interpret anything.

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

It escapes directly to space anyway ian...if it passes through the CO2 molecule without being lost via collision, it goes on to space in essentially the same amount of time...that being, the speed of light...if it is radiated, it is radiated towards a cooler area...not back towards the ground.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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...

Of course it does..

Says no one but you. As illustrated by your failure to post scientists who agree.
No one says one way flow but you. Weird.

it says that the output of the radiator is dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings

No one says matter has a dimmer switch. Except you. Weird.

been through that till it is pointless to go though it further...CMB was first detected via a resonant radio frequency...

Of course. The radio receiver detected a signal that didn't hit the receiver.
One of your stranger solo theories. And that's saying a lot.
Anyone else ever mention "resonant radio frequency" when discussing CMB?

if you want to detect the actual CMB IR radiation, you must have an instrument cooled to less than 2.75K.

Ahhh....the old, "If I can't detect something, it doesn't exist"

Almost as good as "the waves don't travel toward the surface unless an instrument is cooled, then, suddenly, magically, the emitter, as much as light years away, knows the waves can now travel toward the instrument", even though the violations of causality are mind-blowing.

 

[IanC]

It escapes directly to space anyway ian...if it passes through the CO2 molecule without being lost via collision, it goes on to space in essentially the same amount of time...that being, the speed of light...if it is radiated, it is radiated towards a cooler area...not back towards the ground.

You say the surface can only emit the amount of radiation commensurate with the temperature of the receiving object.

For radiation that is simply transmitted through the atmosphere without interacting, that is the temperature of space. Full production leaving at the speed of light.

For radiation that is absorbed by CO2 within the first few metres of the surface, the temperature difference is only a few degrees. Very little radiation is produced. That small amount is held in the CO2 molecules for a fraction of a second before it is passed along to the next CO2 molecule, but the higher molecule is cooler so less radiation is produced. This continues on, step after step, until the last CO2 finally emits into space and the energy is lost.

How many steps? The mean free path at STP is about 2 metres, the density goes down as the height increases so let's assume every step doubles. The emission height for CO2 is about 10 kilometres. About 13 doublings. I have seen various estimates for how long a CO2 hold on to the photon before it emits, from a full second to a hundredth of a second. So let's say the step by step journey takes about a second plus the actual time to cover 10km at 300,000km/sec.

 

[SSDD]

You say the surface can only emit the amount of radiation commensurate with the temperature of the receiving object.

When did I ever say that ian...you build these elaborate and quite ridiculous arguments in response to things I never said...I have said that energy moves from warm to cool....nothing more...nothing less.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

LOL

If this were the case the molecule would have to warm and CO2 does not. It is incapable of warming as the energy is immediately released and does not reside long enough to warm it.

Conduction from other warmer molecules, in collision, is how CO2 warms itself. IE: Why there is no hot spot in the troposphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

LOL

If this were the case the molecule would have to warm and CO2 does not. It is incapable of warming as the energy is immediately released and does not reside long enough to warm it.

Conduction from other warmer molecules, in collision, is how CO2 warms itself. IE: Why there is no hot spot in the troposphere.

If this were the case the molecule would have to warm and CO2 does not.

CO2 doesn't warm when it absorbs IR? Does that make it unique?
Does that mean all CO2 is at absolute zero?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

LOL

If this were the case the molecule would have to warm and CO2 does not. It is incapable of warming as the energy is immediately released and does not reside long enough to warm it.

Conduction from other warmer molecules, in collision, is how CO2 warms itself. IE: Why there is no hot spot in the troposphere.

If this were the case the molecule would have to warm and CO2 does not.

CO2 doesn't warm when it absorbs IR? Does that make it unique?
Does that mean all CO2 is at absolute zero?

CO2 will have a net zero change in its physical attribute. The energy does not reside long enough to create change.

Also, you asked how a molecule can NOT absorb LWIR... Here is why certain molecules out of phase can not absorb LWIR. This is from a quantum mechanics class.

This is also why the covailant bonds (molecular magnetism) can cause a molecule to not receive photon energy and reflect it. Notably a colder object will vibrate less and have fewer dipole moments where energy can be received or released. Again, a reason that a colder object can not warm a warmer one. CO2 is almost constantly in a DPM (but not constant) and will not vibrate or stretch, which is why it can not hold energy. H2O is almost always in DPM but its torsional vibrations and streaching hold energy much longer than CO2.

Funny that you make silly claims about "Smart Photons" when it is actually the physical attributes of the matter, at its temperature, which are doing what you claim doesn't happen..

I don't expect anyone here to have even a basic grasp of the concepts on a quantum level.


Source

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

LOL

If this were the case the molecule would have to warm and CO2 does not. It is incapable of warming as the energy is immediately released and does not reside long enough to warm it.

Conduction from other warmer molecules, in collision, is how CO2 warms itself. IE: Why there is no hot spot in the troposphere.

If this were the case the molecule would have to warm and CO2 does not.

CO2 doesn't warm when it absorbs IR? Does that make it unique?
Does that mean all CO2 is at absolute zero?

CO2 will have a net zero change in its physical attribute. The energy does not reside long enough to create change.

Also, you asked how a molecule can NOT absorb LWIR... Here is why certain molecules out of phase can not absorb LWIR. This is from a quantum mechanics class.

View attachment 177009

This is also why the covailant bonds (molecular magnetism) can cause a molecule to not receive photon energy and reflect it. Notably a colder object will vibrate less and have fewer dipole moments where energy can be received or released. Again, a reason that a colder object can not warm a warmer one. CO2 is almost constantly in a DPM (but not constant) and will not vibrate or stretch, which is why it can not hold energy. H2O is almost always in DPM but its torsional vibrations and streaching hold energy much longer than CO2.

View attachment 177010

Funny that you make silly claims about "Smart Photons" when it is actually the physical attributes of the matter, at its temperature, which are doing what you claim doesn't happen..

I don't expect anyone here to have even a basic grasp of the concepts on a quantum level.


Source

CO2 will have a net zero change in its physical attribute.

So why isn't it all dry ice?

The energy does not reside long enough to create change.

That makes no sense. For however long it "resides" it caused change.

Also, you asked how a molecule can NOT absorb LWIR.

No I didn't. Go back and read my post.

And plenty of molecules don't absorb LWIR.

This is also why the covailant bonds (molecular magnetism) can cause a molecule to not receive photon energy

The photon is the "wrong magnetic pole" to be absorbed by warmer matter? Link?

Again, a reason that a colder object can not warm a warmer one.

Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?

Funny that you make silly claims about "Smart Photons"

SSDD makes the silly claims, I merely point out their silliness.

when it is actually the physical attributes of the matter, at its temperature, which are doing what you claim doesn't happen..​

The physical attributes of 10 C matter are causing it to refuse to radiate toward 20 C matter?​

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

LOL

If this were the case the molecule would have to warm and CO2 does not. It is incapable of warming as the energy is immediately released and does not reside long enough to warm it.

Conduction from other warmer molecules, in collision, is how CO2 warms itself. IE: Why there is no hot spot in the troposphere.

If this were the case the molecule would have to warm and CO2 does not.

CO2 doesn't warm when it absorbs IR? Does that make it unique?
Does that mean all CO2 is at absolute zero?

CO2 will have a net zero change in its physical attribute. The energy does not reside long enough to create change.

Also, you asked how a molecule can NOT absorb LWIR... Here is why certain molecules out of phase can not absorb LWIR. This is from a quantum mechanics class.

View attachment 177009

This is also why the covailant bonds (molecular magnetism) can cause a molecule to not receive photon energy and reflect it. Notably a colder object will vibrate less and have fewer dipole moments where energy can be received or released. Again, a reason that a colder object can not warm a warmer one. CO2 is almost constantly in a DPM (but not constant) and will not vibrate or stretch, which is why it can not hold energy. H2O is almost always in DPM but its torsional vibrations and streaching hold energy much longer than CO2.

View attachment 177010

Funny that you make silly claims about "Smart Photons" when it is actually the physical attributes of the matter, at its temperature, which are doing what you claim doesn't happen..

I don't expect anyone here to have even a basic grasp of the concepts on a quantum level.


Source

CO2 will have a net zero change in its physical attribute.

So why isn't it all dry ice?

The energy does not reside long enough to create change.

That makes no sense. For however long it "resides" it caused change.

Also, you asked how a molecule can NOT absorb LWIR.

No I didn't. Go back and read my post.

And plenty of molecules don't absorb LWIR.

This is also why the covailant bonds (molecular magnetism) can cause a molecule to not receive photon energy

The photon is the "wrong magnetic pole" to be absorbed by warmer matter? Link?

Again, a reason that a colder object can not warm a warmer one.

Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?

Funny that you make silly claims about "Smart Photons"

SSDD makes the silly claims, I merely point out their silliness.

when it is actually the physical attributes of the matter, at its temperature, which are doing what you claim doesn't happen..

The physical attributes of 10 C matter are causing it to refuse to radiate toward 20 C matter?​

"So why isn't it all dry ice?"

Because LWIR is not the only thing it comes in contact with..

"That makes no sense. For however long it "resides" it caused change."

Your conflating 'change' with energy usage.. In the case of CO2 energy in = energy out Thus the net change is zero..

"The photon is the "wrong magnetic pole" to be absorbed by warmer matter?"

Its not the pole, its the sate of the molecule, outside of DPM the molecule can not receive or emit the energy.

"The physical attributes of 10 C matter are causing it to refuse to radiate toward 20 C matter?"

I did not say it would not radiate towards, what I did say is the energy contained and frequency with which it radiates is so low as to not have any influence.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 doesn't warm when it absorbs IR? Does that make it unique?
Does that mean all CO2 is at absolute zero?

Of course it doesn't.....neither do any of the other so called greenhouse gasses except for water vapor...that is why I routinely ask for some actual evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...got any? Of course you don't because there is no such evidence because absorption and emission do not equal warming.

 

[SSDD]

Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?

Typical that you would ask, rather than answer the question for yourself. Refer to the SB equation for an object radiating into something other than a vacuum. Here....let me help you.

Lets make the radiator 1 square meter with an emissivity of 1 for simplicity's sake and lets make the temperature of the radiator 75F

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts

So clearly, as the background temperature drops, the amount of energy the radiator emits increases, and conversely, as the background temperature increases, the amount of energy that the radiator emits decreases till such time as the temperature of the background and the emitter are the same and the amount of energy the radiator is emitting is zero.

 

[SSDD]

Funny that you make silly claims about "Smart Photons" when it is actually the physical attributes of the matter, at its temperature, which are doing what you claim doesn't happen..

Apparently these guys believe that objects must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics...they don't seem to grasp that they obey the laws of physics because there is no option....obeying the laws of physics is not an option...the laws of physics don't dictate what objects must do, the laws of physics simply describe what is going to happen every single time because of the nature of the objects themselves. if their nature were different, then they would behave differently and the laws of physics would predict that behavior as well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

LOL

If this were the case the molecule would have to warm and CO2 does not. It is incapable of warming as the energy is immediately released and does not reside long enough to warm it.

Conduction from other warmer molecules, in collision, is how CO2 warms itself. IE: Why there is no hot spot in the troposphere.

If this were the case the molecule would have to warm and CO2 does not.

CO2 doesn't warm when it absorbs IR? Does that make it unique?
Does that mean all CO2 is at absolute zero?

CO2 will have a net zero change in its physical attribute. The energy does not reside long enough to create change.

Also, you asked how a molecule can NOT absorb LWIR... Here is why certain molecules out of phase can not absorb LWIR. This is from a quantum mechanics class.

View attachment 177009

This is also why the covailant bonds (molecular magnetism) can cause a molecule to not receive photon energy and reflect it. Notably a colder object will vibrate less and have fewer dipole moments where energy can be received or released. Again, a reason that a colder object can not warm a warmer one. CO2 is almost constantly in a DPM (but not constant) and will not vibrate or stretch, which is why it can not hold energy. H2O is almost always in DPM but its torsional vibrations and streaching hold energy much longer than CO2.

View attachment 177010

Funny that you make silly claims about "Smart Photons" when it is actually the physical attributes of the matter, at its temperature, which are doing what you claim doesn't happen..

I don't expect anyone here to have even a basic grasp of the concepts on a quantum level.


Source

CO2 will have a net zero change in its physical attribute.

So why isn't it all dry ice?

The energy does not reside long enough to create change.

That makes no sense. For however long it "resides" it caused change.

Also, you asked how a molecule can NOT absorb LWIR.

No I didn't. Go back and read my post.

And plenty of molecules don't absorb LWIR.

This is also why the covailant bonds (molecular magnetism) can cause a molecule to not receive photon energy

The photon is the "wrong magnetic pole" to be absorbed by warmer matter? Link?

Again, a reason that a colder object can not warm a warmer one.

Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?

Funny that you make silly claims about "Smart Photons"

SSDD makes the silly claims, I merely point out their silliness.

when it is actually the physical attributes of the matter, at its temperature, which are doing what you claim doesn't happen..

The physical attributes of 10 C matter are causing it to refuse to radiate toward 20 C matter?​

"So why isn't it all dry ice?"

Because LWIR is not the only thing it comes in contact with..

"That makes no sense. For however long it "resides" it caused change."

Your conflating 'change' with energy usage.. In the case of CO2 energy in = energy out Thus the net change is zero..

"The photon is the "wrong magnetic pole" to be absorbed by warmer matter?"

Its not the pole, its the sate of the molecule, outside of DPM the molecule can not receive or emit the energy.

"The physical attributes of 10 C matter are causing it to refuse to radiate toward 20 C matter?"

I did not say it would not radiate towards, what I did say is the energy contained and frequency with which it radiates is so low as to not have any influence.

Because LWIR is not the only thing it comes in contact with..

So much for your claim that it can't "hold onto energy".

Your conflating 'change' with energy usage..

Nope.

I did not say it would not radiate towards

Is this your only area of disagreement with SSDD?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 doesn't warm when it absorbs IR? Does that make it unique?
Does that mean all CO2 is at absolute zero?

Of course it doesn't.....neither do any of the other so called greenhouse gasses except for water vapor...that is why I routinely ask for some actual evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...got any? Of course you don't because there is no such evidence because absorption and emission do not equal warming.

Of course it doesn't.

So dry ice.....of course.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?

Typical that you would ask, rather than answer the question for yourself. Refer to the SB equation for an object radiating into something other than a vacuum. Here....let me help you.

Lets make the radiator 1 square meter with an emissivity of 1 for simplicity's sake and lets make the temperature of the radiator 75F

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts

So clearly, as the background temperature drops, the amount of energy the radiator emits increases, and conversely, as the background temperature increases, the amount of energy that the radiator emits decreases till such time as the temperature of the background and the emitter are the same and the amount of energy the radiator is emitting is zero.

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts

Dimmer switch!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Funny that you make silly claims about "Smart Photons" when it is actually the physical attributes of the matter, at its temperature, which are doing what you claim doesn't happen..

Apparently these guys believe that objects must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics...they don't seem to grasp that they obey the laws of physics because there is no option....obeying the laws of physics is not an option...the laws of physics don't dictate what objects must do, the laws of physics simply describe what is going to happen every single time because of the nature of the objects themselves. if their nature were different, then they would behave differently and the laws of physics would predict that behavior as well.

Apparently these guys believe that objects must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics...

SB and the 2nd Law don't require smart objects, your misinterpretation does.......

 

[IanC]

Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?

Typical that you would ask, rather than answer the question for yourself. Refer to the SB equation for an object radiating into something other than a vacuum. Here....let me help you.

Lets make the radiator 1 square meter with an emissivity of 1 for simplicity's sake and lets make the temperature of the radiator 75F

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts

So clearly, as the background temperature drops, the amount of energy the radiator emits increases, and conversely, as the background temperature increases, the amount of energy that the radiator emits decreases till such time as the temperature of the background and the emitter are the same and the amount of energy the radiator is emitting is zero.

Power is the net radiation per the defined area, in that equation. The distributive law makes it simple to calculate the gross radiation coming from each object. Subtracting one from the other gives the net amount.

 

[IanC]

Of course you don't because there is no such evidence because absorption and emission do not equal warming

Absorption and emission do not equal cooling. Is that what you are trying to say? Hahahaha.

According to your logic GHGs can neither warm nor cool the atmosphere. Utter nonsense.

And you still haven't explained how water vapour can absorb and retain radiation energy in a way that CO2 cannot.

 

[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.

Why do you say that? Would you care to explain?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Can a colder object cause a warmer object to cool more slowly?

Typical that you would ask, rather than answer the question for yourself. Refer to the SB equation for an object radiating into something other than a vacuum. Here....let me help you.

Lets make the radiator 1 square meter with an emissivity of 1 for simplicity's sake and lets make the temperature of the radiator 75F

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts

So clearly, as the background temperature drops, the amount of energy the radiator emits increases, and conversely, as the background temperature increases, the amount of energy that the radiator emits decreases till such time as the temperature of the background and the emitter are the same and the amount of energy the radiator is emitting is zero.

If it is radiating into a background that is 73F then P = 65.1 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 45F then P = 92.06 watts
If it is radiating into a background that is 25F then P = 107.46 watts

Dimmer switch!!!

Its called rate of release in comparison with its surroundings. The greater the differential the faster the release..