seven stats on climate change

[RealDave]

that's how the only successful economic system in the history of humanity works.

Russia was one of the least developed, poorest countries on the planet in 1917. 72 years later it was one of two global superpowers in spite of participating in two world wars fought in its homeland and a revolution. Which economic system gets the credit, socialism or capitalism?

Russia and China are successful today because they allowed capitalism to operate within their economic systems. But I wonder why we don't see any americans moving to Russia or China. Can you explain that since you think they are such wonderful places to live?

There are roghly 50 thousand Americans living in Moscow, 25 thousand in Sanct-Peterburg and a small number in other cities. There are roughly 100 thousands of american citisens living in China. But, yes, we don't know how many of them are ethnic Russians and Chines.

My bet is that in both cases, the residents are professionals living far above the average standard of living, or on religious, medical, or humanitarian missions. I doubt that you would find many americans living at the average standard of living...

1.5 million living in Mexico. Their dollars go further, healthcare is cheaper. Many because they can no longer afford to live here.

 

[SSDD]

You take data & apply your own incorrect analysis.

So you say....but I don't see you demonstrating in any way at all that I am wrong...you provided your opinion pieces and I went to the published literature and found the data that proved your opinion pieces wrong.

You think a mewling, pewling, whining, sobbing claim that I am wrong equals some sort of actual rebuttal? No wonder you have been so thoroughly fooled. I can't believe that even someone like you would think that was any sort of response at all. You may as well have dodged rather than offer up that whining reply..

I ain't going to let uneducated, stupid people ruin by children's future.

You are the uneducated stupid people who are going to ruin the children's future...

My side is winning this argument.

Sorry, but it isn't...your side can't even come up with a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...that isn't winning..

 

[SSDD]

that's how the only successful economic system in the history of humanity works.

Russia was one of the least developed, poorest countries on the planet in 1917. 72 years later it was one of two global superpowers in spite of participating in two world wars fought in its homeland and a revolution. Which economic system gets the credit, socialism or capitalism?

Russia and China are successful today because they allowed capitalism to operate within their economic systems. But I wonder why we don't see any americans moving to Russia or China. Can you explain that since you think they are such wonderful places to live?

There are roghly 50 thousand Americans living in Moscow, 25 thousand in Sanct-Peterburg and a small number in other cities. There are roughly 100 thousands of american citisens living in China. But, yes, we don't know how many of them are ethnic Russians and Chines.

My bet is that in both cases, the residents are professionals living far above the average standard of living, or on religious, medical, or humanitarian missions. I doubt that you would find many americans living at the average standard of living...

1.5 million living in Mexico. Their dollars go further, healthcare is cheaper. Many because they can no longer afford to live here.

And they don't live at the average standard of living....they go to mexico because under that depressed socioeconomic system, they can live like kings...and if they have serious health issues, they come back here for treatment....

 

[RealDave]

Provide proof of this claim..

Your Wiki cut and paste has no link to any scientific paper..

What Wiki "cut and paste" are you referring to?

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming

"The radiative effect of carbon dioxide has also been observed1..."

"1-Feldman et al (2015) Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature"

So go to that link and bring back some observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...the paper provides some data which doesn't prove anything and then hangs a great big assumption on it and then pretends that it does...that is typical of climate pseudoscience...it is like most of what you have provided thus far...a bit of data that proves nothing and a great big assumption that proves even less.

See,. here is a prime example of your dishonesty (stupidity).

We measure CO2 concentrations. Are you claiming we can't?

WE compare them with CO2 concentrations of the past. Are you claiming we can not?

WE note that they have rapidly increased. Are you claiming they are not

We know made made emissions have been growing for decades.

We know the Earth removes CO2 from the Atmosphere along with naturally emitting CO2. The concentration is rising because more CO2 is being emitted than absorbed. Are you claiming that this is false?

No other sources of CO2 emissions have been identified as causes for these increases outside of man made emissions.

We know increased levels of CO2 => Increased greenhouse effect => warmer temperatures.

Those are facts. These have been proven to be true.

 

[RealDave]

Russia was one of the least developed, poorest countries on the planet in 1917. 72 years later it was one of two global superpowers in spite of participating in two world wars fought in its homeland and a revolution. Which economic system gets the credit, socialism or capitalism?

Russia and China are successful today because they allowed capitalism to operate within their economic systems. But I wonder why we don't see any americans moving to Russia or China. Can you explain that since you think they are such wonderful places to live?

There are roghly 50 thousand Americans living in Moscow, 25 thousand in Sanct-Peterburg and a small number in other cities. There are roughly 100 thousands of american citisens living in China. But, yes, we don't know how many of them are ethnic Russians and Chines.

My bet is that in both cases, the residents are professionals living far above the average standard of living, or on religious, medical, or humanitarian missions. I doubt that you would find many americans living at the average standard of living...

1.5 million living in Mexico. Their dollars go further, healthcare is cheaper. Many because they can no longer afford to live here.

And they don't live at the average standard of living....they go to mexico because under that depressed socioeconomic system, they can live like kings...and if they have serious health issues, they come back here for treatment....

But it proves your claim of only professions are living in other countries. These are not professions, humanitarians or religious missionaries. YOU were caught in as lie, just admit it & quit making excuses.

They do not live like kings, they just do better than they could here.

 

[SSDD]

See,. here is a prime example of your dishonesty (stupidity).

We measure CO2 concentrations. Are you claiming we can't?

Feel free to point out anywhere that I said we could not measure CO2 concentrations...

WE compare them with CO2 concentrations of the past. Are you claiming we can not?

Of course not...where did I ever say that? I did point out that prior to the onset of the present ice age, CO2 concentrations were more than twice what they are today..and I pointed out that since the 1800's there have been over 90,000 CHEMICAL ANALYSES of the CO2 concentration in the air which found CO2 over the past century to have been as high as 500ppm....

WE note that they have rapidly increased. Are you claiming they are not

Of course not...where are you getting this stuff. Do you ever actually read anything? Are you able to read all the words? I pointed out that small changes in temperature can have dramatic effects on the earth's own CO2 making machinery resulting in large increases of natural CO2 output or sharp decreases...We know from ice core data that large changes can happen in atmospheric CO2 in a very short period of time...and this is all before fossil fuels were being used..

We know made made emissions have been growing for decades.

Yes...but the are such a small part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, and the earth's on CO2 producing machinery that they aren't even enough to off set the natural variation from year to year. I provided peer reviewed published sceince already which demonstrated that empirically..

We know the Earth removes CO2 from the Atmosphere along with naturally emitting CO2. The concentration is rising because more CO2 is being emitted than absorbed. Are you claiming that this is false?

Not at all...we know that CO2 follows temperature changes...as the earth gets warmer, the earth's own CO2 making machinery kicks into a higher gear..warmer oceans outgas more CO2...insect life increases...as I pointed out, termites alone produce more CO2 than all of humanity....decomposition happens faster and more efficiently in warmer climates...all of these things cause the earth to produce more CO2...and that results in more CO2 in the atmosphere...that is how atmospheric CO2 got to be around 1000ppm at the time the present ice age began...as the earth cooled, the natural CO2 making machinery geared down and as a result, there was less CO2 in the atmosphere...there is always going to be lower concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere during cool periods..

No other sources of CO2 emissions have been identified as causes for these increases outside of man made emissions.

That is flatly untrue...we make gross estimates regarding natural sources of CO2 with very large margins of error because we really don't have a handle on how much CO2 the earth emits. Heck, we really don't have a handle on how much we produce..the margin of error for our own CO2 production is as large as the margin of error for natural CO2 production.

We make estimates regarding the amount of CO2 produced by animal respiration, but do you really think we know how much CO2 is produced by animals, microscopic organisms, and humans simply breathing? Do you really think that?

We make estimates of how much CO2 is produced by decomposition of organic matter...but again, the margin of error for that estimate is very large..we really have no idea how much CO2 is being produced by decomposition on the surface of the earth, much less below the surface and in the oceans...the amounts are nothing more than wild guesses which is why the margins of error are so large...

We make estimates of how much CO2 is released due to the weathering of carbonate rocks...but we really don't have any real idea...we make estimates with very large margins of error..and how much is produced in the oceans due to the break down of carbonate rocks and corals? A wild guess is as good as we can manage.

We can make a fair estimate on how much is produced by burning of fossil fuels based on variations in the stored supply, but even that has a fairly large margin of error because the estimate simply assumes the burning of fossil fuels..it really isn't able to account for all the ways in which it is burned and the varying amount of CO2 released by each sort of burning...Super high efficiency burning with filters which scrub CO2 from the exhaust is counted right along with a 1924 diesel tractor which is pumping out black smoke enough to choke a horse...

And how much is released by forest fires, and grass fires? Again, nothing more than a wild guess...with a very large margin of error.

Volcanic activity is the new kicker. In the past it was said that human CO2 dwarfs volcanic CO2...of course they were only counting 6 or 8 known active volcanoes on the surface, and it is true that we produce more CO2 than those. Underwater volcanic activity was not taken into account...and now even climate science admits that they have GROSSLY underestimated the amount of CO2 that is coming from the ocean floor. Hundreds of thousands of volcanic vents are spewing CO2 constantly from the ocean floor and we don't have the foggiest idea of how much the true amount actually is.

So in short, we have a long way to go before we can even begin to have any sort of real handle on how much CO2 the earth produces and how much it varies from year to year..

We know increased levels of CO2 => Increased greenhouse effect => warmer temperatures.

No...we know no such thing...but if you believe we do, feel free to provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas other than water vapor and warming in the atmosphere.

I would suggest that you do a bit of reading on the topic of infrared heating. Engineers and designers have about a million hours of design, experimentation, testing, and observation in commercial and residential installations which demonstrate pretty convincingly that far infrared radiation ( the sort emitted by the surface of the earth) does not and can not warm the air...and climate science has produced no empirical evidence which demonstrates otherwise...but feel free to provide such empirical evidence if you like.

Those are facts. These have been proven to be true.

Actually they are not facts...they are not based in reality. You don't seem to grasp what constitutes a fact. As I have shown, your "facts" are in reality, pretty shaky assumptions.

 

[SSDD]

Russia and China are successful today because they allowed capitalism to operate within their economic systems. But I wonder why we don't see any americans moving to Russia or China. Can you explain that since you think they are such wonderful places to live?

There are roghly 50 thousand Americans living in Moscow, 25 thousand in Sanct-Peterburg and a small number in other cities. There are roughly 100 thousands of american citisens living in China. But, yes, we don't know how many of them are ethnic Russians and Chines.

My bet is that in both cases, the residents are professionals living far above the average standard of living, or on religious, medical, or humanitarian missions. I doubt that you would find many americans living at the average standard of living...

1.5 million living in Mexico. Their dollars go further, healthcare is cheaper. Many because they can no longer afford to live here.

And they don't live at the average standard of living....they go to mexico because under that depressed socioeconomic system, they can live like kings...and if they have serious health issues, they come back here for treatment....

But it proves your claim of only professions are living in other countries. These are not professions, humanitarians or religious missionaries. YOU were caught in as lie, just admit it & quit making excuses.

They do not live like kings, they just do better than they could here.

most of the americans living in mexico are retired professionals...people who saved their money and want to live a higher standard of living now that they are no longer on the job... most of them live in resort towns along the mexican west coast...they look like sandals resorts and the lawns are cut, and houses are cleaned, and streets swept by regular mexicans who live an entirely different lifestyle than the resort town residents. Are you ever honest with yourself about anything?

 

[Redfish]

Still waiting for Georgie or one of the other members of the AGW religion to answer this simple question. Lets hear from you, OR, you can admit that your religion of man made climate change is a fraud

We're all waiting for you to answer my simple question ... what causes precipitation? ... you claimed this is changing, but it appears you don't know why it forms in the first place ... you also claimed you have knowledge and I have shit ... c'mon now ... answer up ... let's see how deep your knowledge goes ...

evaporation, wind currents, temperature, cloud formation.

Now, tell us exactly what you want the people of planet earth to do in order to save us all from climate change---------be specific, tell us exactly what you want us all to do.

 

[ReinyDays]

Sorry guy...In that wavelength we also have H20, CO2, and O3 emitting if you think that means something...not empirical evidence of the greenhouse effect...now toss in all wavelengths of cosmic radiation since that must mean as much as CO2 ...

And I already pointed out that if you bring your piece of paper into a dark room with plenty of CO2...heck pump some in if you like...and leave the paper on the counter till the cows come home, you won't get any fogging...

Those are transmittance charts you posted ... and it was already pointed out the water vapor is also a greenhouse gas ... ozone is reactive at just a bit lower wavelength than 15µm ... you asked for empirical evidence, and you've received it ... if you don't believe it, then explain why the paper fogs ... and yes, of course the paper will fog in a darkroom if you unpack it from the dry ice ... have you ever worked with IR film in a darkroom before? ... have you ever worked in a darkroom? ...

You've allowed for 0 transmittance through the atmosphere at 15µm ... why would cosmic sources gets through? ...

You can verify all this with just about any astrophysics textbook ... so this information won't generally be found in the scientific literature ... when astrophysicists write papers for each other, they don't review the most basic principles in their field ... for example, a research paper on genetics won't include information about the difference between an amine group and an acid group ... it's always fair to assume the geneticists reading the paper already knows this ...

So in climatology papers, you won't find much discussion on basic principles ... you need to get a decent climatology textbook and read it yourself, then read these scientific papers ... otherwise you'll just get yourself confused ... well, more confused ...

 

[Redfish]

Still waiting for Georgie or one of the other members of the AGW religion to answer this simple question. Lets hear from you, OR, you can admit that your religion of man made climate change is a fraud

The first thing you could do to slow global climate change is to stop voting for gold plated pathological liars:

Did Trump say climate change was a Chinese hoax?

Ok but what specifically do you want us to do in order to "slow global climate change"?

should we all buy 20,000 sq ft mansions like Al Gore? fly on private planes like the hollyloonies as they travel to climate summits? send money to Gore to buy carbon credits?

its a scam dude, and you have been scammed.

 

[SSDD]

you asked for empirical evidence, and you've received it ... if you don't believe it, then explain why the paper fogs ... and yes, of course the paper will fog in a darkroom if you unpack it from the dry ice ... have you ever worked with IR film in a darkroom before? ... have you ever worked in a darkroom? ...

Yes..I have worked with IR film in a darkroom...and no, it doesn't fog...and the fogging of the paper is not evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect....it is evidence that you are easily fooled though....congratulations.

 

[ReinyDays]

We're all waiting for you to answer my simple question ... what causes precipitation? ... you claimed this is changing, but it appears you don't know why it forms in the first place ... you also claimed you have knowledge and I have shit ... c'mon now ... answer up ... let's see how deep your knowledge goes ...

evaporation, wind currents, temperature, cloud formation.

Now, tell us exactly what you want the people of planet earth to do in order to save us all from climate change---------be specific, tell us exactly what you want us all to do.

Wrong, terribly wrong ... the answer is uplift ... an air parcel rising in the air column ... this causes pressure to fall and the associated adiabatic cooling ... which in turn causes the saturation level of water vapor to fall ... which in turn causes the water vapor to change state into liquid water ... it is this change of state that defines precipitation ...

I suggest you never criticize others' knowledge ... not until you've gained some yourself ... you just threw out guesses which include the opposite, how the hell does evaporation cause precipitation, those are physically opposite processes ...

The most important thing to do about mitigating global warming doesn't apply to folks connected to the internet, so moving on:
2] Ditch the passenger vehicles, remove 90% of them off the streets ...
3] Cut way back on airline travel, ground 90% of the fleet ...
4] And for God's sake, stop eating so much meat ...

If electric power is available to you from a grid structure, then your area most likely already has your fertility rates under control ... it's in those areas without electric service that breeding is still rampant ... thus, if you're connected to the internet, you personally don't have to worry about overpopulation ... except rural China, their fertility rates are the equal of Western Europe and Anglo-America ...

 

[SSDD]

We're all waiting for you to answer my simple question ... what causes precipitation? ... you claimed this is changing, but it appears you don't know why it forms in the first place ... you also claimed you have knowledge and I have shit ... c'mon now ... answer up ... let's see how deep your knowledge goes ...

evaporation, wind currents, temperature, cloud formation.

Now, tell us exactly what you want the people of planet earth to do in order to save us all from climate change---------be specific, tell us exactly what you want us all to do.

Wrong, terribly wrong ... the answer is uplift ... an air parcel rising in the air column ... this causes pressure to fall and the associated adiabatic cooling ... which in turn causes the saturation level of water vapor to fall ... which in turn causes the water vapor to change state into liquid water ... it is this change of state that defines precipitation ...

I suggest you never criticize others' knowledge ... not until you've gained some yourself ... you just threw out guesses which include the opposite, how the hell does evaporation cause precipitation, those are physically opposite processes ...

The most important thing to do about mitigating global warming doesn't apply to folks connected to the internet, so moving on:
2] Ditch the passenger vehicles, remove 90% of them off the streets ...
3] Cut way back on airline travel, ground 90% of the fleet ...
4] And for God's sake, stop eating so much meat ...

If electric power is available to you from a grid structure, then your area most likely already has your fertility rates under control ... it's in those areas without electric service that breeding is still rampant ... thus, if you're connected to the internet, you personally don't have to worry about overpopulation ... except rural China, their fertility rates are the equal of Western Europe and Anglo-America ...

Precipitation can also be caused when evaporation causes the amount of water in the air to increase...so you gave him half an answer...it has nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect although it does touch on the actual reason the temperarature is what it is....at atmospheric thermal effect driven by incoming solar insolation and pressure.

and the most important thing to do about global warming is hope that it happens sooner rather than later and toss the charlatans pushing man made climate change out of science and into traveling carnivals where they belong.

 

[ReinyDays]

Yes..I have worked with IR film in a darkroom...and no, it doesn't fog...

I don't believe you ... not without the details ... what kind of IR film were you using? ... there are several wavelengths that can be used without fogging ... by the charts you posted, looks like 10 or 11µm is transparent ... I'm talking about 15µm specifically ...

Sure ... I was working at Mt Laguna Observatory doing some basic research on eclipsing binary stars with the photometer up there ... the big freezer had just about every kind of film Kodak manufactured at the time, including all manner of IR film ... it was one of these sheets I exposed accidentally while loading a plate holder for the Schmidt camera ... when it was developed, it was indeed completely fogged ... as punishment, I had to write a report on IR back radiation and proper procedures for handling IR film ... pack the dry ice first, then the film ... duh ...

and the fogging of the paper is not evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect....it is evidence that you are easily fooled though....congratulations.

Then what causes the film to fog? ... it's not enough to say "such and such doesn't" ... you still have to say what does ... something other than magic pixie dust ... and make sure your explanation allows for the IR imagery we're getting from these new GOES satellites ... full disk images ...

 

[SSDD]

Yes..I have worked with IR film in a darkroom...and no, it doesn't fog...

I don't believe you ... not without the details ... what kind of IR film were you using? ... there are several wavelengths that can be used without fogging ... by the charts you posted, looks like 10 or 11µm is transparent ... I'm talking about 15µm specifically ...

Whether you believe me or not is irrelavent to the fact...you clearly believe several things that are not true therefore it stands to reason that you would probably not believe things that are.

as punishment, I had to write a report on IR back radiation and proper procedures for handling IR film ... pack the dry ice first, then the film ... duh ...

Like the newby in the air force working on the flight line is punished for minor offenses by being sent to collect 50 yards of flight line or a half a gallon of prop wash...congratulations.

Then what causes the film to fog? ... it's not enough to say "such and such doesn't" ... you still have to say what does ... something other than magic pixie dust ... and make sure your explanation allows for the IR imagery we're getting from these new GOES satellites ... full disk images ...

Who knows? Not back radiation, that's for sure. Here...let me give you a link to a couple of experiments performed by a guy who grasps the topic who actually tried to demonstrate back radiation...it didn't happen...and when the inevitable complaints by believers rolled in, he modified the experiment to accommodate their complaints and still no back radiation...it simply doesn't happen no matter how much you wish it were so..

And after you look at them, if you have complaints, make them known...I am sure that he can show you that if he modifies the experiment for them, it will still not result in back radiation which simply can not and does not happen.

If it were possible to demonstrate back radiation, then climate science would have provided all manner of indisputable experiments to end the argument...they haven't because the phenomenon only exists in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and the simulations derived from them which by the way are abject failures...

Greenplate Effect – It doesn't happen! | PSI Intl

Greenplate Effect – It Does Not Happen Proof No 2 | PSI Intl

And you might speak to BillyBob about the results of experiments that he has been involved in demonstrating that IR does not warm the air...

 

[ReinyDays]

Precipitation can also be caused when evaporation causes the amount of water in the air to increase...so you gave him half an answer...it has nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect although it does touch on the actual reason the temperarature is what it is....at atmospheric thermal effect driven by incoming solar insolation and pressure.

Such foolishness ... evaporation is when liquid water changes state into a gas ... precipitation is when gaseous water changes state into liquid ... what you're saying is the same as "melting causes freezing" ... such foolishness ... I explained the physics involved, sorry it was over your head, maybe you should start with a basic physics textbook before you try to read an astrophysics textbook ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Greenplate Effect – It doesn't happen! | PSI Intl

Greenplate Effect – It Does Not Happen Proof No 2 | PSI Intl

Principia Scientific is a Christian Science organization ... yeah, fucking creationists ... no, there's no back radiation is a vacuum ... how can you be so stupid? ...

 

[SSDD]

Greenplate Effect – It doesn't happen! | PSI Intl

Greenplate Effect – It Does Not Happen Proof No 2 | PSI Intl

Principia Scientific is a Christian Science organization ... yeah, fucking creationists ... no, there's no back radiation is a vacuum ... how can you be so stupid? ...

Logical fallacy...you are quick to point out the logical fallacies of others yet you turn to the very tactic when your faith is challenged....there is no back radiation anywhere....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

See my previous post

Great...lets see some empirical evidence proving that human generated CO2 is causing the earth to heat up. This may surprise you, but to date, there has not been a single peer reviewed paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our so called greenhouse gasses...since no such paper exists, exactly where does all this evidence "proving" that we are causing the earth to warm up reside...don't you think there would be at least one published paper on the topic if such evidence existed?



Sorry guy...your graph is nothing more than an exercise in curve fitting..it doesn't show anything like our year to year emissions...it has all been smoothed in order to create an impression....if you want to see our actual CO2 emissions vs the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere year to year, look at the graphs I provided above which are all from peer reviewed, published literature


Sorry guy, but that is not evidence that CO2 is causing anything...that is nothing more than an absorption spectrum which shows pretty clearly that CO2 only absorbs in a very small portion of the infrared spectrum emitted by earth..and it only shows half the picture...that shows the absorption spectrum...there is an emission spectrum which goes with that which shows that all that radiation absorbed by all the so called greenhouse gasses is immediately emitted...nothing is held back, nothing is blocked, nothing is trapped..it is absorbed and emitted...

Now there is one gas that can absorb and retain energy, but your graph doesn't show it...wonder why? That gas would be H2O...or water vapor...and your pseudoscientific graph leaves it out because it completely dominates the infrared spectrum rendering CO2 impotent...and unlike the rest of the so called greenhouse gasses, H2O can actually retain the energy it absorbs.

"The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20).

As you can see, H2O completely dominates CO2...and again, your graph is an absorption spectrum...it isn't an emission spectrum...an emission spectrum would show that all the energy being absorbed by CO2 is then immediately emitted on to space...although, CO2 generally doesn't actually get to emit any radiation at all.

But that isn't really the entire story either...the fact is that it is estimated that about 8% of the energy emitted from the surface of the earth actually radiates through the troposphere...the rest is moved via convection and conduction...which means that a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science simply is not possible...which explains why you are unable to provide any empirical evidence of it. Here is an email exchange between Dr William Happer...you may have heard of him...he is a physicist who resides on the very top shelf of scientists in his field, which is atomic physics, optics, and spectrometry...

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]


You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.


So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]


In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]


Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]


(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]


If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]

Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

You provide a link to skeptical science and call it evidence...are you kidding? Do tell..which part of that do you believe to be empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming...feel free to cut and paste.

That isn't what the observation shows...observation shows that more energy is escaping the earth at the top of the atmosphere as the amount of greenhouse gasses increases..Your hypothesis fails right out of the gate...you have been lied to and tricked. Why is that so hard to admit when the observed, measured evidence proves it beyond question?

Since the observations show us that energy is not being trapped, and in fact the amount of energy leaving the earth is increasing, your point is meaningless...your mechanism is non existent...the argument is based on a lie...

Again..the observations show precisely the opposite of what you are claiming...outgoing radiation is not decreasing...it is increasing..and has been for a good long time.

Brilliant deduction...except it is completely wrong...again...the observations show that the amount of energy exiting the earth that the top of the atmosphere is increasing...and there is no upper tropospheric hot spot which would be inevitable if energy were being trapped by so called greenhouse gasses...your case is built on assumptions which observation proves to be wrong..

Yet another pointless point...Since your whole case is based on flawed information...there is not and never was a crime....


The investigation is an abject failure proven wrong by simple observation...do you suppose there might be a reason why your "detective" didn't provide you with the actual observations to support his case...they were all available...of course he didn't because his whole case would have failed as he tried to make his first point as the observations show clearly that energy is not being trapped in the atmosphere...the amount of energy exiting the atmosphere is increasing...precisely the opposite of what your hypothesis predicts...yet another predictive failure..

Fake analysis from a denier.

Yet another mewling denial of facts...no rebuttal at all and more name calling...

Still completely unsurprising..

Sorry, I chose NASA. Not interested in your lies & phony analysis.

Yep...you chose nasa...I chose published peer reviewed literature and data from nasa to demonstrate that your opinion piece was wrong...

You take data & apply your own incorrect analysis.

YOUR opinion pieces are bullshit. You & your band of deniers are all wrong & if you assfucks get your way, future generations will suffer.

I ain't going to let uneducated, stupid people ruin by children's future.

My side is winning this argument.

My side is winning this argument.

Which is why Clinton was able to pass Kyoto in the 90s.

What was the vote in the Senate again?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Greenplate Effect – It doesn't happen! | PSI Intl

Greenplate Effect – It Does Not Happen Proof No 2 | PSI Intl

Principia Scientific is a Christian Science organization ... yeah, fucking creationists ... no, there's no back radiation is a vacuum ... how can you be so stupid? ...

Practice. He's had lots and lots of practice.