Solid Physical Evidence of AGW.... Where is it?

[SSDD]

Absorption and emission do not equal warming...but feel free to provide evidence to the contrary if you believe it to be so.

Absorption and re-emission is directly contrary to your quote of Dr. Happer who said re-emission is highly unlikely because of collisions.
Just which do you believe? You can't believe both.

How stupid are you? Really? Who said that CO2 never emits energy that it absorbs? It rarely does, but that doesn't mean that it never emits.....absorption and loss of energy due to collision doesn't equal radiative warming either...IR can't warm the air...by any means...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Absorption and emission do not equal warming...but feel free to provide evidence to the contrary if you believe it to be so.

Absorption and re-emission is directly contrary to your quote of Dr. Happer who said re-emission is highly unlikely because of collisions.
Just which do you believe? You can't believe both.

How stupid are you? Really? Who said that CO2 never emits energy that it absorbs? It rarely does, but that doesn't mean that it never emits.....absorption and loss of energy due to collision doesn't equal radiative warming either...IR can't warm the air...by any means...

absorption and loss of energy due to collision doesn't equal radiative warming either...

GHGs are warmed when they absorb IR photons.

Non GHGs are warmed when they collide with the warmer GHG molecules.

That equals warming. That's IR warming the air.

 

[Wuwei]

Absorption and emission do not equal warming...but feel free to provide evidence to the contrary if you believe it to be so.

Absorption and re-emission is directly contrary to your quote of Dr. Happer who said re-emission is highly unlikely because of collisions.
Just which do you believe? You can't believe both.

How stupid are you? Really? Who said that CO2 never emits energy that it absorbs? It rarely does, but that doesn't mean that it never emits.....absorption and loss of energy due to collision doesn't equal radiative warming either...IR can't warm the air...by any means...

How stupid are you? Really? Try reading my post again for comprehension.
You are having trouble understanding one of physics most basic laws: The conservation of energy.

You agree that CO2 absorbs energy.
You agree that most energy is lost to collisions.
You are saying that the IR energy that is lost to collision energy can't warm the air by any means.
When you say it is lost to collisions do you mean the colliding molecules gain kinetic energy?

Where does the IR energy go. Remember the conservation of energy. It has to transform to something else if it is absorbed.
You also lose sight of the conservation of energy when you don't know where the 16,00 W/m2 goes from Venus.
You can read more about it here: conservation of energy


.

 

[IanC]

Absorption and emission do not equal warming...but feel free to provide evidence to the contrary if you believe it to be so.

Absorption and re-emission is directly contrary to your quote of Dr. Happer who said re-emission is highly unlikely because of collisions.
Just which do you believe? You can't believe both.

How stupid are you? Really? Who said that CO2 never emits energy that it absorbs? It rarely does, but that doesn't mean that it never emits.....absorption and loss of energy due to collision doesn't equal radiative warming either...IR can't warm the air...by any means...

absorption and loss of energy due to collision doesn't equal radiative warming either...

GHGs are warmed when they absorb IR photons.

Non GHGs are warmed when they collide with the warmer GHG molecules.

That equals warming. That's IR warming the air.

Warming typically means average kinetic speed of the molecules, temperature.

Is absorbing a photon actually warming until it is turned into kinetic speed by a super elastic molecular collision?

 

[Wuwei]

Warming typically means average kinetic speed of the molecules, temperature.

Is absorbing a photon actually warming until it is turned into kinetic speed by a super elastic molecular collision?

Yes. Spin and vibration are part of the internal energy. Kinetic energy is the energy of motion of molecules. Solids only have vibratory energy, and that defines temperature. I have not dwelled on vibration with SSDD because he may not agree and I wanted to keep it simple.

 

[IanC]

Vibrational states in a molecule are changes in the electron cloud, and subject to quantum laws. They are more potential energy than kinetic energy but anything at the atomic scale is necessarily fuzzy.

Much of the energy stored in the atmosphere is potential energy in the gravity field. Most people have a hard enough time vaguely remembering the ideal gas laws, they certainly don't remember the necessary assumptions. Equipartition Theorum? What's that, hahahahaha.

 

[Wuwei]

Vibrational states in a molecule are changes in the electron cloud, and subject to quantum laws. They are more potential energy than kinetic energy but anything at the atomic scale is necessarily fuzzy.

Actually the vibration kinetic energy is carried by the much heavier nuclei. The vibration is like the flapping wings of a bird - the carbon "body" and the oxygen "wings". In the classical sense it is a true vibration. In the quantum sense who knows what it does, as you say - fuzzy. I agree vibration is a sort of potential energy - internal energy that can be converted to another form.

Much of the energy stored in the atmosphere is potential energy in the gravity field. Most people have a hard enough time vaguely remembering the ideal gas laws, they certainly don't remember the necessary assumptions. Equipartition Theorum? What's that, hahahahaha.

It seems that when it comes to 15 micron IR, people focus too much on absorption from earth warmth. A few hundred meters above the earth the air is swarming with 15 micron IR that does not come from the earth, but comes indirectly from collisions. That IR is the energy that escapes earth. SSDD and his minions do not understand that.

.

 

[SSDD]

It seems that when it comes to 15 micron IR, people focus too much on absorption from earth warmth. A few hundred meters above the earth the air is swarming with 15 micron IR that does not come from the earth, but comes indirectly from collisions. That IR is the energy that escapes earth. SSDD and his minions do not understand that.

.

Any actual evidence? Didn't think so...and what exactly makes you think that energy transferred via collision is 15 micron? 15 micron describes radiation...energy transferred via collision is not radiation....

 

[jc456]

It seems that when it comes to 15 micron IR, people focus too much on absorption from earth warmth. A few hundred meters above the earth the air is swarming with 15 micron IR that does not come from the earth, but comes indirectly from collisions. That IR is the energy that escapes earth. SSDD and his minions do not understand that.

.

Any actual evidence? Didn't think so...and what exactly makes you think that energy transferred via collision is 15 micron? 15 micron describes radiation...energy transferred via collision is not radiation....

so I'm still wondering about these losers on here stating greenhouse blah, blah, blah and that IR is emitted back to the surface to warm it. If they are all now acknowledging that CO2 loses most of what it absorbs during collisions and that less than 1% of CO2 actually emits, where does all their magic IR toward the surface come from now? these folks are truly confused with their religion.

 

[Wuwei]

It seems that when it comes to 15 micron IR, people focus too much on absorption from earth warmth. A few hundred meters above the earth the air is swarming with 15 micron IR that does not come from the earth, but comes indirectly from collisions. That IR is the energy that escapes earth. SSDD and his minions do not understand that.

.

Any actual evidence? Didn't think so...and what exactly makes you think that energy transferred via collision is 15 micron? 15 micron describes radiation...energy transferred via collision is not radiation....

so I'm still wondering about these losers on here stating greenhouse blah, blah, blah and that IR is emitted back to the surface to warm it. If they are all now acknowledging that CO2 loses most of what it absorbs during collisions and that less than 1% of CO2 actually emits, where does all their magic IR toward the surface come from now? these folks are truly confused with their religion.

Wow. That went right over your head. As I said, you and your minions don't understand it. You got that two step process mixed up. I thought you already understood that 15 micron radiation excites a vibration mode in CO2. That vibration is kinetic energy. That kinetic energy of vibration is generally lost to collision with an air molecule. It's really quite simple!

What do you think generally happens with the 15 micron radiation absorbed by CO2.

 

[jc456]

It seems that when it comes to 15 micron IR, people focus too much on absorption from earth warmth. A few hundred meters above the earth the air is swarming with 15 micron IR that does not come from the earth, but comes indirectly from collisions. That IR is the energy that escapes earth. SSDD and his minions do not understand that.

.

Any actual evidence? Didn't think so...and what exactly makes you think that energy transferred via collision is 15 micron? 15 micron describes radiation...energy transferred via collision is not radiation....

so I'm still wondering about these losers on here stating greenhouse blah, blah, blah and that IR is emitted back to the surface to warm it. If they are all now acknowledging that CO2 loses most of what it absorbs during collisions and that less than 1% of CO2 actually emits, where does all their magic IR toward the surface come from now? these folks are truly confused with their religion.

Wow. That went right over your head. As I said, you and your minions don't understand it. You got that two step process mixed up. I thought you already understood that 15 micron radiation excites a vibration mode in CO2. That vibration is kinetic energy. That kinetic energy of vibration is generally lost to collision with an air molecule. It's really quite simple!

What do you think generally happens with the 15 micron radiation absorbed by CO2.

well fine, just post that evidence of that happening. See kinetic energy is heat, and right now, there is no hot spot in the atmosphere or troposphere.

 

[IanC]

well fine, just post that evidence of that happening. See kinetic energy is heat, and right now, there is no hot spot in the atmosphere or troposphere

Just so we know you have some rudimentary knowledge on this....why don't you briefly explain what the hotspot is? Just roughly where it should be, and where the energy comes from, if it were to exist.

Then connect that to CO2 radiative physics.

 

[jc456]

well fine, just post that evidence of that happening. See kinetic energy is heat, and right now, there is no hot spot in the atmosphere or troposphere

Just so we know you have some rudimentary knowledge on this....why don't you briefly explain what the hotspot is? Just roughly where it should be, and where the energy comes from, if it were to exist.

Then connect that to CO2 radiative physics.

radiation does not warm air. period.

 

[IanC]

well fine, just post that evidence of that happening. See kinetic energy is heat, and right now, there is no hot spot in the atmosphere or troposphere

Just so we know you have some rudimentary knowledge on this....why don't you briefly explain what the hotspot is? Just roughly where it should be, and where the energy comes from, if it were to exist.

Then connect that to CO2 radiative physics.

radiation does not warm air. period.

You are claiming that the missing hotspot proves your point somehow.

Well, fill in the gaps by explaining yourself. Just a rough description will do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

well fine, just post that evidence of that happening. See kinetic energy is heat, and right now, there is no hot spot in the atmosphere or troposphere

Just so we know you have some rudimentary knowledge on this....why don't you briefly explain what the hotspot is? Just roughly where it should be, and where the energy comes from, if it were to exist.

Then connect that to CO2 radiative physics.

radiation does not warm air. period.

radiation does not warm air. period.

Does radiation cool the air? Interact with the air in any way?

 

[jc456]

well fine, just post that evidence of that happening. See kinetic energy is heat, and right now, there is no hot spot in the atmosphere or troposphere

Just so we know you have some rudimentary knowledge on this....why don't you briefly explain what the hotspot is? Just roughly where it should be, and where the energy comes from, if it were to exist.

Then connect that to CO2 radiative physics.

radiation does not warm air. period.

You are claiming that the missing hotspot proves your point somehow.

Well, fill in the gaps by explaining yourself. Just a rough description will do.

sure it does. again IR doesn't warm the air. just doesn't. and, you have no evidence it does. See, that fact alone, is what proves my point.

 

[jc456]

well fine, just post that evidence of that happening. See kinetic energy is heat, and right now, there is no hot spot in the atmosphere or troposphere

Just so we know you have some rudimentary knowledge on this....why don't you briefly explain what the hotspot is? Just roughly where it should be, and where the energy comes from, if it were to exist.

Then connect that to CO2 radiative physics.

radiation does not warm air. period.

radiation does not warm air. period.

Does radiation cool the air? Interact with the air in any way?

why would it if it couldn't heat it. see, you are truly the fool. to even ask that question proves your idiocy.

IR flows out to space. That's it. After absorbed and moved around via collision and emission.

 

[IanC]

well fine, just post that evidence of that happening. See kinetic energy is heat, and right now, there is no hot spot in the atmosphere or troposphere

Just so we know you have some rudimentary knowledge on this....why don't you briefly explain what the hotspot is? Just roughly where it should be, and where the energy comes from, if it were to exist.

Then connect that to CO2 radiative physics.

radiation does not warm air. period.

radiation does not warm air. period.

Does radiation cool the air? Interact with the air in any way?

why would it if it couldn't heat it. see, you are truly the fool. to even ask that question proves your idiocy.

IR flows out to space. That's it. After absorbed and moved around via collision and emission.

The air is constantly replenishing the CO2 specific 15 micron radiation by turning kinetic energy into vibrational energy during molecular collisions, when some CO2 remains excited long enough to emit rather than just give up the energy in the next collision.

You really don't have a clue about this stuff, do you? Say something intelligent to prove us wrong.

 

[jc456]

well fine, just post that evidence of that happening. See kinetic energy is heat, and right now, there is no hot spot in the atmosphere or troposphere

Just so we know you have some rudimentary knowledge on this....why don't you briefly explain what the hotspot is? Just roughly where it should be, and where the energy comes from, if it were to exist.

Then connect that to CO2 radiative physics.

radiation does not warm air. period.

radiation does not warm air. period.

Does radiation cool the air? Interact with the air in any way?

why would it if it couldn't heat it. see, you are truly the fool. to even ask that question proves your idiocy.

IR flows out to space. That's it. After absorbed and moved around via collision and emission.

The air is constantly replenishing the CO2 specific 15 micron radiation by turning kinetic energy into vibrational energy during molecular collisions, when some CO2 remains excited long enough to emit rather than just give up the energy in the next collision.

You really don't have a clue about this stuff, do you? Say something intelligent to prove us wrong.

I know more than you. you can't prove your position. And again, my proof is the fact you can't prove any of it. too funny. Ian, I truly don't care what you think of me, it doesn't change my mind. The fact you think that is stupid. You just show the evidence of your statement. why can't you btw?

 

[IanC]

The Hotspot is the area where convection takes energy aloft and releases it during phase change from water vapour to water/ice.

This is not exactly occurring as predicted so I see it as a strike against the 3x water vapour feedback. It has no direct impact on the role of CO2.

We could discuss wet and dry lapse rates but we should probably get some of the simpler concepts straightened out first.