Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming

[Si modo]

But we're not saying that heat transfers from a colder to a warmer area. We're saying photons can move in any direction. You seem to be confusing the two. If as you say the moon doesn't emit IR, then it's because it was all absorbed. That's irrelevant to the subject in question, i.e. absorption and re-emission by CO2 or other gases.

CO2 re-emits? This is not fluorescence.

CO2 absorbs a certain amount of IR radiation, a small portion of the mid IR spectrum. When that absorption happens, CO2 vibrates, internally, in a certain manner. THAT vibration is kinetic in nature. Kinetic energy causes some heat.

That heat is re-emitted radiation in proportion to T^4. When a beam of photons hits an opaque gas, it heats the gas, and the heated gas then re-emits the photons as blackbody radiation.

True, but that is after conversion to kinetic energy.

When a molecule emits a photon, that is fluorescence. This is a different mechanism - the bulk of the gas generates heat/IR from kinetic energy, no molecular emission involved.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

CO2 re-emits? This is not fluorescence.

CO2 absorbs a certain amount of IR radiation, a small portion of the mid IR spectrum. When that absorption happens, CO2 vibrates, internally, in a certain manner. THAT vibration is kinetic in nature. Kinetic energy causes some heat.

That heat is re-emitted radiation in proportion to T^4. When a beam of photons hits an opaque gas, it heats the gas, and the heated gas then re-emits the photons as blackbody radiation.

True, but that is after conversion to kinetic energy.

When a molecule emits a photon, that is fluorescence. This is a different mechanism - the bulk of the gas generates heat/IR from kinetic energy, no molecular emission involved.

Any non-zero temperature object emits blackbody photons - whether its made of atoms, molecules, or whatever.

 

[Si modo]

That heat is re-emitted radiation in proportion to T^4. When a beam of photons hits an opaque gas, it heats the gas, and the heated gas then re-emits the photons as blackbody radiation.

True, but that is after conversion to kinetic energy.

When a molecule emits a photon, that is fluorescence. This is a different mechanism - the bulk of the gas generates heat/IR from kinetic energy, no molecular emission involved.

Any non-zero temperature object emits blackbody photons - whether its made of atoms, molecules, or whatever.

And, the blackbody is the bulk of the gas.

It is a very different mechanism than molecular emission of photons.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

True, but that is after conversion to kinetic energy.

When a molecule emits a photon, that is fluorescence. This is a different mechanism - the bulk of the gas generates heat/IR from kinetic energy, no molecular emission involved.

Any non-zero temperature object emits blackbody photons - whether its made of atoms, molecules, or whatever.

And, the blackbody is the bulk of the gas.

It is a very different mechanism than molecular emission of photons.

Yes but the energy that supplies blackbody radiation comes from the heat of the bulk gas - and that heat can be (in part) caused by individual photons impacting the molecules and being absorbed. The molecules extra kinetic energy gets spread around the gas as it bumps into other molecules - and this extra energy heats the gas, causing it to produce more blackbody radiation.


The radiation from the Earth's surface is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the IR band, converted to heat, and then re-emitted as blackbody radiation - with roughly half of it going up and escaping out into space- and roughly half of it going down, headed back to Earth, where it is re-absorbed by the Earth. This is how the greenhouse effect works.

 

[Si modo]

Any non-zero temperature object emits blackbody photons - whether its made of atoms, molecules, or whatever.

And, the blackbody is the bulk of the gas.

It is a very different mechanism than molecular emission of photons.

Yes but the energy that supplies blackbody radiation comes from the heat of the bulk gas - and that heat can be (in part) caused by individual photons impacting the molecules and being absorbed. The molecules extra kinetic energy gets spread around the gas as it bumps into other molecules - and this extra energy heats the gas, causing it to produce more blackbody radiation.


The radiation from the Earth's surface is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the IR band, converted to heat, and then re-emitted as blackbody radiation - with roughly half of it going up and escaping out into space- and roughly half of it going down, headed back to Earth, where it is re-absorbed by the Earth. This is how the greenhouse effect works.

I understand that. However, when someone gets the mechanism wrong, I correct them.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And, the blackbody is the bulk of the gas.

It is a very different mechanism than molecular emission of photons.

Yes but the energy that supplies blackbody radiation comes from the heat of the bulk gas - and that heat can be (in part) caused by individual photons impacting the molecules and being absorbed. The molecules extra kinetic energy gets spread around the gas as it bumps into other molecules - and this extra energy heats the gas, causing it to produce more blackbody radiation.


The radiation from the Earth's surface is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the IR band, converted to heat, and then re-emitted as blackbody radiation - with roughly half of it going up and escaping out into space- and roughly half of it going down, headed back to Earth, where it is re-absorbed by the Earth. This is how the greenhouse effect works.

I understand that. However, when someone gets the mechanism wrong, I correct them.

I never said it was fluorescent emission.

 

[Si modo]

Yes but the energy that supplies blackbody radiation comes from the heat of the bulk gas - and that heat can be (in part) caused by individual photons impacting the molecules and being absorbed. The molecules extra kinetic energy gets spread around the gas as it bumps into other molecules - and this extra energy heats the gas, causing it to produce more blackbody radiation.


The radiation from the Earth's surface is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the IR band, converted to heat, and then re-emitted as blackbody radiation - with roughly half of it going up and escaping out into space- and roughly half of it going down, headed back to Earth, where it is re-absorbed by the Earth. This is how the greenhouse effect works.

I understand that. However, when someone gets the mechanism wrong, I correct them.

I never said it was fluorescent emission.

And, I wasn't correcting you because you weren't the one who said CO2 emits a photon.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I understand that. However, when someone gets the mechanism wrong, I correct them.

I never said it was fluorescent emission.

And, I wasn't correcting you because you weren't the one who said CO2 emits a photon.

Well it does.... you just can't trace it from a single CO2 molecule I guess. But the energy of the photon IS lost by the gas - and thus by the individual molecules.


I'm must admit unfamiliar with the grueling details of molecular physics, as I study stars, and with the exception of the outer layers of their atmospheres, stars are made mostly of plasma- so all we have to deal with is single nuclei and electrons.

 

[Si modo]

I never said it was fluorescent emission.

And, I wasn't correcting you because you weren't the one who said CO2 emits a photon.

Well it does.... you just can't trace it from a single CO2 molecule I guess. But the energy of the photon IS lost by the gas - and thus by the individual molecules.


I'm must admit unfamiliar with the grueling details of molecular physics, as I study stars, and with the exception of the outer layers of their atmospheres, stars are made mostly of plasma- so all we have to deal with is single nuclei and electrons.

*sigh* The BULK of the gas does; there is NO molecular emission.

YOU ARE NOT WRONG.

However, anyone who keeps saying CO2 molecularly emits a photon after absorption of IR photons is flat wrong. He didn't exactly do that here, but he has done it before, has been corrected, then keeps doing it.

It is wrong.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And, I wasn't correcting you because you weren't the one who said CO2 emits a photon.

Well it does.... you just can't trace it from a single CO2 molecule I guess. But the energy of the photon IS lost by the gas - and thus by the individual molecules.


I'm must admit unfamiliar with the grueling details of molecular physics, as I study stars, and with the exception of the outer layers of their atmospheres, stars are made mostly of plasma- so all we have to deal with is single nuclei and electrons.

*sigh* The BULK of the gas does; there is NO molecular emission.

YOU ARE NOT WRONG.

However, anyone who keeps saying CO2 molecularly emits a photon after absorption of IR photons is flat wrong. He didn't exactly do that here, but he has done it before, has been corrected, then keeps doing it.

It is wrong.

The bulk does, but the energy comes from the individual molecules. If you've got N molecules of gas and a photon with E energy is released, on average each molecule loses E/N energy.

From the perspective of the fluid approximation in local thermodynamic equilibrium, we can actually treat a gas of material particles as a bunch of scatterers, and skip the whole absorption and emission step.

 

[Si modo]

Well it does.... you just can't trace it from a single CO2 molecule I guess. But the energy of the photon IS lost by the gas - and thus by the individual molecules.


I'm must admit unfamiliar with the grueling details of molecular physics, as I study stars, and with the exception of the outer layers of their atmospheres, stars are made mostly of plasma- so all we have to deal with is single nuclei and electrons.

*sigh* The BULK of the gas does; there is NO molecular emission.

YOU ARE NOT WRONG.

However, anyone who keeps saying CO2 molecularly emits a photon after absorption of IR photons is flat wrong. He didn't exactly do that here, but he has done it before, has been corrected, then keeps doing it.

It is wrong.

The bulk does, but the energy comes from the individual molecules. If you've got N molecules of gas and a photon with E energy is released, on average each molecule loses E/N energy.

From the perspective of the fluid approximation in local thermodynamic equilibrium, we can actually treat a gas of material particles as a bunch of scatterers, and skip the whole absorption and emission step.

I understand.

There IS blackbody radiation that CAN be averaged on the individual particles, but that doesn't reflect the mechanism. The mechanism is blackbody radiation by the bulk of the gas and there is no molecular emission of photons. IF there were molecular emissions, it would be fluorescence. It is not.

You are correct in what you are saying. When it comes to molecules, I prefer accuracy. It's my nature.

 

[wirebender]

I didn't say pressure represents work - I SAID IT DOES WORK. Three times now. You still cannot read.

Radiation pressure is not work and can not be construed as work so as to allow you to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics in radiating energy from the cooler atmosphere back to the surface of the earth. I understand your unwillingness to let go of backradiation because without it there is no AGW alarmism.

 

[wirebender]

The greenhouse effect is a myth. It is a fabrication. A fiction.

Great. Then you come up with a better explanation for why the Earth isn't -18 Centigrade at its surface.

You might start with this. It is early in development, but clearly shows that a greenhouse effect is not necessary to account for the temperature of the earth.

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I didn't say pressure represents work - I SAID IT DOES WORK. Three times now. You still cannot read.

Radiation pressure is not work and can not be construed as work so as to allow you to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics in radiating energy from the cooler atmosphere back to the surface of the earth. I understand your unwillingness to let go of backradiation because without it there is no AGW alarmism.

FOR THE 4th TIME, I DID NOT SAY PRESSURE IS WORK, I SAID IT DOES WORK.

 

[Si modo]

I didn't say pressure represents work - I SAID IT DOES WORK. Three times now. You still cannot read.

Radiation pressure is not work and can not be construed as work so as to allow you to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics in radiating energy from the cooler atmosphere back to the surface of the earth. I understand your unwillingness to let go of backradiation because without it there is no AGW alarmism.

OK. Maybe I'm wrong about what you are saying, but my understanding of the term "backradiation" is the radiation by the Earth's surface after absorbing radiation from the sun during the day - it's IR radiation (heat) that it emits as , what I understand to be, backradiation.

As you can see from the discussion above, CO2 absorbs a bit of that IR radiation, converts it to kinetic energy, which generates heat, of course. So, because the CO2 is generating heat, not much, but some, the heat from the Earth (what I understand to be backradiation) does not flow as much. Heat transfer is dependent upon temperature gradients, so that heat transfer (Earth back to space) is slowed.

So, without GHGs, we would lose much more heat during the night than we do.

That is my understanding of the term, backradiation. Of course, because of the misnomer "Greenhouse Effect", I could be completely wrong. Climate scientists have been know to use terms that have little to do with reality.

If I misunderstand you, please correct me.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The greenhouse effect is a myth. It is a fabrication. A fiction.

Great. Then you come up with a better explanation for why the Earth isn't -18 Centigrade at its surface.

You might start with this. It is early in development, but clearly shows that a greenhouse effect is not necessary to account for the temperature of the earth.

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

LOL!!!

Here's some papers that were actually PUBLISHED that claim the greenhouse effect is indeed necessary to keep the Earth from freezing.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/CaltechWater.pdf
SpringerLink - Climate Dynamics, Volume 35, Number 5
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth

Why hasn't Mr. Postma tried to publish his work? Most of the paper all he does is attack a simplified classroom model that was never meant to be the all encompassing proof of AGW - real GCM's are far more sophisticated.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I didn't say pressure represents work - I SAID IT DOES WORK. Three times now. You still cannot read.

Radiation pressure is not work and can not be construed as work so as to allow you to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics in radiating energy from the cooler atmosphere back to the surface of the earth. I understand your unwillingness to let go of backradiation because without it there is no AGW alarmism.

OK. Maybe I'm wrong about what you are saying, but my understanding of the term "backradiation" is the radiation by the Earth's surface after absorbing radiation from the sun during the day - it's IR radiation (heat) that it emits as , what I understand to be, backradiation.

As you can see from the discussion above, CO2 absorbs a bit of that IR radiation, converts it to kinetic energy, which generates heat, of course. So, because the CO2 is generating heat, not much, but some, the heat from the Earth (what I understand to be backradiation) does not flow as much. Heat transfer is dependent upon temperature gradients, so that heat transfer (Earth back to space) is slowed.

So, without GHGs, we would lose much more heat during the night than we do.

That is my understanding of the term, backradiation. Of course, because of the misnomer "Greenhouse Effect", I could be completely wrong. Climate scientists have been know to use terms that have little to do with reality.

If I misunderstand you, please correct me.

That's an interesting question - how cold would the Earth get at night time with no greenhouse effect?

Will see if that's easily calculable.....


EDIT1: Off the top of my head the answer is not much. The Earth is a huge mass and has a lot of thermal energy, and the amount that can radiate at night is tiny compared to that.

EDIT2: Yet night and day on the moon are very different temperatures. They are very different on Mercury, too, but that's because mercury is tidally locked so only one side is exposed to the sun all the time and the other remains night. Hmmmmm

 

[Si modo]

Radiation pressure is not work and can not be construed as work so as to allow you to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics in radiating energy from the cooler atmosphere back to the surface of the earth. I understand your unwillingness to let go of backradiation because without it there is no AGW alarmism.

OK. Maybe I'm wrong about what you are saying, but my understanding of the term "backradiation" is the radiation by the Earth's surface after absorbing radiation from the sun during the day - it's IR radiation (heat) that it emits as , what I understand to be, backradiation.

As you can see from the discussion above, CO2 absorbs a bit of that IR radiation, converts it to kinetic energy, which generates heat, of course. So, because the CO2 is generating heat, not much, but some, the heat from the Earth (what I understand to be backradiation) does not flow as much. Heat transfer is dependent upon temperature gradients, so that heat transfer (Earth back to space) is slowed.

So, without GHGs, we would lose much more heat during the night than we do.

That is my understanding of the term, backradiation. Of course, because of the misnomer "Greenhouse Effect", I could be completely wrong. Climate scientists have been know to use terms that have little to do with reality.

If I misunderstand you, please correct me.

That's an interesting question - how cold would the Earth get at night time with no greenhouse effect?

Will see if that's easily calculable.....

It probably is easier to calculate/model - fewer variables.

So, I just did a search of the backradiation term as it applies to the climate and I saw a cartoon that indicates the 'flows' of radiation. The backradiation arrow is toward earth. I would imagine that this is to indicate the heat generated from the CO2. Smaller flux, but still slows the flux of blackbody radiation from the Earth at night.

I still don't see any problem with that. Similar concept.

Edits:

EDIT1: Off the top of my head the answer is not much. The Earth is a huge mass and has a lot of thermal energy, and the amount that can radiate at night is tiny compared to that.

EDIT2: Yet night and day on the moon are very different temperatures. They are very different on Mercury, too, but that's because mercury is tidally locked so only one side is exposed to the sun all the time and the other remains night. Hmmmmm

Good examples.

I am not seeing much problem with what is described as the "Greenhouse Effect", except the name, of course. Grrrrrr.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

OK. Maybe I'm wrong about what you are saying, but my understanding of the term "backradiation" is the radiation by the Earth's surface after absorbing radiation from the sun during the day - it's IR radiation (heat) that it emits as , what I understand to be, backradiation.

As you can see from the discussion above, CO2 absorbs a bit of that IR radiation, converts it to kinetic energy, which generates heat, of course. So, because the CO2 is generating heat, not much, but some, the heat from the Earth (what I understand to be backradiation) does not flow as much. Heat transfer is dependent upon temperature gradients, so that heat transfer (Earth back to space) is slowed.

So, without GHGs, we would lose much more heat during the night than we do.

That is my understanding of the term, backradiation. Of course, because of the misnomer "Greenhouse Effect", I could be completely wrong. Climate scientists have been know to use terms that have little to do with reality.

If I misunderstand you, please correct me.

That's an interesting question - how cold would the Earth get at night time with no greenhouse effect?

Will see if that's easily calculable.....

It probably is easier to calculate/model - fewer variables.

So, I just did a search of the backradiation term as it applies to the climate and I saw a cartoon that indicates the 'flows' of radiation. The backradiation arrow is toward earth. I would imagine that this is to indicate the heat generated from the CO2. Smaller flux, but still slows the flux of blackbody radiation from the Earth at night.

I still don't see any problem with that. Similar concept.

Do we have a point of disagreement? I forget.

 

[Si modo]

That's an interesting question - how cold would the Earth get at night time with no greenhouse effect?

Will see if that's easily calculable.....

It probably is easier to calculate/model - fewer variables.

So, I just did a search of the backradiation term as it applies to the climate and I saw a cartoon that indicates the 'flows' of radiation. The backradiation arrow is toward earth. I would imagine that this is to indicate the heat generated from the CO2. Smaller flux, but still slows the flux of blackbody radiation from the Earth at night.

I still don't see any problem with that. Similar concept.

Do we have a point of disagreement? I forget.

Not at the moment.