CO2 Experiments posted here

[Crick]

At what temperature does the earth radiate and at what wavelength?

It's further evidence your silliness that you imply that the earth would necessarily radiate at a single temperature and wavelength.

Climate science says that the earth radiates at a certain wattage per square meter and at a certain wavelength....that implies a certain temperature...or didn't you know that?

If you actually did any thinking, you would have understood the fundamental error you're making here. Here - among other data, are the range of wavelengths (PLURAL, ~5-50 microns) at which the Earth radiates.

You are SO stupid!

 

[SSDD]

You are SO stupid!

Does your graph say that earth thermal radiation going out is around 255K? Tell me, what does 255K convert to in degrees F?

 

[jc456]

You are SO stupid!

Does your graph say that earth thermal radiation going out is around 255K? Tell me, what does 255K convert to in degrees F?

That's it exactly!!!ding, ding, ding..............

 

[Crick]

You are SO stupid!

Does your graph say that earth thermal radiation going out is around 255K? Tell me, what does 255K convert to in degrees F?

Chilly.

 

[Crick]

You like this better?

 

[Crick]

I hope you're not under the impression that 255K is the average temperature of the Earth.

 

[SSDD]

You are SO stupid!

Does your graph say that earth thermal radiation going out is around 255K? Tell me, what does 255K convert to in degrees F?

Chilly.

So according to your graph, earth outgoing thermal radiation is "chilly" care to explain how that translates to warming? Or is your graph not worth the effort it took to produce?

 

[SSDD]

I hope you're not under the impression that 255K is the average temperature of the Earth.

Not at all...just observing the quality of your information.

 

[SSDD]

You like this better?

OK..that graph says that the estimated IR emission to space from the surface of the earth is about 70 watts per square meter...a bottle of water at about 58 degrees radiates about 390 watts per square meter.

Where is the claimed warming coming from...Is CO2 converting this chilly radiation into heat?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You like this better?

OK..that graph says that the estimated IR emission to space from the surface of the earth is about 70 watts per square meter...a bottle of water at about 58 degrees radiates about 390 watts per square meter.

Where is the claimed warming coming from...Is CO2 converting this chilly radiation into heat?

OK..that graph says that the estimated IR emission to space from the surface of the earth is about 70 watts per square meter...a bottle of water at about 58 degrees radiates about 390 watts per square meter.

Unless I'm within......how close do I have to be to make the water bottle stop radiating?
I looked all over the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and the Stefan Boltzman Law and didn't see where distance fits in or where distance causes something to stop radiating.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

WUWT has an article up with a peer reviewed paper debunking the Gore/Nye experiment and the physics behind it. The paper may even have a theoretical estimate for the CO2 effect of a 120 ppm increase but I haven't read it because I only have my phone with me.

It appears to redo some of the 'highschool' experiments with argon instead of CO2 because the density is similar but there is no IR absorption. I would be interested in hearing more about it if somebody checks it out.

Not only gore/nye but all of that "green house in a jar sort of experiment"...They are demonstrating an entirely different sett of physics than the hypothetical greenhouse effect....as a control, the scientists used argon (roughly same density as CO2 but invisible to IR) and the argon heated up more than the CO2.

The experiments are bogus....including the myth busters experiment.

As an interesting sidebar...the IR lamps that people typically use in these experiments have an output of about 1000K and radiate at a wavelength of about 3 microns.... So you have an IR source radiating at 10,000 times the radiance of earth and thousands of times more CO2 in the containers than found in the atmosphere and the best they can do is manage a 1.5 to 2 degree temperature increase... If the experiment were meant to approximate the conditions found in the atmosphere, they would have to have a thermal radiator radiating at about 288K which would be the equivalent of putting a bottle of water at about 58 degrees which would radiate about 390 watts per square meter of 10.1 micron radiation. How much warming do you think they would get from that setup?....for that matter, how much warming do you think happens out in the real world if under rigged conditions they can only manage 2 degrees with a radiator putting out ten thousand times more radiation than the earth radiating thousands of times more CO2 than is found in the atmosphere. Do you really think that a doubling of CO2 will result in 1 degree?

^ number 1 reason the AGWCult has absolutely no, none, zero, zip, Nada lab work

 

[Crick]

How about a link, Ian?

 

[SSDD]

You like this better?

OK..that graph says that the estimated IR emission to space from the surface of the earth is about 70 watts per square meter...a bottle of water at about 58 degrees radiates about 390 watts per square meter.

Where is the claimed warming coming from...Is CO2 converting this chilly radiation into heat?

OK..that graph says that the estimated IR emission to space from the surface of the earth is about 70 watts per square meter...a bottle of water at about 58 degrees radiates about 390 watts per square meter.

Unless I'm within......how close do I have to be to make the water bottle stop radiating?
I looked all over the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and the Stefan Boltzman Law and didn't see where distance fits in or where distance causes something to stop radiating.

Reference the inverse square law...

 

[SSDD]

You like this better?

Question......That graph says that the thermal radiation from the surface to space is about 70 watts per square meter or roughly equivalent to 255K... Trenberth's cartoon, the basis for the AGW scam says that the thermal radiation from the earth is about 120 watts per square meter...(still damned chilly) and then with back radiation manages to radiate about 396 watts per square meter or roughly the same per square meter as a bottle of water at about 58 degrees...

First, there is a significant difference between the graph above and the claims trenberth made which support the AGW hoax...second, which do you believe....and third, considering the temperature and wavelength of the radiation we are talking about...where does the warming come from?

 

[Crick]

I thought you didn't understand and it seems I was correct. Why don't you look up Effective Radiated Temperature (ERT)?

 

[SSDD]

I thought you didn't understand and it seems I was correct. Why don't you look up Effective Radiated Temperature (ERT)?

Average...I get it. I just posted a new thread discussing averages. Take a look.


You stil didn't answer the question...the averages in your graph and the averages in trenberth's cartoon which is the basis for the hoax aren't the same...which is accurate, relatively speaking. (as if an average is accurate) and if one is more accurate than the other why did you chose the one not used to support the hoax?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK..that graph says that the estimated IR emission to space from the surface of the earth is about 70 watts per square meter...a bottle of water at about 58 degrees radiates about 390 watts per square meter.

Where is the claimed warming coming from...Is CO2 converting this chilly radiation into heat?

OK..that graph says that the estimated IR emission to space from the surface of the earth is about 70 watts per square meter...a bottle of water at about 58 degrees radiates about 390 watts per square meter.

Unless I'm within......how close do I have to be to make the water bottle stop radiating?
I looked all over the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and the Stefan Boltzman Law and didn't see where distance fits in or where distance causes something to stop radiating.

Reference the inverse square law...

That doesn't say anything about smart photons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK..that graph says that the estimated IR emission to space from the surface of the earth is about 70 watts per square meter...a bottle of water at about 58 degrees radiates about 390 watts per square meter.

Where is the claimed warming coming from...Is CO2 converting this chilly radiation into heat?

OK..that graph says that the estimated IR emission to space from the surface of the earth is about 70 watts per square meter...a bottle of water at about 58 degrees radiates about 390 watts per square meter.

Unless I'm within......how close do I have to be to make the water bottle stop radiating?
I looked all over the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and the Stefan Boltzman Law and didn't see where distance fits in or where distance causes something to stop radiating.

Reference the inverse square law...

If you want to know why you lose heat faster in a freezer than you do in the cold refer to the Stefan Boltzman Law... which describes the amount of energy a radiator loses depending upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings.

You never explained why a one-way flow of energy would go faster or slower, depending on the temperature of the surroundings. Do the photons (or waves, for those who don't believe) go faster, or slower, or is the difference in speed due to the number of photons (or waves) that are emitted? And how does the warmer object know how fast to emit?

Please explain how your theory makes sense, in relation to the Stefan Boltzman Law.

 

[SSDD]

OK..that graph says that the estimated IR emission to space from the surface of the earth is about 70 watts per square meter...a bottle of water at about 58 degrees radiates about 390 watts per square meter.

Unless I'm within......how close do I have to be to make the water bottle stop radiating?
I looked all over the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and the Stefan Boltzman Law and didn't see where distance fits in or where distance causes something to stop radiating.

Reference the inverse square law...

If you want to know why you lose heat faster in a freezer than you do in the cold refer to the Stefan Boltzman Law... which describes the amount of energy a radiator loses depending upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings.

You never explained why a one-way flow of energy would go faster or slower, depending on the temperature of the surroundings. Do the photons (or waves, for those who don't believe) go faster, or slower, or is the difference in speed due to the number of photons (or waves) that are emitted? And how does the warmer object know how fast to emit?

Please explain how your theory makes sense, in relation to the Stefan Boltzman Law.

You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a one way flow of energy? If you can't, say so and I will explain but for all your pretention of knowing physics, one would think that you could look at that equation and tell it describes a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to cooler surroundings.

 

[konradv]

You really can't look at that equation and tell that it describes a one way flow of energy? If you can't, say so and I will explain but for all your pretention of knowing physics, one would think that you could look at that equation and tell it describes a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to cooler surroundings.

On the average, yes, but the question was about individual photons. That flow ISN'T one-way.