CO2 Follows Temperature

[SSDD]

Not one single lab experiment? I can shoot down your whole hypothesis in one paragraph, if that's all that's required. I put CO2 into a spectrophotometer and it absorbs in the IR range. I put in more; it absorbs more.

And still, you can't provide a single lab experiment proving that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere. If it were that easy, don't you think someone would have come up with a valid experiment by now. I can claim that eating bananas will make a giraffe weightless all day long but till I can actually prove it by showing that a giraffe eating bananas becomes weightless I have nothing.....just like you....and all of climate science for that matter. The hypothesis remains unproven in spite of the billions flushed down the drain.

Therefore, since CO2 is not "magical" and behaves the same way in the lab and in the atmosphere, if CO2 continues to rise more and more IR will be absorbed.

Are you saying that a closed jar that elimates convection and conduction is the same as an open atmosphere? There is a reason that people challenge you warmists to provide some evidence of a greenhouse effect in an open atmosphere where factors like the heat of compression, etc., do not come into play. That reason is that the AGW hypothesis completely fails once it is outside of the jar in the actual atmosphere.

Since statistically 50% of all re-emitted IR radiation would head back towards earth, more CO2 in the atmosphere would mean more heading back towards earth, thereby increasing heat. There you go. Now go away and let people who really know about science argue about whether that's significant enough to cause changes in earth's climate.

Woult it? Can you show any proof of that? It should be easy to measure but the only way to measure so called downdwelling longwave radiation is to use an instrument that has been cooled to a temperature near that of the outermost reaches of the atmosphere.

The second law says that neither heat nor energy will spontaneously move from cool to hot. That statement has a meaning and the fact that you can't measure downdwelling longwave without cooling the insturment to a temperature far lower than the ambient seems to support that statement.

 

[IanC]

not random? hahahaha wirebender is back! are you going to tell us that the photon can't be emitted towards the surface because of the 'EM field'?

I am not quite sure what you mean. The second law states that energy won't flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object. The word random seems to allow for a spontaneous emission of energy from a cool object to a warm object. There must be a reason it can't spontaneously move in the direction of warm from cool but I never considered what that reason may be. Can you tell me what you meant in regards to the EM field?

these Planck curves describe what is happening in the second law. the warmer object emits more radiation at all points of the x axis. there is a one-to-one cancelling for the overlapping part of the curve, with the excess radiation above the lower curve being available to transfer heat. the radiation in the lower curve is still happening but it is a lower amount than the higher curves therefore heat only flows one way when the system is examined.

the SLoT does not determine the direction of any single emission, it describes the overall balance of the system which is always warmer to cooler. got that? this is an important point. the second law does not control individual atoms or molecules, it describes systems that are composed of large numbers of atoms or molecules and are controlled by the statistics of those large numbers. a CO2 molecule can eject a photon into the Sun and increase the Sun's energy but the overall transfer of energy is away from the Sun.

 

[IanC]

I was laughing because energy only escapes from the earth by radiation! convection and conduction require matter to be present.

And I pointed out that radiation only matters at the top of the atmosphere where there is obviously no warming. The models and lukewarmers act as if radiation rules down here on earth when it doesn't. Even if CO2 had the magical qualities ascribed to it, the hypothetical effects of increasing CO2 would not be detectable and could never ever ever rise to a level where they could be detected among the noise of natural variability.

Again, the lukewarmers argument is a moot argument. Ascribing the magic but a weaker magic isn't going to kill the hypothesis so we can move on to more more realistic science.

outward radiation is obviously a big player in the radiative balance. there are windows where some of the IR from the surface escapes directly into space. the higher up into the atmosphere, the more radiation is able to make a free escape.

CO2 is a small but not negligible actor that is able to scatter ~8% of surface radiation.

 

[IanC]

oh my!

I guess you have never heard of quantum mechanics which state that energy only comes and goes in discrete, defined packets. vibrations at atomic level arent like a guitar string that loses energy. perhaps you think electron spin runs out after awhile too? sometimes the excited CO2 state is also called a bend, maybe that is how you should visualize it. and there are no intermediate steps, it is either bent or not bent, there is no 'bending'.

So you are saying that the photon emits from the CO2 molecule at precisely the same frequency at which it was absorbed?

every time? no. some of the time? definitely.

 

[IanC]

basically I agree with you that our incomplete knowledge of how and why climate changes will preclude us from proving the effect of CO2 on surface temperature. the mechanism is known but not the quantity.

The mechanism is hypothesized, not known. Guessing on quantity is jumping the cart before the horse. As more physicists enter the argument (out of disgust I suppose) that mechanism comes more and more into question.

I find it hard to believe that you are discounting the decades of research in spectroscopy. we know, by experiment, science, exactly the spectral lines that CO2 absorbs. we know by experiment exactly the spectral lines that CO2 emits. we know that the lines that CO2 absorbs are exactly the same as it emits.

are there confounding issues when calculating the CO2 effect on the atmosphere? of course! but the basic mechanism is known and calculated to be ~1K per doubling of CO2 at the surface while keeping everything else the same.

 

[SSDD]

these Planck curves describe what is happening in the second law. the warmer object emits more radiation at all points of the x axis. there is a one-to-one cancelling for the overlapping part of the curve, with the excess radiation above the lower curve being available to transfer heat. the radiation in the lower curve is still happening but it is a lower amount than the higher curves therefore heat only flows one way when the system is examined.

Radiation and heat are two different things. According to the second law, it isn't possible for heat to spontaneously move from a region of cooler temperature to a region of warm.

If you are arguing net flow with any amount of heat flowing from cool to warm, you are going to have to get the second law changed in order to make it stick.

the SLoT does not determine the direction of any single emission, it describes the overall balance of the system which is always warmer to cooler. got that?

I hear what you are saying but your claims aren't in accordance with the wording of the second law. Till someone changes it, I am afraid it, as stated, remains the law.

this is an important point.

I suppose it is an important point to try to make if your argument isn't in accordance with the second law. It is not possible for heat to move from cool to warm without having done some work to make it happen.

the second law does not control individual atoms or molecules, it describes systems that are composed of large numbers of atoms or molecules and are controlled by the statistics of those large numbers.

The second law is a law of nature that applies down as far as the atomic level. Unless of course you can prove otherwise and we both know already that anything you present as "proof" is going to be nothing more than some variation of an interpretation of the second law and not the second law itself.

a CO2 molecule can eject a photon into the Sun and increase the Sun's energy but the overall transfer of energy is away from the Sun.

No it can't unless that CO2 molecule is hotter than the sun. It would be interesting to see someone prove otherwise, but it isn't going to happen.

 

[SSDD]

outward radiation is obviously a big player in the radiative balance. there are windows where some of the IR from the surface escapes directly into space. the higher up into the atmosphere, the more radiation is able to make a free escape.

Not until you reach an altitude where convection and conduction become bit players. And the whole atmosphere is a window. There is no bottleneck as evidenced by the lack of a hot spot which would be the fingerprint of the often claimed bottleneck.

CO2 is a small but not negligible actor that is able to scatter ~8% of surface radiation.

The importance of CO2 is vanishingly insignifigant. This is proven by climate science's absolute failure to find any real world evidence of CO2 causing a temperature rise. The whole claim is unproven and will remain so because it is based on an incorrect application of physics. That is why the climate models based on those incorrect physics repeatedly fail. And again, scattering is a means of cooling, not warming. If you want to warm, you must concentrate, not scatter.

 

[SSDD]

every time? no. some of the time? definitely.

Can you prove that? For that matter, can you prove the existence of a photon? You seem to be quite sure of a lot of things that are, in reality, hypothetical ad hoc guesswork done to accomodate a hypothesis.

 

[konradv]

Not one single lab experiment? I can shoot down your whole hypothesis in one paragraph, if that's all that's required. I put CO2 into a spectrophotometer and it absorbs in the IR range. I put in more; it absorbs more.

And still, you can't provide a single lab experiment proving that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere. If it were that easy, don't you think someone would have come up with a valid experiment by now. I can claim that eating bananas will make a giraffe weightless all day long but till I can actually prove it by showing that a giraffe eating bananas becomes weightless I have nothing.....just like you....and all of climate science for that matter. The hypothesis remains unproven in spite of the billions flushed down the drain.

Therefore, since CO2 is not "magical" and behaves the same way in the lab and in the atmosphere, if CO2 continues to rise more and more IR will be absorbed.

Are you saying that a closed jar that elimates convection and conduction is the same as an open atmosphere? There is a reason that people challenge you warmists to provide some evidence of a greenhouse effect in an open atmosphere where factors like the heat of compression, etc., do not come into play. That reason is that the AGW hypothesis completely fails once it is outside of the jar in the actual atmosphere.

Since statistically 50% of all re-emitted IR radiation would head back towards earth, more CO2 in the atmosphere would mean more heading back towards earth, thereby increasing heat. There you go. Now go away and let people who really know about science argue about whether that's significant enough to cause changes in earth's climate.

Woult it? Can you show any proof of that? It should be easy to measure but the only way to measure so called downdwelling longwave radiation is to use an instrument that has been cooled to a temperature near that of the outermost reaches of the atmosphere.

The second law says that neither heat nor energy will spontaneously move from cool to hot. That statement has a meaning and the fact that you can't measure downdwelling longwave without cooling the insturment to a temperature far lower than the ambient seems to support that statement.

You are totally twisting the science. Have you studied it or logic at all? Are you a sock puppet of a poster that was here a while back and was always talking about EM fields? Help me, who was that?

 

[SSDD]

I find it hard to believe that you are discounting the decades of research in spectroscopy. we know, by experiment, science, exactly the spectral lines that CO2 absorbs. we know by experiment exactly the spectral lines that CO2 emits. we know that the lines that CO2 absorbs are exactly the same as it emits.

Of course we know which frequencies CO2 absorbs. We don't know that those lines are exactly the same as what it emits. If you have ever looked at those lines, you will see that they cover a small range as opposed to a precise frequency.

are there confounding issues when calculating the CO2 effect on the atmosphere? of course! but the basic mechanism is known and calculated to be ~1K per doubling of CO2 at the surface while keeping everything else the same.

the primary confounding issue being that its effect, if any, is vanishingly small and will never be of enough importance to warrant spending a single dollar.

The mechanism is hypothesized and has yet to be demonstrated in the open atmosphere and the longer we go with no warming while the atmospheric CO2 increases, the less important and likely it becomes that there is any effect at all.

Nikolov and Zeller have shown pretty convincingly, across the entire solar system, that atomspheric make up is of little importance beyond the effect the individual constitutents have on the mass of that atmosphere as applied to the ideal gas laws.

 

[SSDD]

You are totally twisting the science. Have you studied it or logic at all? Are you a sock puppet of a poster that was here a while back and was always talking about EM fields? Help me, who was that?

I am not twisting anything. I am asking you for some hard evidence to support your claims. Either you can present it, or you can't. If you can't, then your claims are nothing more than unproven hypothesis and have little meaning until such time as the proof becomes available.

In the mean time, the observed reality states every single day that the hypothesis is wrong and every time a model fails (which is every damned time it is tried) it says that the physics upon which the model and your greenhouse effect hypothesis are based is so wrong as to not even be close.

The only thing twisted is the warmists interpretation and application of physical laws and the failing computer models prove it every day.

 

[SSDD]

Btw....................happy thanksgiving everyone...

 

[konradv]

You are totally twisting the science. Have you studied it or logic at all? Are you a sock puppet of a poster that was here a while back and was always talking about EM fields? Help me, who was that?

I am not twisting anything. I am asking you for some hard evidence to support your claims. Either you can present it, or you can't. If you can't, then your claims are nothing more than unproven hypothesis and have little meaning until such time as the proof becomes available.

In the mean time, the observed reality states every single day that the hypothesis is wrong and every time a model fails (which is every damned time it is tried) it says that the physics upon which the model and your greenhouse effect hypothesis are based is so wrong as to not even be close.

The only thing twisted is the warmists interpretation and application of physical laws and the failing computer models prove it every day.

I did provide hard evidence. CO2 absorbs IR. CO2 releases IR. If 50% doesn't head back towards earth, then you're the one guilty of magical thinking. What else can I say?

 

[SSDD]

I did provide hard evidence. CO2 absorbs IR. CO2 releases IR. If 50% doesn't head back towards earth, then you're the one guilty of magical thinking. What else can I say?

If you are talking about heat radiating back to the earth....sorry the second law says it can't happen. Neither heat nor energy can spontaneously radiate from a cool area to a warm area. I didn't write the law, I just live by it. Are you saying that the second law is wrong...or that it doesn't apply to CO2?

It is magical thinking to believe that CO2 can radiate from cool to warm...either heat or energy because the 2nd law says that it can't happen.

 

[konradv]

I did provide hard evidence. CO2 absorbs IR. CO2 releases IR. If 50% doesn't head back towards earth, then you're the one guilty of magical thinking. What else can I say?

If you are talking about heat radiating back to the earth....sorry the second law says it can't happen. Neither heat nor energy can spontaneously radiate from a cool area to a warm area. I didn't write the law, I just live by it. Are you saying that the second law is wrong...or that it doesn't apply to CO2?

It is magical thinking to believe that CO2 can radiate from cool to warm...either heat or energy because the 2nd law says that it can't happen.

NO, I'm not talking about heat, I'm talking about photons. It doesn't become heat until a photon makes a molecule vibrate. Your ignorance of the basic principles and definitions of science is astounding. Please refrain from posting until you've studied a bit.

 

[SSDD]

NO, I'm not talking about heat, I'm talking about photons. It doesn't become heat until a photon makes a molecule vibrate. Your ignorance of the basic principles and definitions of science is astounding. Please refrain from posting until you've studied a bit.

Is a photon energy? You seem to be very quick to suggest ignorance on someone elses part. That is and of itself ignorance. Again, is a photon energy. If it isn't, what is it?

 

[konradv]

NO, I'm not talking about heat, I'm talking about photons. It doesn't become heat until a photon makes a molecule vibrate. Your ignorance of the basic principles and definitions of science is astounding. Please refrain from posting until you've studied a bit.

Is a photon energy? You seem to be very quick to suggest ignorance on someone elses part. That is and of itself ignorance. Again, is a photon energy. If it isn't, what is it?

It is energy, but you've changed the goalposts. We were talking about heat. Photons aren't heat.

 

[SSDD]

It is energy, but you've changed the goalposts. We were talking about heat. Photons aren't heat.

No we are talking about the greenhouse effect. So we are agreed that photons are energy. Good. See we can agree on things if we work at it a bit.

Now the second law isn't just about heat transfer, it is also about energy transfer because energy transfer can equal heat transfer and the second law can't be bypassed by radiating energy from cool to warm and then changing that radiation into heat.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Again, I didn't write this law...in fact, I had nothing whatsoever to do with it but you, and I, and photons, and kittens, and squids, and polar bears, and solid wood flooring, and everything else under heaven must live by it. The law is clear. Energy can not move spontaneously from a cool area to a warm area.

Since we are agreed that photons are energy, and I suppose we both agree that the second law of thermodynamics is correct, then we must agree that photons can not move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth. If they can, explain how you get around the energy transfer clause of the second law.

 

[konradv]

It is energy, but you've changed the goalposts. We were talking about heat. Photons aren't heat.

No we are talking about the greenhouse effect. So we are agreed that photons are energy. Good. See we can agree on things if we work at it a bit.

Now the second law isn't just about heat transfer, it is also about energy transfer because energy transfer can equal heat transfer and the second law can't be bypassed by radiating energy from cool to warm and then changing that radiation into heat.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Again, I didn't write this law...in fact, I had nothing whatsoever to do with it but you, and I, and photons, and kittens, and squids, and polar bears, and solid wood flooring, and everything else under heaven must live by it. The law is clear. Energy can not move spontaneously from a cool area to a warm area.

Since we are agreed that photons are energy, and I suppose we both agree that the second law of thermodynamics is correct, then we must agree that photons can not move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth. If they can, explain how you get around the energy transfer clause of the second law.

I do not agree that photons cannot move from a colder area to a warmer. The 2nd law specifically mentions heat. Photons ARE NOT heat. Explain how photons=heat. You may not substitute at will any terms you want into the 2nd Law and expect anyone to accept them.

 

[SSDD]

I do not agree that photons cannot move from a colder area to a warmer. The 2nd law specifically mentions heat. Photons ARE NOT heat. Explain how photons=heat. You may not substitute at will any terms you want into the 2nd Law and expect anyone to accept them.

The second law also specifically mentions energy and in fact the second law is entirely about energy transfer. I have not substitued anything. I copied that statement of the second law directly from the physics department of Georgia State University.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

You may not like what it says, but there it is. If a photon is energy, then it can't spontaneously move from a cooler area to a warmer area.

Here are some other credible sources stating the same thing:

6(e). Laws of Thermodynamics

"Heat cannot be transfer from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact of thermodynamics, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible."

Thermodynamics of Living Systems

"The second law of thermodynamics describes the flow of energy in nature in processes which are irreversible. The physical significance of the second law of thermodynamics is that the energy flow in such processes is always toward a more uniform distribution of the energy of the universe"

Energy Flow in Ecosystems - WikiEducator

"All of nature is driven by energy. How this energy flows through the environment is important.

It is governed by three laws:
Conservation of Mass
First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy)
Second Law of Thermodynamics

I could go on and on with examples but I have a suspicious feeling that it would be pointless. You have this notion that the second law is about heat only and not energy and no amount of reference is going to convince you otherwise. Is that correct?