Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[IanC]

With CO2 the release is instantaneous.

Instantaneous? What is your definition of that word? There are many things that happen quickly but in a relative way. To What are you comparing the release of energy from a molecule of excited CO2?

A photon takes a very short time to traverse the atmosphere and escape to space. 100 kilometres of atmosphere divided by the speed of light. 100 km/300,000km/sec equals 1/3000th of a second. Is that a reasonable reference frame for 'instantaneous'?

I have seen various estimates for how long an excited CO2 molecule holds onto the energy before re-emitting, from a full second to 1/100th of a second. So that is anywhere from 3000 to 30 times slower than instantaneous.

But wait. Some times the CO2 molecule gives up its energy by molecular collision instead of by reemission. At surface temperature and pressure there are roughly a billion collisions per second per molecule. Perhaps we need to redefine instantaneous. Of course collisions will add energy just as often as they subtract it at local thermodynamic equilibrium. Does molecular collision really count as losing energy if it is still there but just in a different form?

No it does not. Cooling, the loss of energy, only happens when photons actually leave the surface or atmosphere, and escape to space.

Any absorption of surface radiation slows the loss of energy to space and stores that energy in the atmosphere. It then has to find a way out.

CO2 absorbs and stores all the 15 micron radiation from the surface. Some, but not all of that energy migrates to a height in the atmosphere where CO2 can radiate to space and actually cause cooling. That takes time, lots of it. The surplus energy must find a different pathway out. The only available pathway is to return the energy to the surface, causing the equilibrium temperature to increase, which allows more radiation to be produced at wavelengths that can directly escape to space, bypassing atmospheric absorption altogether.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Water vapour randomizes the direction of the radiation. Instead of surface radiation heading only in the direction of space, you now have radiation in all directions for wavelengths that interact with water.

As with any molecule they will emit in random directions. The problems, especially with water vapor, is residency time that the molecule holds the energy and what happens to that energy during its residency.

With water vapor, the molecule holds absorbed energy, warming the molecule to a gas state consuming some of the energy, then cools as it rises until it re-nucleates, where it is released at much longer wave length and high in our atmosphere.

With CO2 the release is instantaneous..

As with any molecule they will emit in random directions.

Don't tell SSDD........

 

[SSDD]

IR does not warm the air...there is IR at a wide range of frequencies...and far more of it..CO2 absorbs it then either emits it on towards cooler areas or loses the energy via collision.

CO2 that absorbs IR is in an excited state. It loses energy by the predominate process, collision, which is transferring the IR energy to the molecule that it collided with.

The energy transfer cycle is
1. IR strikes CO2.
2. CO2 transfers energy to an air molecule via conduction.

That 2 step transfer process leads to increased kinetic energy of the air molecule in a random direction. That defines an increase in heat in the air.

Step 1 is negligibly small in a small room. But large in the atmosphere. That is because of the Beer-Lambert law. Therefore IR room heaters effectively don't heat the air in the room, but the outside earth can heat the air in the atmosphere.

Sorry guy....but you are once again wrong....but if you care to show me some actual measurements, made with instruments at ambient temperature that establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere we can talk about it...but you can't show any such data because none exist...

 

[SSDD]

With CO2 the release is instantaneous.

Instantaneous? What is your definition of that word? There are many things that happen quickly but in a relative way. To What are you comparing the release of energy from a molecule of excited CO2?

A photon takes a very short time to traverse the atmosphere and escape to space. 100 kilometres of atmosphere divided by the speed of light. 100 km/300,000km/sec equals 1/3000th of a second. Is that a reasonable reference frame for 'instantaneous'?

I have seen various estimates for how long an excited CO2 molecule holds onto the energy before re-emitting, from a full second to 1/100th of a second. So that is anywhere from 3000 to 30 times slower than instantaneous.

But wait. Some times the CO2 molecule gives up its energy by molecular collision instead of by reemission. At surface temperature and pressure there are roughly a billion collisions per second per molecule. Perhaps we need to redefine instantaneous. Of course collisions will add energy just as often as they subtract it at local thermodynamic equilibrium. Does molecular collision really count as losing energy if it is still there but just in a different form?

No it does not. Cooling, the loss of energy, only happens when photons actually leave the surface or atmosphere, and escape to space.

Any absorption of surface radiation slows the loss of energy to space and stores that energy in the atmosphere. It then has to find a way out.

CO2 absorbs and stores all the 15 micron radiation from the surface. Some, but not all of that energy migrates to a height in the atmosphere where CO2 can radiate to space and actually cause cooling. That takes time, lots of it. The surplus energy must find a different pathway out. The only available pathway is to return the energy to the surface, causing the equilibrium temperature to increase, which allows more radiation to be produced at wavelengths that can directly escape to space, bypassing atmospheric absorption altogether.

CO2 absorbs and emits...or loses the energy to a collision..it stores nothing at atmospheric pressures and temperatures.

 

[Wuwei]

IR does not warm the air...there is IR at a wide range of frequencies...and far more of it..CO2 absorbs it then either emits it on towards cooler areas or loses the energy via collision.

CO2 that absorbs IR is in an excited state. It loses energy by the predominate process, collision, which is transferring the IR energy to the molecule that it collided with.

The energy transfer cycle is
1. IR strikes CO2.
2. CO2 transfers energy to an air molecule via conduction.

That 2 step transfer process leads to increased kinetic energy of the air molecule in a random direction. That defines an increase in heat in the air.

Step 1 is negligibly small in a small room. But large in the atmosphere. That is because of the Beer-Lambert law. Therefore IR room heaters effectively don't heat the air in the room, but the outside earth can heat the air in the atmosphere.

Sorry guy....but you are once again wrong....but if you care to show me some actual measurements, made with instruments at ambient temperature that establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere we can talk about it...but you can't show any such data because none exist...

You think so? Then which of these do you think are false?

1. IR strikes and excites CO2.
2. CO2 transfers energy to an air molecule via conduction.

 

[Billy_Bob]

With CO2 the release is instantaneous.

Instantaneous? What is your definition of that word? There are many things that happen quickly but in a relative way. To What are you comparing the release of energy from a molecule of excited CO2?

A photon takes a very short time to traverse the atmosphere and escape to space. 100 kilometres of atmosphere divided by the speed of light. 100 km/300,000km/sec equals 1/3000th of a second. Is that a reasonable reference frame for 'instantaneous'?

I have seen various estimates for how long an excited CO2 molecule holds onto the energy before re-emitting, from a full second to 1/100th of a second. So that is anywhere from 3000 to 30 times slower than instantaneous.

But wait. Some times the CO2 molecule gives up its energy by molecular collision instead of by reemission. At surface temperature and pressure there are roughly a billion collisions per second per molecule. Perhaps we need to redefine instantaneous. Of course collisions will add energy just as often as they subtract it at local thermodynamic equilibrium. Does molecular collision really count as losing energy if it is still there but just in a different form?

No it does not. Cooling, the loss of energy, only happens when photons actually leave the surface or atmosphere, and escape to space.

Any absorption of surface radiation slows the loss of energy to space and stores that energy in the atmosphere. It then has to find a way out.

CO2 absorbs and stores all the 15 micron radiation from the surface. Some, but not all of that energy migrates to a height in the atmosphere where CO2 can radiate to space and actually cause cooling. That takes time, lots of it. The surplus energy must find a different pathway out. The only available pathway is to return the energy to the surface, causing the equilibrium temperature to increase, which allows more radiation to be produced at wavelengths that can directly escape to space, bypassing atmospheric absorption altogether.

Co2 does not warm when it absorbs photon energy. it immediately re-emits that energy... PERIOD! There is no storage because it can not store it. Mythical bull shit Ian...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

With CO2 the release is instantaneous.

Instantaneous? What is your definition of that word? There are many things that happen quickly but in a relative way. To What are you comparing the release of energy from a molecule of excited CO2?

A photon takes a very short time to traverse the atmosphere and escape to space. 100 kilometres of atmosphere divided by the speed of light. 100 km/300,000km/sec equals 1/3000th of a second. Is that a reasonable reference frame for 'instantaneous'?

I have seen various estimates for how long an excited CO2 molecule holds onto the energy before re-emitting, from a full second to 1/100th of a second. So that is anywhere from 3000 to 30 times slower than instantaneous.

But wait. Some times the CO2 molecule gives up its energy by molecular collision instead of by reemission. At surface temperature and pressure there are roughly a billion collisions per second per molecule. Perhaps we need to redefine instantaneous. Of course collisions will add energy just as often as they subtract it at local thermodynamic equilibrium. Does molecular collision really count as losing energy if it is still there but just in a different form?

No it does not. Cooling, the loss of energy, only happens when photons actually leave the surface or atmosphere, and escape to space.

Any absorption of surface radiation slows the loss of energy to space and stores that energy in the atmosphere. It then has to find a way out.

CO2 absorbs and stores all the 15 micron radiation from the surface. Some, but not all of that energy migrates to a height in the atmosphere where CO2 can radiate to space and actually cause cooling. That takes time, lots of it. The surplus energy must find a different pathway out. The only available pathway is to return the energy to the surface, causing the equilibrium temperature to increase, which allows more radiation to be produced at wavelengths that can directly escape to space, bypassing atmospheric absorption altogether.

Co2 does not warm when it absorbs photon energy. it immediately re-emits that energy... PERIOD! There is no storage because it can not store it. Mythical bull shit Ian...

Co2 does not warm when it absorbs photon energy.

Not even for a nanosecond? A picosecond?
Any other matter that can absorb energy and not warm?

it immediately re-emits that energy... PERIOD!

And that energy then warms something else. Neat.

There is no storage because it can not store it.

That explains why all CO2 is in the form of dry ice. DURR......

 

[IanC]

With CO2 the release is instantaneous.

Instantaneous? What is your definition of that word? There are many things that happen quickly but in a relative way. To What are you comparing the release of energy from a molecule of excited CO2?

A photon takes a very short time to traverse the atmosphere and escape to space. 100 kilometres of atmosphere divided by the speed of light. 100 km/300,000km/sec equals 1/3000th of a second. Is that a reasonable reference frame for 'instantaneous'?

I have seen various estimates for how long an excited CO2 molecule holds onto the energy before re-emitting, from a full second to 1/100th of a second. So that is anywhere from 3000 to 30 times slower than instantaneous.

But wait. Some times the CO2 molecule gives up its energy by molecular collision instead of by reemission. At surface temperature and pressure there are roughly a billion collisions per second per molecule. Perhaps we need to redefine instantaneous. Of course collisions will add energy just as often as they subtract it at local thermodynamic equilibrium. Does molecular collision really count as losing energy if it is still there but just in a different form?

No it does not. Cooling, the loss of energy, only happens when photons actually leave the surface or atmosphere, and escape to space.

Any absorption of surface radiation slows the loss of energy to space and stores that energy in the atmosphere. It then has to find a way out.

CO2 absorbs and stores all the 15 micron radiation from the surface. Some, but not all of that energy migrates to a height in the atmosphere where CO2 can radiate to space and actually cause cooling. That takes time, lots of it. The surplus energy must find a different pathway out. The only available pathway is to return the energy to the surface, causing the equilibrium temperature to increase, which allows more radiation to be produced at wavelengths that can directly escape to space, bypassing atmospheric absorption altogether.

Co2 does not warm when it absorbs photon energy. it immediately re-emits that energy... PERIOD! There is no storage because it can not store it. Mythical bull shit Ian...

You and SSDD keep saying that. But you refuse to say where the energy went.

Energy cannot disappear. It can change form but it can't just vanish.

CO2 absorbs more energy from the surface than it emits at the top of the atmosphere.

Where does it go? It's a simple question that must be answered. So far, you haven't. Would you like to try?

 

[SSDD]

You and SSDD keep saying that. But you refuse to say where the energy went.

Why do you find that you must lie ian? I have said where I think it goes over and over. If it is emitted from the CO2 molecule, then it is emitted towards a cooler region..if it is lost via collision then where it went is patently obvious. Actually, the fact that downwelling radiation can not be measured with an instrument at ambient temperature makes it patently obvious that if it is radiated, it does not radiate towards the surface of the earth.

CO2 absorbs more energy from the surface than it emits at the top of the atmosphere.

Where does it go? It's a simple question that must be answered. So far, you haven't. Would you like to try?[/QUOTE]

The bulk of it would be carried aloft by convective air currents in water vapor where it is radiated into space.

Face it ian, your hypothesis is an observational failure..

 

[SSDD]

Here ian...go read this.

Shock Paper Cites Formula That Precisely Calculates Planetary Temps WITHOUT Greenhouse Effect, CO2

I will be most interested to hear your explanation for the temperature differences at the grand canyon where the only difference in environment is altitude.

 

[IanC]

The bulk of it would be carried aloft by convective air currents in water vapor where it is radiated into space.

Again, you are pointing to the heads side of the coin while ignoring the tails side.

Any radiative gas absorbs more surface energy than it radiates out at a higher and cooler temperature.

For any time interval where the surface is warmer than the emission height of the radiative there is energy being stored in the atmosphere.

If there was no radiative gases present, then all the surface radiation energy would directly escape to space. And more cooling would happen.

 

[IanC]

Here ian...go read this.

Shock Paper Cites Formula That Precisely Calculates Planetary Temps WITHOUT Greenhouse Effect, CO2

I will be most interested to hear your explanation for the temperature differences at the grand canyon where the only difference in environment is altitude.

I haven't actually read the whole paper yet. I stopped at -

.Holmes has argued that the average temperature for 8 planetary bodies with thick (0.1 bar or more) atmospheres can be precisely measured with “extreme” accuracy — an error range of just 1.2% — by using a formula predicated on the knowledge of 3 parameters: “[1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere.”

This is circular reasoning. If you know the gravity and the density then you know how much energy is stored in the atmosphere. He is simply rearranging the terms.

If there were no GHGs present then there would be less stored energy and the density would be greater. You would still get the right answer but in this case the temperature would be lower.

Holmes is saying he is predicting the temperature but the temperature is already present in the measured parameters that he is using for input.

Of course the bottom of the Grand Canyon is warmer. Lapse rate. Death Valley is also very warm because it is below sea level. So what?

A more interesting conversation could be had by discussing dry and wet lapse rates and the reasons for the difference.

 

[Weatherman2020]

View attachment 151722
The divergence from reality is massive.. The hypothesis is therefore falsified.

Come on. We need to reformat the entire economy based upon a computer model.

 

[IanC]

View attachment 151722
The divergence from reality is massive.. The hypothesis is therefore falsified.

Come on. We need to reformat the entire economy based upon a computer model.

Hahahaha. When are they going to reformat the models to reflect reality? Instead of reanalysing the data to bring them into line with the models.

 

[SSDD]

Any radiative gas absorbs more surface energy than it radiates out at a higher and cooler temperature.

I am pointing at observation and measurement ian...not your hypothetical coin. Show me actual measurements of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

 

[SSDD]

This is circular reasoning. If you know the gravity and the density then you know how much energy is stored in the atmosphere. He is simply rearranging the terms.

And let me guess...you believe that it is just coincidence that the numbers are always so accurate.

Of course the bottom of the Grand Canyon is warmer. Lapse rate. Death Valley is also very warm because it is below sea level. So what?

So what? Again, the ideal gas laws predict this...does your failed greenhouse hypothesis even come close?

 

[SSDD]

View attachment 151722
The divergence from reality is massive.. The hypothesis is therefore falsified.

Come on. We need to reformat the entire economy based upon a computer model.

Hahahaha. When are they going to reformat the models to reflect reality? Instead of reanalysing the data to bring them into line with the models.

Reformatting the models to reflect reality would acknowledge that the fundamental understanding of physics upon which they are based is terribly flawed...it would require a fundamental paradigm shift...recognition that the climate is due to an observable, measurable, quantifiable gravito thermal effect...not a fantasy greenhouse effect.

 

[IanC]

This is circular reasoning. If you know the gravity and the density then you know how much energy is stored in the atmosphere. He is simply rearranging the terms.

And let me guess...you believe that it is just coincidence that the numbers are always so accurate.

How is it a coincidence? The answer is found by simply rearranging the terms.

Getting the wrong answer would be incompetence.

 

[SSDD]

This is circular reasoning. If you know the gravity and the density then you know how much energy is stored in the atmosphere. He is simply rearranging the terms.

And let me guess...you believe that it is just coincidence that the numbers are always so accurate.

How is it a coincidence? The answer is found by simply rearranging the terms.

Getting the wrong answer would be incompetence.

I suppose you are unaware that the lapse rate continues below the surface?

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...and not the first bit of actual evidence that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming.

 

[IanC]

This is circular reasoning. If you know the gravity and the density then you know how much energy is stored in the atmosphere. He is simply rearranging the terms.

And let me guess...you believe that it is just coincidence that the numbers are always so accurate.

How is it a coincidence? The answer is found by simply rearranging the terms.

Getting the wrong answer would be incompetence.

I suppose you are unaware that the lapse rate continues below the surface?

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...and not the first bit of actual evidence that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming.

Of course I am aware that the lapse rate continues under the sea level. Why do you think I pointed out Death Valley?

There obviously is a radiative greenhouse effect. Your statement is framed as- does increased CO2 cause MORE warming.

That is a trickier question. Not very much additional warming. Why?

The effect is long since totally saturated. The first few parts per million made a huge impact. Now less and less. Doubling the amount of CO2 hardly changes the mean free path, hardly raises the emission height. But it does make a small difference, and it is in the direction of warming.