Global Warming Theory vs Alarmist GW Theory

[RollingThunder]

Yes, Kooky, we fully realize that China is your ideal environment.

AGW has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The consequences are being felt as we post. No amount of inane cartoons are going to change reality.

AGW has not been proven at all. AGW is one assumption upon another assumption upon another. How does a trace gas that has no mechanism by which to trap or retain heat warm the planet.

That's your insanity and apparently your delusional mechanism for avoiding coping with reality. Scientists are quite clear about the reality of the greenhouse effect and the physics involved. You're just far too ignorant about science and far too stupid to realize that.

Ask one of your priests. You have all your cut and pastes lined up, bring one here that describes the mechanism by which it happens and describes the laws of physics that predict it.

My bet is that you will find no such writings in your religious texts because to discuss topics like that is to see your hypotheses fail.

LOLOLOLOL....OK, kiddo, here you go....not that I really expect you to understand it....at least, not without your head exploding like the Martians in "Mars Attacks".

The Greenhouse Effect & Greenhouse Gases
Brought to you by the National Earth Science Teachers Association

Greenhouse Gases

Although Earth's atmosphere is 90% opaque to long wave IR radiation, the vast majority of the atmosphere is not composed of gases that cause the greenhouse effect. Molecular nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) make up roughly 98% of our atmosphere, and neither is a greenhouse gas. So, although the greenhouse effect is very powerful, a very small fraction of Earth's atmospheric gases generate the effect.

What are the main greenhouse gases? Because of all the press coverage it has received in recent years, you may think that carbon dioxide (CO2) is "the big one". Though CO2's role is important, water vapor is actually the dominant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Water vapor generates more greenhouse effect on our planet than does any other single gas. Water, in gaseous form (as water vapor) and in liquid form (as tiny droplets in clouds), generates somewhere between 66% and 85% of the greenhouse effect. We'll get back to the issue of the large range that "66% to 85%" represents in a minute; it turns out that separating the impact of individual greenhouse gases is not a simple matter.

After water vapor, what are the most important greenhouse gases? In rough order of importance and size of effect, the major ones are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3). There are a number of other gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect to a lesser extent; we'll mention these here in passing for reference, but not consider them further henceforth. These "lesser greenhouse gases" include nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Carbon dioxide molecule

Methane molecule
Representations of two important greenhouse gas molecules: carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4).
Credit: Original artwork by Windows to the Universe Staff (Randy Russell).

How do greenhouse gases (GHGs) "work"? These molecules are capable of absorbing passing infrared photons; the energy of the photon is converted into an excited vibrational state of the GHG molecule. Recall that just as visible light has a range of wavelengths with different energies (that we see as colors!), so too the infrared spectrum spans a range of wavelengths with different energies. The various types of GHGs absorb different wavelength IR photons. In fact, the molecules often have more than one vibrational mode that allows them to absorb IR photons of more than one wavelength. This complicates matters when it comes to determining how much of the greenhouse effect each gas produces.

Here's an example. Water vapor absorbs IR photons with wavelengths of 790 nanometers, 940 nm, and 1,375 NM (and at several other wavelengths, too!). Carbon dioxide also absorbs IR photons with wavelengths around 1,375 NM (as well as at several other wavelengths). So it is difficult to say how much of the 1,375 NM IR radiation is absorbed by water vapor and how much is absorbed by CO2. This brings us back to the "66% to 85%" range of greenhouse effect that is caused by water.

Atmospheric scientists cannot definitively say, based on direct experiments, exactly how much greenhouse effect is caused by each GHG. They cannot simply remove one gas and see how the absorption of IR photons changes. Instead, they must use models of the atmosphere to predict the likely changes. So, they run their models with one GHG removed; say, for instance, water vapor. They might find that this results in a 36% reduction in the greenhouse effect. Note, however, that the absorption of 1,375 NM IR photons by CO2 would increase in this scenario; the CO2 need no longer "compete" for these photons with the water vapor. In essence, the 36% reduction in greenhouse effect computed by this method is a minimum; the impact on the total greenhouse effect from water vapor is actually larger. The end result is that there are rather larger ranges of values associated with the possible contributions of the various GHGs to the total greenhouse effect.

So, given all this, what are those ranges? The table below summarizes the contributions of each of the major GHGs to the overall greenhouse effect. Note that, due to the aforementioned complications, the percentages don't add up nicely to 100%.
Major Greenhouse Gas _____% of Greenhouse Effect
Water vapor _________________36% to 66%
Water vapor & Cloud droplets ___66% to 85%
Carbon dioxide _______________9% to 26%
Methane ____________________4% to 9%
Ozone ______________________3% to 7%

How do greenhouse gases "work"?

Carbon dioxide molecule vibration modes

Vibration modes of carbon dioxide. Mode (a) is symmetric and results in no net displacement of the molecule's "center of charge", and is therefore not associated with the absorption of IR radiation. Modes (b) and (c) do displace the "center of charge", creating a "dipole moment", and therefore are modes that result from EM radiation absorption, and are thus responsible for making CO2 a greenhouse gas.
Credit: Martin C. Doege

If you are up on your chemistry, you may have noticed that all of the greenhouse gas molecules have three or more atoms. Molecular nitrogen (N2) and molecular oxygen (O2), the two most abundant gases in our atmosphere, each have only two atoms per molecule, and are not greenhouse gases. This is not a coincidence. As was mentioned earlier, GHG molecules are capable of absorbing passing infrared photons; the energy of the photon is converted into an excited vibrational state of the GHG molecule. So why don't nitrogen and oxygen molecules absorb infrared photons?

Photons, including infrared photons, are of course a form of electromagnetic radiation. As such, they can also be understood as disturbances, or waves, of electromagnetic energy. Atoms, and the molecules they combine to form, have electrically charged particles (electrons and protons) in them. The gas molecules we are currently considering, nitrogen and oxygen and the various GHGs, have no net charge; they have equal numbers of electrons and protons. However, molecules that are on average neutral (in terms of their electrical charge) can still have localized charges, either some of the time (when they are vibrating) or all of the time. For example, surface tension in water is caused by the tendency of water molecules to stick together because the electrons that the oxygen and hydrogen atoms share are not shared equally. The shared electrons spend more time closer to the oxygen atom's nucleus, which has more protons and thus pulls on the electrons more strongly. The portion of each water molecule that is near the oxygen atom has a negative charge (excess electrons), while the areas around the two hydrogen atoms have positive charges (fewer electrons to offset the protons). Water molecules have localized areas of positive and negative charges, so individual water molecules tend to "stick" to one another (the positive hydrogen segments being attracted to the negative oxygen portion).

Molecules are not, however, rigid ball and stick figures as our chemistry class models may lead us to believe. Molecules are in motion; continuously bouncing around and jiggling and vibrating. Consider first a diatomic nitrogen (N2) or oxygen (O2) molecule. A pair of balls attached by a spring is a good model of such a molecule. Pull the balls apart and release them; they alternately move closer together and further apart. This vibrational mode is extremely symmetric, however; the center of mass of the system always remains at the point midway between the two balls/atoms. Electromagnetic "disturbances" (waves) do not tend to interact with, or transfer energy to, such diatomic molecules (such as N2 or O2).

Molecules with three or more atoms, however, are a different story. The figure (above, right) shows three different vibrational modes of a carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. The first mode, (a), is symmetric; it is comparable to the vibrational mode of diatomic molecules. The center of mass, and of charge, of the system is not displaced during vibration. However, such is not the case for the other two modes, (b) and (c). In the latter two cases, the "center of charge" moves as the molecule vibrates, creating a "dipole moment". As explained for the the case of water above, electrons are not shared equally between the atoms in the CO2 molecule, so the molecule is not electrically neutral in all places. As the molecule oscillates, the center of charge moves; from side to side in case (b), and up and down in case (c). A passing electromagnetic "disturbance" (wave, or IR photon) can "excite" such a molecule, causing it to vibrate and transferring energy from the photon to the molecule. This is the mechanism by which greenhouse gases absorb energy from infrared photons.

Copyright: The source of this material is Windows to the Universe®, at Windows to the Universe from the National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA). The website was developed in part with the support of UCAR and NCAR, where it resided from 2000 - 2010. © 2010 National Earth Science Teachers Association. Windows to the Universe® is a registered trademark of NESTA. All rights reserved.
Materials available for use through a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which means that the content can be copied, distributed, and displayed, and derivative works developed from it, but only for non-commercial purposes.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[wirebender]

That's your insanity and apparently your delusional mechanism for avoiding coping with reality. Scientists are quite clear about the reality of the greenhouse effect and the physics involved. You're just far too ignorant about science and far too stupid to realize that.

You love calling names don't you. Of course, it is a defense mechanism and I suppose I really can't blame you. Your belief system is falling apart around your ears and your priests are letting you down by not producing any actual science by which you can support it when challenged.

Ask one of your priests. You have all your cut and pastes lined up, bring one here that describes the mechanism by which it happens and describes the laws of physics that predict it.

My bet is that you will find no such writings in your religious texts because to discuss topics like that is to see your hypotheses fail.

LOLOLOLOL....OK, kiddo, here you go....not that I really expect you to understand it....at least, not without your head exploding like the Martians in "Mars Attacks".

Of course I understand the science. That is why I can state confidently that the hypotheses of AGW and the greenhouse effect are just so much bunkum. So lets get on with it. Lets demonstrate that you weren't able to provide an answer to a single one of my questions.

So, although the greenhouse effect is very powerful, a very small fraction of Earth's atmospheric gases generate the effect.

Which physical law predicts a greenhouse effect? As with all climate pseudoscience, this is nothing more than an assumption with no supporting science. Can you point to any repeatable experimental evidence performed in an open atmosphere that proves a greenhouse effect? I can certainly provide observable, repeatable evidence in the form of a simple experiment by which you can prove to yourself that it isn't happening.

What are the main greenhouse gases? Because of all the press coverage it has received in recent years, you may think that carbon dioxide (CO2) is "the big one". Though CO2's role is important, water vapor is actually the dominant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Water vapor generates more greenhouse effect on our planet than does any other single gas. Water, in gaseous form (as water vapor) and in liquid form (as tiny droplets in clouds), generates somewhere between 66% and 85% of the greenhouse effect. We'll get back to the issue of the large range that "66% to 85%" represents in a minute; it turns out that separating the impact of individual greenhouse gases is not a simple matter.

Water vapor is the only gas in the atmosphere that has a mechanism by which to absorb and retain heat.

After water vapor, what are the most important greenhouse gases?

After water vapor, there rare no other gasses that are able to retain or trap heat. They all absorb IR and emit precisely the same amount.

How do greenhouse gases (GHGs) "work"?

This ought to be good. My bet is a lot of shuck and jive, but no actual description of a mechanism by which CO2, or any other so called greenhouse gas can trap or retain heat.

These molecules are capable of absorbing passing infrared photons; the energy of the photon is converted into an excited vibrational state of the GHG molecule.

Yep. They absorb IR and then immediately emit exactly the same amount that they absorbed in a wavelength that is to low to be absorbed by another molecule of the same kind.

Here's an example. Water vapor absorbs IR photons with wavelengths of 790 nanometers, 940 nm, and 1,375 NM (and at several other wavelengths, too!). Carbon dioxide also absorbs IR photons with wavelengths around 1,375 NM (as well as at several other wavelengths). So it is difficult to say how much of the 1,375 NM IR radiation is absorbed by water vapor and how much is absorbed by CO2. This brings us back to the "66% to 85%" range of greenhouse effect that is caused by water.

Water is the only one among them that can actually retain energy. The rest simply absorb and emit precisely the same amount of energy. As I said, there will be no explanation as to how CO2 or any so called greenhouse gas other than water vapor might actually trap and retain heat. In fact, no explanation of how water vapor can do it will be forthcoming either as we don't exactly understand how it happens. We know that it is associated with water's ability to change phases in the open atmosphere but the precise mechanism escapes us.

Atmospheric scientists cannot definitively say, based on direct experiments, exactly how much greenhouse effect is caused by each GHG.

Of course they can't because they don't. If they were to say, then they would need an actual repeatable experiment to back up the claim and no experiment exists that proves a greenhouse effect in the open atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is an assumption and nothing more.

They cannot simply remove one gas and see how the absorption of IR photons changes. Instead, they must use models of the atmosphere to predict the likely changes.

Ahhhh. Computer models. When no actual evidence exists, fabricate a model to produce whatever evidence is needed. We all know how abysmally poor the performance of those models are, don't we? I suppose you must believe in them; after all, what other choice do you have? Admit that you have been duped? You can't do that, can you. You have far to much personally invested at this point to admit that you have been little more than a tool.

So, they run their models with one GHG removed; say, for instance, water vapor. They might find that this results in a 36% reduction in the greenhouse effect.

Of course, that assumes that the model accurately depicts every variable within the atmosphere. It assumes that no detail has been omitted and that precise parameters have been established for the entire mechanism of the atmosphere. Tell me, do the models accurately represent every possible permutation within the open atmosphere?

I am still not seeing any mention of a physical law that predicts a greenhouse effect or any description of a mechanism by which a gas that has no mechanism by which to trap or retain heat can generate this mythic greenhouse effect.

So, given all this, what are those ranges? The table below summarizes the contributions of each of the major GHGs to the overall greenhouse effect. Note that, due to the aforementioned complications, the percentages don't add up nicely to 100%.

Each and every one is the result of a computer model. Not a single one is supported by the first bit of observable, repeatable experimental evidence. It is all assumption based on computer models that do not even begin to calculate the conditions that exist within the real open atmosphere.

As I said, no answer will be forthcoming to any of my questions because there is no answer. Those questions that defeat the hypotheses of AGW and the greenhouse effect are simply glossed over every single time. The miracle is assumed, never proven.

Carbon dioxide molecule vibration modes

Vibration modes of carbon dioxide. Mode (a) is symmetric and results in no net displacement of the molecule's "center of charge", and is therefore not associated with the absorption of IR radiation. Modes (b) and (c) do displace the "center of charge", creating a "dipole moment", and therefore are modes that result from EM radiation absorption, and are thus responsible for making CO2 a greenhouse gas.

And absolutely no mention of the fact that the absorbed energy is immediately emitted. Precisely the same amount of energy absorbed is immediately emitted. The absorption spectra and the emission spectra are precise opposites. No energy is retained, trapped, slowed down, or in any way hindered. IR passes through a CO2 molecule at, or very near, the speed of light and is emitted immediately at or near the speed of light in a wavelength that is to low to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

If you are up on your chemistry, you may have noticed that all of the greenhouse gas molecules have three or more atoms. Molecular nitrogen (N2) and molecular oxygen (O2), the two most abundant gases in our atmosphere, each have only two atoms per molecule, and are not greenhouse gases. This is not a coincidence. As was mentioned earlier, GHG molecules are capable of absorbing passing infrared photons; the energy of the photon is converted into an excited vibrational state of the GHG molecule. So why don't nitrogen and oxygen molecules absorb infrared photons?

I am up on my chemistry. That is how I know that climate science is blowing smoke. Those molecules, with the exception of water vapor emit precisely the same amount of energy they absorb. There is no retention of the energy they absorb.

Photons, including infrared photons, are of course a form of electromagnetic radiation. As such, they can also be understood as disturbances, or waves, of electromagnetic energy. Atoms, and the molecules they combine to form, have electrically charged particles (electrons and protons) in them. The gas molecules we are currently considering, nitrogen and oxygen and the various GHGs, have no net charge; they have equal numbers of electrons and protons. However, molecules that are on average neutral (in terms of their electrical charge) can still have localized charges, either some of the time (when they are vibrating) or all of the time. For example, surface tension in water is caused by the tendency of water molecules to stick together because the electrons that the oxygen and hydrogen atoms share are not shared equally. The shared electrons spend more time closer to the oxygen atom's

True, but meaningless in the context of a greenhouse effect. Photons are subject to certain laws of nature and if you get far enough in your "explanation) (read fairy tale) I will demonstrate this to you.

Molecules with three or more atoms, however, are a different story. The figure (above, right) shows three different vibrational modes of a carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. The first mode, (a), is symmetric; it is comparable to the vibrational mode of diatomic molecules. The center of mass, and of charge, of the system is not displaced during vibration. However, such is not the case for the other two modes, (b) and (c). In the latter two cases, the "center of charge" moves as the molecule vibrates, creating a "dipole moment". As explained for the the case of water above, electrons are not shared equally between the atoms in the CO2 molecule, so the molecule is not electrically neutral in all places. As the molecule oscillates, the center of charge moves; from side to side in case (b), and up and down in case (c). A passing electromagnetic "disturbance" (wave, or IR photon) can "excite" such a molecule, causing it to vibrate and transferring energy from the photon to the molecule. This is the mechanism by which greenhouse gases absorb energy from infrared photons.[/I][/B]

True enough. Of course no one is arguing that CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses absorb IR. Note that none of your cut and paste even mentions the fact that the emission spectra is exactly the opposite of the absorption spectra. Your scripture repeats over and over that "greenhouse" gas molecules absorb energy but rarely, if ever mention emission.

As predicted, you did not answer a sigle question. You posted material that I doubt you understand if you believe it answers any of the questions I posed. Let me repeat:


1. HOW DOES A TRACE ATMOSPHERIC GAS THAT HAS NO CAPACITY TO RETAIN OR TRAP HEAT DRIVE THE CLIMATE?

2. Which law of physics predicts a greenhouse effect?

3. Which law of physics predicts backradiation?

4. Which law of physics predicts that a surface that receives 168 watts per square meter of energy from its only energy source can raidate more than twice that amount?


You obviously like to think of yourself as the smartest guy in the room but it is clear that you don't do much in the way of actual thinking. Even if a CO2 molecule were able to absorb and retain heat, which it can't, but if it could, how hot do you believe the 380 CO2 molecules in any given million parts of air would have to get in order to effectively warm up the other nine hundred, ninety nine thousand, six hundred and twenty parts of air by even the smallest fraction of a degree?

Here, is an animation of CO2 absorption and emission from one of your own quasi religous sites. Note that they don't try to pretend that any of the energy is trapped or retained. They show precisely the same amount of energy being emitted as was absorbed. Of course the very nature of climate science is dishonest so even in something as simple as absorption and emission they must be evasive and then downright dishonest when they say:

"When its atoms are bonded tightly together, the carbon dioxide molecule can absorb infrared radiation and the molecule starts to vibrate. Eventually, the vibrating molecule will emit the radiation again, and it will likely be absorbed by yet another greenhouse gas molecule"

Eventually? EVENTUALLY? Did they really say that eventually the molecule will emit the radiation? IR passes through the molecule at, or very near the speed of light. Tell me, how long do you think that takes? Do you believe eventually is an accurate, or honest description of the time it takes energy moving at or very near the speed of light to pass through a molecule?

Then they go on to say that it will likely be absorbed by yet another greenhouse gas molecule but don't mention that it won't be absorbed by another CO2 molecule as it is emitted at a frequency to low to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

Answer my questions or run along. Reading the cut and pastes of a mouthpiece who obviously can't discuss the science in anything like his own words is tedious and pointless. You don't have any idea whether the information you post is accurate or not. The above was a fine example of the pointlessness of talking to you. All that, and you didn't answer a single basic question that I asked. Each and every bit was either an assumption or an incomplete description of the absorption/emission process.

If you can't discuss the topic in your own words, or at least find cut and paste responses that address the questions I ask, why are you here if not to play your role as a mere mouthpiece for someone who knows full well that to discuss the foundational science upon which the hypotheses of AGW and the greenhouse effect must rest is to see both hypotheses dashed upon the rocks of logic?

 

[skookerasbil]

pseudo-science is gay

 

[Toronado3800]

pseudo-science is gay

The name calling and self congratulatory posters are fairly annoying and make folks want to disagree with whatever you say. Yup. That means it helps the point of view opposite of you.

Wirebender has done a bit of reading on the subject. While his findings may co tradict what folks see when they dump co2 i to fish tanks we should figure out why not call him a name or ridicule him.

 

[wirebender]

The name calling and self congratulatory posters are fairly annoying and make folks want to disagree with whatever you say. Yup. That means it helps the point of view opposite of you.

Wirebender has done a bit of reading on the subject. While his findings may co tradict what folks see when they dump co2 i to fish tanks we should figure out why not call him a name or ridicule him.

First, if you believe or disbelieve a thing simply because you like or dislike the source, you aren't up to scientific investigation. You are a tool to be used and nothing more.

I can tell you why if you want to know. It isn't complicated at all.

When you place a glass wall around any volume of anything, you eliminate conduction and convection from the equation. Those are the to most efficient means of moving energy in the atmosphere till you reach higher elevations where the air thins and molecules are further apart. At that point, raidation becomes the more efficient means of moving energy towards cold space.

It is because conduction and convection are removed from the process that glass box experiments are not analogous to the open atmosphere. They don't represent anything approaching the real world.

Then there are the experiments that involve a container, a radiometer (for detecting IR) on one side of the container and a heat source on the other. At the beginning of the experiment the raidometer shows the heat source brightly. Then CO2 is added to the container and the radiometer shows the bright heat source dimming to a dull glow.

This experiment proves nothing more than the fact that CO2 emits IR in a wavelength that is to low to be absorbed and emitted by another CO2 molecule. As the volume of CO2 increases, it simply becomes opaque to the heat source because because you reach a point where there are nothing coming through to the CO2 molecules but the emission spectra of other CO2 molecules and a CO2 molecule can't absorb the emission spectra of another CO2 molecule. Again, this is in no way analogous to an open system such as the atmosphere.

 

[RollingThunder]

Can you point to any repeatable experimental evidence performed in an open atmosphere that proves a greenhouse effect? I can certainly provide observable, repeatable evidence in the form of a simple experiment by which you can prove to yourself that it isn't happening.

I didn't think you could get any more retarded than you'd already shown yourself to be, wired&bent, but here you go proving me wrong about that point. LOL. All of the real scientists acknowledge the greenhouse effect but you are enough of a megalomaniac and utter retard to imagine you know better. You are such a perfect and extreme example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action that they should probably put your picture next to the definition. You can't "provide" anything that isn't just more of your scientifically ignorant and very moronic nonsense. You talk a lot of smack but you constantly demonstrate that you don't actually know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Even Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the few actual, working climate scientists who is skeptical about AGW, affirms the reality of the greenhouse effect. Here's a couple of articles he's written about it, including an "open atmosphere" experiment.

In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect
April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Help! Back Radiation has Invaded my Backyard!
August 6th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[Toronado3800]

The name calling and self congratulatory posters are fairly annoying and make folks want to disagree with whatever you say. Yup. That means it helps the point of view opposite of you.

Wirebender has done a bit of reading on the subject. While his findings may co tradict what folks see when they dump co2 i to fish tanks we should figure out why not call him a name or ridicule him.

First, if you believe or disbelieve a thing simply because you like or dislike the source, you aren't up to scientific investigation. You are a tool to be used and nothing more.

I can tell you why if you want to know. It isn't complicated at all.

When you place a glass wall around any volume of anything, you eliminate conduction and convection from the equation. Those are the to most efficient means of moving energy in the atmosphere till you reach higher elevations where the air thins and molecules are further apart. At that point, raidation becomes the more efficient means of moving energy towards cold space.

It is because conduction and convection are removed from the process that glass box experiments are not analogous to the open atmosphere. They don't represent anything approaching the real world.

Then there are the experiments that involve a container, a radiometer (for detecting IR) on one side of the container and a heat source on the other. At the beginning of the experiment the raidometer shows the heat source brightly. Then CO2 is added to the container and the radiometer shows the bright heat source dimming to a dull glow.

This experiment proves nothing more than the fact that CO2 emits IR in a wavelength that is to low to be absorbed and emitted by another CO2 molecule. As the volume of CO2 increases, it simply becomes opaque to the heat source because because you reach a point where there are nothing coming through to the CO2 molecules but the emission spectra of other CO2 molecules and a CO2 molecule can't absorb the emission spectra of another CO2 molecule. Again, this is in no way analogous to an open system such as the atmosphere.

I feel like we have had this debate before.

Remember when u do the fish tank experiment you use two tanks. Both insulated by glass.

Why does the presence of an insulator matter to an atmosphere with 10%co2 instead of one with 300ppm co2?

How does carbon in the atmosphere retain heat.? - Yahoo! Answers

Here are some boys and girls at yahoo havin the same debate.

 

[Toronado3800]

Can you point to any repeatable experimental evidence performed in an open atmosphere that proves a greenhouse effect? I can certainly provide observable, repeatable evidence in the form of a simple experiment by which you can prove to yourself that it isn't happening.

I didn't think you could get any more retarded than you'd already shown yourself to be, wired&bent, but here you go proving me wrong about that point. LOL. All of the real scientists acknowledge the greenhouse effect but you are enough of a megalomaniac and utter retard to imagine you know better. You are such a perfect and extreme example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action that they should probably put your picture next to the definition. You can't "provide" anything that isn't just more of your scientifically ignorant and very moronic nonsense. You talk a lot of smack but you constantly demonstrate that you don't actually know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Even Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the few actual, working climate scientists who is skeptical about AGW, affirms the reality of the greenhouse effect. Here's a couple of articles he's written about it, including an "open atmosphere" experiment.

In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect
April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Help! Back Radiation has Invaded my Backyard!
August 6th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Dont be mean and say "real" scientists. Wire either understands and has a different opinion or spends time copyin and pasting from some decently scientific websites.

Either way he makes decent posts and does not resort to name calling as much as others on here

 

[wirebender]

I didn't think you could get any more retarded than you'd already shown yourself to be, wired&bent, but here you go proving me wrong about that point. LOL. All of the real scientists acknowledge the greenhouse effect but you are enough of a megalomaniac and utter retard to imagine you know better.

And once again, appeals to authority but no actual evidence. Don't worry though, I didn't expect any such evidence because none exists.

Even Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the few actual, working climate scientists who is skeptical about AGW, affirms the reality of the greenhouse effect. Here's a couple of articles he's written about it, including an "open atmosphere" experiment.

Again, appeal to authority. And his open air experiment was a failure. It did not prove the existence of backradiation. He did state that even though his experiment failed he still believed in backradiation.

Now, do you have any actual observable, repeatable evidence to support your claim or are endless appeals to authority all you will ever be able to manage?

I am laughing in your face. All this talk and you still haven't answered even one of my questions. Is this really all you have?

 

[wirebender]

I feel like we have had this debate before.

Remember when u do the fish tank experiment you use two tanks. Both insulated by glass.

It matters because you have removed conduction and convection from the equation and CO2 emits at a wavelength that is too long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule. Where do you suppose the heat is supposed to go if it can' be conducted, convected, or radiated out of the aquarium. The simple air mixture is able to radiate some energy even without conduction and convection. Since CO2 can not absorb and emit the emission of another CO2 molecule, the energy is, in effect, trapped; not by the CO2, but by the glass.

 

[wirebender]

Dont be mean and say "real" scientists. Wire either understands and has a different opinion or spends time copyin and pasting from some decently scientific websites.

Either way he makes decent posts and does not resort to name calling as much as others on here

Thanks, but he can't hurt my feelings. Namecalling is all he has since there is no actual observable, repeatable experimental evidence to support his stance. He isn't able to actually discuss the science and his cut and pastes are little more than assumption based on computer models and fallacious appeals to authority.

Take away name calling and he has nothing. He has no credible amunition with which to discuss the basic science, and he doesn't understand it himself so he attempts to bully people into either believing him or abandoning the discussion.

Till he answers my questions he will continue to lose the argument.

 

[RollingThunder]

CO2 emits at a wavelength that is too long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

That's some of your anti-science craziness but it is just a fantasy of yours with no relation to reality. You can provide no scientific backing for your nonsense, although you always claim to have already provided it...somewhere...sometime...but we should all go look for it 'cause you won't post it again... LOL.

CO2 absorbs infrared or longwave radiation and emits the same which is also absorbed by other CO2 molecules, as all of the world's scientists affirm. Too bad you're too retarded to even understand what Spencer was saying, and no, bozo, his experiment didn't "fail" nor did he state that it did as you claim, you silly liar.

You are a flaming fruitcake, wired&bent, and your phony techno-babble only fools the other ignorant denier cultists who are even more clueless about the science than you are.

 

[gslack]

When Trolling Blunder starts claiming science, I know its official... Yep just confirmed, it IS snowing in hell...

 

[wirebender]

CO2 emits at a wavelength that is too long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

That's some of your anti-science craziness but it is just a fantasy of yours with no relation to reality. You can provide no scientific backing for your nonsense, although you always claim to have already provided it...somewhere...sometime...but we should all go look for it 'cause you won't post it again... LOL.

CO2 absorbs infrared or longwave radiation and emits the same which is also absorbed by other CO2 molecules, as all of the world's scientists affirm. Too bad you're too retarded to even understand what Spencer was saying, and no, bozo, his experiment didn't "fail" nor did he state that it did as you claim, you silly liar.

You really don't understand any of this, do you? It really is all over your head, isn't it? This is the basics rollingthunder. This is the foundational stuff and if you don't understand this, you can't possibly grasp anythng that comes after. It is at the foundation that you determine whether a hypothesis is feasable or not and it is at the foundations that both AGW and the greenhouse effect fail.

Here rolling thunder, from a pro AGW, government funded site. The department of energy actually. This predates the complete corruption of basic science by climate scientists. It predates the necessity to fabricate and lie, and manipulate data in any way necessary in order to push an agenda. How it remains online in the present atmosphere of complete dishonesty escapes me.

Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994 - Volume 2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Clip: "What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation."

You are a flaming fruitcake, wired&bent, and your phony techno-babble only fools the other ignorant denier cultists who are even more clueless about the science than you are.

Like I said, I understand why you call names. When you have no actual science in support of your beliefs and are frustrated because people won't believe just because you and some dishonest cranks say so, you feel like you must bully people. It isn't really a rational, or appropriate way to get through life, but apparently, you don't have any other tools for coping at your disposal.

By now, it is abundantly clear that you aren't prepared to actually discuss the science as you have yet to answer a single question I have asked. There are no cut and paste answers to those questions that support either the AGW or greenhouse effect so you are left, as you see it, with two options. Walk away and admit defeat. An option that I am sure is unpalatable to you, or ramp up the name calling, wave your hands, and stomp your feet in an effort to intimidate. Pathetic really.

Now again, answer the questions I have put to you or run along. You have long since become boring and tedious. If you can't actually discuss the topic, why are you here if not as a tool and a mouthpiece? Neither, by the way, is very interesting.

 

[skookerasbil]

When Trolling Blunder starts claiming science, I know its official... Yep just confirmed, it IS snowing in hell...

 

[skookerasbil]

CO2 emits at a wavelength that is too long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

That's some of your anti-science craziness but it is just a fantasy of yours with no relation to reality. You can provide no scientific backing for your nonsense, although you always claim to have already provided it...somewhere...sometime...but we should all go look for it 'cause you won't post it again... LOL.

CO2 absorbs infrared or longwave radiation and emits the same which is also absorbed by other CO2 molecules, as all of the world's scientists affirm. Too bad you're too retarded to even understand what Spencer was saying, and no, bozo, his experiment didn't "fail" nor did he state that it did as you claim, you silly liar.

You are a flaming fruitcake, wired&bent, and your phony techno-babble only fools the other ignorant denier cultists who are even more clueless about the science than you are.

 

[RollingThunder]

CO2 emits at a wavelength that is too long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

That's some of your anti-science craziness but it is just a fantasy of yours with no relation to reality. You can provide no scientific backing for your nonsense, although you always claim to have already provided it...somewhere...sometime...but we should all go look for it 'cause you won't post it again... LOL.

CO2 absorbs infrared or longwave radiation and emits the same which is also absorbed by other CO2 molecules, as all of the world's scientists affirm. Too bad you're too retarded to even understand what Spencer was saying, and no, bozo, his experiment didn't "fail" nor did he state that it did as you claim, you silly liar.

You really don't understand any of this, do you? It really is all over your head, isn't it? This is the basics rollingthunder. This is the foundational stuff and if you don't understand this, you can't possibly grasp anythng that comes after. It is at the foundation that you determine whether a hypothesis is feasable(sic) or not and it is at the foundations that both AGW and the greenhouse effect fail.

Actually I understand it just fine. You are the one who is clueless, confused and misinformed. It is your denier cult delusions that fail any kind of scientific analysis.

Here rolling thunder, from a pro AGW, government funded site. The department of energy actually. This predates the complete corruption of basic science by climate scientists. It predates the necessity to fabricate and lie, and manipulate data in any way necessary in order to push an agenda. How it remains online in the present atmosphere of complete dishonesty escapes me.

Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994 - Volume 2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Clip: "What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation."

Well, hey, congratulations, wired&bent, you came up with an actual citation of something from a reputable source for a change. Of course the info there disagrees with all of the other sources that talk about the physics of the greenhouse effect so obviously something is a bit off somewhere. I know you imagine that it is all of the other scientists in the world who are wrong and the one who is right is some nameless, anonymous dude working in a government bureaucracy under the first Bush administration and writing a part of something that appeared in 1994, but that is just another part of your denier cult dementia. Nevertheless, I wanted to know for sure what the story is on this quote of yours so I asked one of the nation's top climate scientists, Dr Gavin Schmidt, for help. Here's his response.

"Well that text does appear in that volume (p29 Appendix A).

However I think it is fundamentally confused. They seem to be confusing
the mechanisms of IR absorption - which goes into the vibrational and
rotational modes of each molecule - with the energy associated with
electrons moving to higher states etc. The latter is quantised, but the
former is not.

The frequency/wavelength of the absorbed radiation is the same as the
emitted radiation - it does not shift frequency, although the magnitude of
the emission depends on the local temperature which might well be
different from the temperature where the original radiation originated.

The idea that methane molecules can't absorb energy from other methane
molecules is very odd. I see no way in which that can be correct.

I'm going to send this around for further comment, but I just think it is
likely that it simply didn't get caught at a review stage.

gavin"


BTW, wired&bent, aren't you one of the denier types who's always complaining that government publications are full of errors?

 

[ScienceRocks]

That's some of your anti-science craziness but it is just a fantasy of yours with no relation to reality. You can provide no scientific backing for your nonsense, although you always claim to have already provided it...somewhere...sometime...but we should all go look for it 'cause you won't post it again... LOL.

CO2 absorbs infrared or longwave radiation and emits the same which is also absorbed by other CO2 molecules, as all of the world's scientists affirm. Too bad you're too retarded to even understand what Spencer was saying, and no, bozo, his experiment didn't "fail" nor did he state that it did as you claim, you silly liar.

You really don't understand any of this, do you? It really is all over your head, isn't it? This is the basics rollingthunder. This is the foundational stuff and if you don't understand this, you can't possibly grasp anythng that comes after. It is at the foundation that you determine whether a hypothesis is feasable(sic) or not and it is at the foundations that both AGW and the greenhouse effect fail.

Actually I understand it just fine. You are the one who is clueless, confused and misinformed. It is your denier cult delusions that fail any kind of scientific analysis.

Here rolling thunder, from a pro AGW, government funded site. The department of energy actually. This predates the complete corruption of basic science by climate scientists. It predates the necessity to fabricate and lie, and manipulate data in any way necessary in order to push an agenda. How it remains online in the present atmosphere of complete dishonesty escapes me.

Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994 - Volume 2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Clip: "What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation."

Well, hey, congratulations, wired&bent, you came up with an actual citation of something from a reputable source for a change. Of course the info there disagrees with all of the other sources that talk about the physics of the greenhouse effect so obviously something is a bit off somewhere. I know you imagine that it is all of the other scientists in the world who are wrong and the one who is right is some nameless, anonymous dude working in a government bureaucracy under the first Bush administration and writing a part of something that appeared in 1994, but that is just another part of your denier cult dementia. Nevertheless, I wanted to know for sure what the story is on this quote of yours so I asked one of the nation's top climate scientists, Dr Gavin Schmidt, for help. Here's his response.

"Well that text does appear in that volume (p29 Appendix A).

However I think it is fundamentally confused. They seem to be confusing
the mechanisms of IR absorption - which goes into the vibrational and
rotational modes of each molecule - with the energy associated with
electrons moving to higher states etc. The latter is quantised, but the
former is not.

The frequency/wavelength of the absorbed radiation is the same as the
emitted radiation - it does not shift frequency, although the magnitude of
the emission depends on the local temperature which might well be
different from the temperature where the original radiation originated.

The idea that methane molecules can't absorb energy from other methane
molecules is very odd. I see no way in which that can be correct.

I'm going to send this around for further comment, but I just think it is
likely that it simply didn't get caught at a review stage.

gavin"


BTW, wired&bent, aren't you one of the denier types who's always complaining that government publications are full of errors?

What, I'd love to see is for gavin and friends to come here and debate wire. That would likely get news coverage and make them look bad if wire beat them. A honest to goodness debate.

Let who ever that has the science down win!

 

[wirebender]

Well, hey, congratulations, wired&bent, you came up with an actual citation of something from a reputable source for a change.

Why lie RT. All anyone need do is look back over my posts to see that the vast majority of information that I link to is peer reviewed studies. How sad that you are so intimidated by everyone that calling names and blatant dishonesty are, to you at least, the only acceptable response to anyone who disagrees with you.

Of course the info there disagrees with all of the other sources that talk about the physics of the greenhouse effect so obviously something is a bit off somewhere.

Actually, the info only disagrees with a small clique of climate scientists who are so heavily invested at this point in AGW that they see no way out of the corner they have painted themselves into.

I know you imagine that it is all of the other scientists in the world who are wrong and the one who is right is some nameless, anonymous dude working in a government bureaucracy under the first Bush administration and writing a part of something that appeared in 1994, but that is just another part of your denier cult dementia. Nevertheless, I wanted to know for sure what the story is on this quote of yours so I asked one of the nation's top climate scientists, Dr Gavin Schmidt, for help. Here's his response.

And you believe anything that Gavin Schmidt has to say. A man who is almost as discredited and disgraced as mann. I am laughing in your face RT. I really am. You trust a man who claims that a surface that absorbs 161 watts per square meter from its only energy source is magically able to emit more than twice that amount of energy.

However I think it is fundamentally confused. They seem to be confusing the mechanisms of IR absorption - which goes into the vibrational and rotational modes of each molecule - with the energy associated with electrons moving to higher states etc. The latter is quantised, but the former is not.

The frequency/wavelength of the absorbed radiation is the same as the emitted radiation - it does not shift frequency, although the magnitude of the emission depends on the local temperature which might well be different from the temperature where the original radiation originated.

The idea that methane molecules can't absorb energy from other methane molecules is very odd. I see no way in which that can be correct.

I'm going to send this around for further comment, but I just think it is
likely that it simply didn't get caught at a review stage.

gavin"[/I][/B]

Great doubletalk. Of course no mention of any observable, repeatable, experimental proof. Strange, don't you think that nothing ever spoken by that small clique of climate scientists is ever backed up by observable, repeatable, experimental evidence. What do you want to bet that eventually he answers your question with the output from a computer model?

You warmists have already posted a video that proves pretty convincingly that one CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission spectra of another. Here is the video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo&feature=player_detailpage]‪CO2 experiment‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Recognize it? Watch the experiment progress. As the tube fills up with CO2, the radiation transmitted through the tube to the camera diminishes till it is effectively shut out. The guy on the video claims that the heat is trapped within the tube, but if it were actually trapped, instead of a heat signature from the candle, you would see the tube containing the CO2 light up with the trapped heat.

Instead, what you see is just a dimming of the heat signature of the candle. As the concentration of CO2 increases, the heat signature of the candle dims because a saturation point is reached at which the radiation emitted from the CO2 molecules at the candle end of the tube is simply unable to move forward since no CO2 molecule can absorb the emitted radiation. I doubt that even the most rabit warmist would begin to claim that even in an atmosphere of 100% CO2 that all IR would be effectively trapped as the guy in the video seems to be implying with his experiment.

The experiment is hucksterism plain and simple but it does prove my point. Again, if the CO2 were trapping heat, the gas within the tube would emit a heat signature. What you are actually seeing though is a complete absence of any heat signature. If it were trapping the heat, you would see the CO2 within the tube assume an orange or yellow glow as it radiated the heat. You have to wonder if the guy in the video knows that he is doing his small part towards corrupting science to the point that no one takes anything a scientist says seriously or if he really doesn't understand what he is doing. How could he not know that if the CO2 were trapping heat as he claims, that it would emit a heat signature rather than clearly demonstrating that no radiation was getting through.

That is observable, repeatable experimental evidence that if you increase the concentration of CO2 it eventually becomes opaque to IR because one CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission from another CO2 molecule.

Feel free to twist and torture the evidence you can see with your very eyes all you like, but it won't alter what you are seeing. Run my comments by good ole gavin and see what he has to say. I, for one, would be damned interested to hear what a true corrupter of science might make of that video.

BTW, wired&bent, aren't you one of the denier types who's always complaining that government publications are full of errors?

No. I don't believe I have ever made any such claim. Feel free to bring forward any quote by me in which I said such a thing.

 

[RollingThunder]

You really don't understand any of this, do you? It really is all over your head, isn't it? This is the basics rollingthunder. This is the foundational stuff and if you don't understand this, you can't possibly grasp anythng that comes after. It is at the foundation that you determine whether a hypothesis is feasable(sic) or not and it is at the foundations that both AGW and the greenhouse effect fail.

Actually I understand it just fine. You are the one who is clueless, confused and misinformed. It is your denier cult delusions that fail any kind of scientific analysis.

Here rolling thunder, from a pro AGW, government funded site. The department of energy actually. This predates the complete corruption of basic science by climate scientists. It predates the necessity to fabricate and lie, and manipulate data in any way necessary in order to push an agenda. How it remains online in the present atmosphere of complete dishonesty escapes me.

Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994 - Volume 2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Clip: "What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation."

Well, hey, congratulations, wired&bent, you came up with an actual citation of something from a reputable source for a change. Of course the info there disagrees with all of the other sources that talk about the physics of the greenhouse effect so obviously something is a bit off somewhere. I know you imagine that it is all of the other scientists in the world who are wrong and the one who is right is some nameless, anonymous dude working in a government bureaucracy under the first Bush administration and writing a part of something that appeared in 1994, but that is just another part of your denier cult dementia. Nevertheless, I wanted to know for sure what the story is on this quote of yours so I asked one of the nation's top climate scientists, Dr Gavin Schmidt, for help. Here's his response.

"Well that text does appear in that volume (p29 Appendix A).

However I think it is fundamentally confused. They seem to be confusing
the mechanisms of IR absorption - which goes into the vibrational and
rotational modes of each molecule - with the energy associated with
electrons moving to higher states etc. The latter is quantised, but the
former is not.

The frequency/wavelength of the absorbed radiation is the same as the
emitted radiation - it does not shift frequency, although the magnitude of
the emission depends on the local temperature which might well be
different from the temperature where the original radiation originated.

The idea that methane molecules can't absorb energy from other methane
molecules is very odd. I see no way in which that can be correct.

I'm going to send this around for further comment, but I just think it is
likely that it simply didn't get caught at a review stage.

gavin"


BTW, wired&bent, aren't you one of the denier types who's always complaining that government publications are full of errors?

What, I'd love to see is for gavin and friends to come here and debate wire. That would likely get news coverage and make them look bad if wire beat them. A honest to goodness debate.

Let who ever that has the science down win!

Were you being ironic or sarcastic or something?

I mean, if you haven't figured out by now that ol' wired&bent is a clueless troll whose pretensions far exceed his actual scientific knowledge or understanding, you just haven't been paying attention. I'll demonstrate it again shortly so look close this time.