Global Warming Theory vs Alarmist GW Theory

[wirebender]

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.

And the wait continues for you to answer even one of my questions to you.

 

[gslack]

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.

And the wait continues for you to answer even one of my questions to you.

Wire, this guy only answers questions he thinks he has an air tight answer for. Any of them that challenge him or his belief system he ignores completely and starts another sermon, or basically uses the peewee herman defense. I appreciate you taking the time to argue his claims scientifically but know he will only deny any science you provide. I used to post evidence and science back to the tools but soon realized they weren't interested in science they couldn't agree with. Now I treat them with the same intolerance they give everyone else. I may not educate anybody, but at least I am entertained. LOL

 

[wirebender]

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.

And the wait continues for you to answer even one of my questions to you.

Wire, this guy only answers questions he thinks he has an air tight answer for. Any of them that challenge him or his belief system he ignores completely and starts another sermon, or basically uses the peewee herman defense. I appreciate you taking the time to argue his claims scientifically but know he will only deny any science you provide. I used to post evidence and science back to the tools but soon realized they weren't interested in science they couldn't agree with. Now I treat them with the same intolerance they give everyone else. I may not educate anybody, but at least I am entertained. LOL

Yeah. I have noticed that he isn't able to actually discuss any scientific topic. Cut and paste is about as good as he can manage. Of course, he isn't alone on the warmist side. none of them can really discuss the science. There are a few who at least ask questions but don't believe your answers.

 

[IanC]

wirebender is wrong in his understanding of absorption and emission of IR by GHGs. I hope the readers here check things out for themselves rather than take his voodoo science at face value. atoms and molecules absorb and emit at the same wavelengths, although there are numerous complications of course.

bogus statements piss me off whether they come from the proAGW side or the skeptical side

 

[IanC]

here are a few articles by Ira Glickstein, posted at WUWT. they explain the basics, but more importantly they have a comment section where questions and criticisms are discussed.
in no particular order

Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” – Light and Heat | Watts Up With That?

Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” – Atmospheric Windows | Watts Up With That?
Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” – Molecules and Photons | Watts Up With That?
Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” – A Physical Analogy | Watts Up With That?

I looked a bit for an interesting article on idealized heat tranfer between atmospheric molecules at a stedy temperature but couldnt find it. it talked about the vibrational modes in CO2 when it aborbs IR. maybe later

 

[wirebender]

wirebender is wrong in his understanding of absorption and emission of IR by GHGs. I hope the readers here check things out for themselves rather than take his voodoo science at face value. atoms and molecules absorb and emit at the same wavelengths, although there are numerous complications of course.

You keep saying that Ian but to date, you have not pointed out any mathematical error on my part nor have you named any law of physics that I have misapplied.

Tell me Ian, do you acknowledge the fact that when you are calculating any transport of electromagnetic energy, the flow is determined by field vector calculus? Are you familiar with Poynting's vector theorem? If so, describe how you believe CO2 might trap heat or cause atmospheric warming within the context of that theorem or describe how field vector calculus need not be applied to the respective EM fields radiated by the earth and atmosphere.

As to GHG molecules not absorbing the emission from like molecules, I have provided you with this once and you didn't acknowledge it, so here you go, again Ian.

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. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.

Then I brought forward a video and an explanation for what you are seeing. For you, Ian, I will bring it forward again with the explanation.

[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.

If you see something other than what I describe happening there, by all means say what you see.

bogus statements piss me off whether they come from the proAGW side or the skeptical side

Yeah, me to. Especially when they are statements like yours claiming that I am wrong while you remain unable to point to any specific error on my part other than that you just don't agree with me.

 

[IanC]

specifically I stated you are wrong when you say that atoms and molecules dont absorb and emit at the same wavelengths. that they do is such a commonly acknowledged law of physics that it is awkwardly difficult to find a source that specifically deals with the question. your version of physics means that spectrometry doesnt work. you say that the earth emits radiation at ALL necessary wavelengths and in ALL possible directions, so that no radiation travells downward. that just doesnt happen. you have the armor of a conspiracy theorist, no evidence is strong enough to overpower your belief. not unlike your crazy EM theory

 

[wirebender]

specifically I stated you are wrong when you say that atoms and molecules dont absorb and emit at the same wavelengths. that they do is such a commonly acknowledged law of physics that it is awkwardly difficult to find a source that specifically deals with the question.

Geez Ian, I just gave you material from the department of energy that states that GHG's do not emit at the same frequency that they absorb, and a damned video that proves the point. What the hell else do you want?

Some atoms absorb and emit at the same wavelengths; some don't. The experiment in the video clearly demonstrates that CO2 molecules don't. One of two things is happening in that demonstration. Either a saturation point within that tube is reached in which no IR from the candle can reach the camera because the emission of one CO2 molecule can't be absorbed by another, or the CO2 in that tube is so efficiently scattering the radiation emitted from that candle that none can make it to the camera. If the second is happening, then the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the cooler the atmosphere will be due to its incredible ability to dissipate heat.

your version of physics means that spectrometry doesnt work. you say that the earth emits radiation at ALL necessary wavelengths and in ALL possible directions, so that no radiation travells downward.

Once more, I have no version of physics. And again, answer the question. Do you believe that you must apply field vector calculus to any transport of EM radiation? If not, then describe why it would not apply to the EM fields radiated by the earth and atmosphere respectively. Answer the question. Yes or no.

that just doesnt happen. you have the armor of a conspiracy theorist, no evidence is strong enough to overpower your belief. not unlike your crazy EM theory

What I have is the armor of sound reasoning. You can point to no mathematical error on my part or to any misapplied law of physics and apparently you can''t argue against my explanation of what you are seeing in the video experiment. Simply claiming that I am wrong while you can not point to any specific error on my part simply doesn't cut it.

 

[IanC]

why just vector caculus? wouldnt tensor caculus give a more complete picture?

as to the video- I stated before that I was unhappy with the false colour palette of the IR camera which intentionally tricks viewers into thinking they are looking at visible light. certain bands were scattered and other bands continued uneffected. at least by the pictures we were given. an actual graph of wavelengths would have been more useful but would not have had the visual impact. your conclusions are just as misleading as the experimentor's. CO2 scatters some wavelengths but not others, that is not news to anyone.

 

[RollingThunder]

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.

‪CO2 experiment‬‏ - YouTube

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."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....

Very good example, wired&bent, of just how retarded and crazy you really are. Let's look at it.

"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."

What exactly is the difference between "trapping" the heat from the candle and trapping the "heat signature from the candle"? LOLOL. What exactly do you imagine that the phrase "heat signature" means anyway?

Your supposed "proof" that there is no greenhouse effect consists of the fact that this large tube of gas doesn't immediately "light up with the trapped heat" from a single candle??? Unbelievably stupid!!! How much heat energy do you hallucinate that a candle radiates anyway??? ROTFLMAO.

You are such a clueless retard, it is just f*cking hilarious. Your delusional pretensions that you have any knowledge of science just make it all the more amusing. And boy, did you ever just demonstrate that point for everyone to see. One candle! LOL.

 

[wirebender]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....

Your supposed "proof" that there is no greenhouse effect consists of the fact that this large tube of gas doesn't immediately "light up with the trapped heat" from a single candle??? Unbelievably stupid!!! How much heat energy do you hallucinate that a candle radiates anyway??? ROTFLMAO.

Am I this far over your head RT? There is laughter here, but it is me laughing at you. I never suggested that experiment was proof that there was no greenhouse effect. I never even suggested anything close to such a thing. If that is what you took out of my statements regarding that video, then it is clear that you really don't get any of this and your immediate leap to name calling makes all the more sense.

I said that video is pretty convincing proof that one CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule as stated in the Department of Energy paper I provided you with.

How much energy does the candle radiate? I could't tell you as there was no scale on the video screen. There was more than enough for the camera to pick up as the flame was certainly visible on the video screen. The magnitude of the radiation from the IR source isn't as important as the sensitivity of the receiver. The fact that the candle is radiating enough energy to be detected by the camera is all that is important here RT.

If there were just scattering of the IR by the CO2 in the tube, then the camera would pick up a scattering effect because clearly the candle is radiating enough energy to be detected by the camera. That isn't what is happening though. There is blocking. The IR signature of the candle which is clearly strong enough to be detected by the camera is completely blocked out.

That should lead you to ask the question; "what might cause that heat signature (the appearance of objects to infrared sensors) to be completely blocked out? Clearly your brain never considered that question. As I pointed out, one of two things was happening inside that tube. A) a saturation point was reached where the IR energy could no longer be transmitted by the tube because one CO2 molecule can not absorb and emit the emission of another CO2 molecule or B) The CO2 effectively dissipates IR so well that in a matter of a few inches, all traces of IR were scattered to the point that they could no longer be detected. My bet is that it isn't B.

You are such a clueless retard, it is just f*cking hilarious. Your delusional pretensions that you have any knowledge of science just make it all the more amusing. And boy, did you ever just demonstrate that point for everyone to see. One candle! LOL.

It seems that you are the one who is clueless RT. Of course your name calling and incessant cut and paste were pretty good indicators but when you actually try to talk about the topic in your own words, you reveal yourself as little more than bluster and bloviation.

That single candle, an IR sensor, a closed tube, and some CO2 was all that was necessary to prove my point regarding one CO2 moelcule's ability to absorb and emit the emission of another CO2 molecule. It makes no statment as to whether there is a greenhouse effect or how it might work. You were the one who jumped on the fact that one CO2 molecule can't absorb another's emission. Hell, you even went to one of the big time corruptors of science to have some chicken entrails read as if that might tell you whether it was true or not. The experiment in the video proves that it is true.

Now back to the indetermidible wait for you to answer even one of the questions that I have put to you.

 

[wirebender]

why just vector caculus? wouldnt tensor caculus give a more complete picture?

Are you referencing gradient tensors of a vector field? If so, explain how that application would allow "energy" to flow in two directions along any vector. That is the issue here that energy from a weaker field can not flow "upstream" against a more powerful field. I don't see how tensor calculus is going to alter the physical fact at all.

as to the video- I stated before that I was unhappy with the false colour palette of the IR camera which intentionally tricks viewers into thinking they are looking at visible light.

The man clearly states that the camera is an IR sensor and says pretty clearly that the camera is picking up the heat from the candle. After that statement, what sort of doofus would beleive that the experiment was dealing with visible light?

certain bands were scattered and other bands continued uneffected.

Certain bands? The IR was effectively blocked. You could watch the monitor as the tube filled up with CO2. There was no scattering. There was effective blocking. If there were scattering, that effect would have been seen by the camera. The video is showing that one of two things happened whether you liked the false color pallate or not. It demonstrated A) that one CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule and that a saturation point can be reached where no IR can be transmitted via radiation or B) that CO2 has an absolutely remarkable ability to dissipate heat such that it effectively scattered the IR radiatied by that candle in mere inches. If that is the case then perhaps we should worry about CO2 causing us to freeze to death.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.........just wanted to peek in on this thread after a few days.


The clueless retards?

Still winning..........

 

[wirebender]

you say that the earth emits radiation at ALL necessary wavelengths and in ALL possible directions, so that no radiation travells downward. that just doesnt happen.

Tell me Ian, what wavelenght that CO2 might be emitting do you suppose the earth is not emitting? We are, after all, only talking about IR; and which vector over the surface of the sphere do you suppose the earth might not be emitting? Which vector on the earth's surface might not be emitting?

 

[IanC]

you say that the earth emits radiation at ALL necessary wavelengths and in ALL possible directions, so that no radiation travells downward. that just doesnt happen.

Tell me Ian, what wavelenght that CO2 might be emitting do you suppose the earth is not emitting? We are, after all, only talking about IR; and which vector over the surface of the sphere do you suppose the earth might not be emitting? Which vector on the earth's surface might not be emitting?

of the infinite number of possible vectors, how many are actually populated by an actual photon of IR radiation? your theory that every downward photon being cancelled out by a perfectly aligned upward photon is farfetched in the extreme.

 

[IanC]

why just vector caculus? wouldnt tensor caculus give a more complete picture?

Are you referencing gradient tensors of a vector field? If so, explain how that application would allow "energy" to flow in two directions along any vector. That is the issue here that energy from a weaker field can not flow "upstream" against a more powerful field. I don't see how tensor calculus is going to alter the physical fact at all.

as to the video- I stated before that I was unhappy with the false colour palette of the IR camera which intentionally tricks viewers into thinking they are looking at visible light.

The man clearly states that the camera is an IR sensor and says pretty clearly that the camera is picking up the heat from the candle. After that statement, what sort of doofus would beleive that the experiment was dealing with visible light?

certain bands were scattered and other bands continued uneffected.

Certain bands? The IR was effectively blocked. You could watch the monitor as the tube filled up with CO2. There was no scattering. There was effective blocking. If there were scattering, that effect would have been seen by the camera. The video is showing that one of two things happened whether you liked the false color pallate or not. It demonstrated A) that one CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule and that a saturation point can be reached where no IR can be transmitted via radiation or B) that CO2 has an absolutely remarkable ability to dissipate heat such that it effectively scattered the IR radiatied by that candle in mere inches. If that is the case then perhaps we should worry about CO2 causing us to freeze to death.

from the article of the man who actually set up and performed the youtube video-

" Due to the vibrations of the atoms in the molecule CO2 has a number of absorption's in the IR, the main bands being at 4.3 µ m (2350 cm-1) , 7.5 µ m (1388 cm- 1) and 15 µ m (667 cm-1) [3 ]. The latter band lies very close to the maximum of the Earth's IR black body emission making CO2 a very important greenhouse gas. The thermal imaging camera we used was sensitive from ca. 1 to 5 µ m, quite a large part of the IR spectrum. A lit candle or match produces lots of energy through the IR to the visible. Consequently a candle looks very bright (colourful) on the false colour IR camera image. In order to be able to seal and look through the tube the ends were covered in plastic cling film. Now plastics absorb strongly in the IR so it's hardly as transparent as it looks to the eye but the film was so thin these simple 'windows' actually worked quite well in practice. The CO2 was flowed in to one end of the tube and vented out the other so that it was well flushed with gas at about atmospheric pressure. In the process the thin film windows bulged a little. You would think from what I said above that when you view the candle through the tube using the camera, and you introduce CO2 the bright flame would ' disappear' due to the IR absorption. However, when you try this it doesn't work, the candle doesn't disappear! The reason is that the CO2 absorptions observable by the IR camera are quite weak and are only in a relatively small part of the spectrum. The only way to get the demonstration to work is to have a 'CO2 filter' on the camera. This only lets through IR at around 4 µm, close to one of the CO2 absorption's (which are broadened a bit at atmospheric pressure). The filter blocks out much of the IR energy so that the CO2 absorption is not so swamped anymore and this allows us to now observe our vanishing candle effect. "

hmmm....that doesnt seem to coincide with your 'explanation'

 

[wirebender]

of the infinite number of possible vectors, how many are actually populated by an actual photon of IR radiation? your theory that every downward photon being cancelled out by a perfectly aligned upward photon is farfetched in the extreme.

All of them Ian. Every possible vector is populated by a photon of radiation. There are no voids within the earth's EM field and the field radiates out in all possible directions. What would make you think that there were voids within the EM field radiated by the earth or the atmosphere? There is constant opposition along every possible vector. How could it not be so? You are radiating from the entire surface of a sphere. How do you suppose an EM field from a gaseous atmosphere surrounding a sphere might find a point of weakness (vector) at which to actually reach the surface?

I can tell you how. It is the method used to measure "downdwelling" radiation. If you artificially cool an instrument to a temperature much lower than that of the atmosphere, you create an area at which the EM field from the atmosphere is greater in magnitude than that being emitted from that particular area of the surface so the direction of propagation is therefore towards the earth. By that method, you can actually measure downdwelling radiation exactly as the second law of thermodynamics predicts.

 

[wirebender]

hmmm....that doesnt seem to coincide with your 'explanation'

So the experiment was a fraud, and the man who performed it knew that it was a fraud, and he admits that the only way to get the experiment to work was to rig it. How surprising is that? And the fact remains that in the very narrow band he allowed through, it appears that what I said was happening, happened.
Here, once more for your viewing pleasure.

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. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.

 

[IanC]

infinite number of photons? sorry, not possible

 

[IanC]

hmmm....that doesnt seem to coincide with your 'explanation'

So the experiment was a fraud, and the man who performed it knew that it was a fraud, and he admits that the only way to get the experiment to work was to rig it. How surprising is that? And the fact remains that in the very narrow band he allowed through, precisely what I said happened, happened.

Here, once more for your viewing pleasure.

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. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.

find half a dozen more citations, or even one that is specificly geared towards emissions and absorptions rather than a general article that makes a passing reference that is incorrect