In Support of the A in AGW

[Wuwei]

He clearly stated that while he could't lay his hands on H2O studies at that moment, he was quite certain that the numbers weren't that different for H20...and there is no reason to believe that the rate of decay for the other so called greenhouse gasses is significantly different.

I never said water was different. I agree that H2O and all the GHGs exhibit similar behaviors in that the emission and absorption of LWIR is in the vibration states, and absorption and re-emission by the same molecule is very low probability.

Back radiation does not exist and even if it did, it would be so small as to be unmeasurable...

You didn't understand the equipartition theory! It shows why Happer misses out on the major absorption and emission mechanisms and only focuses on a mechanism with minimal effect. He then draws a faulty conclusion from that myopic "conversation". I would give his student an A+ for asking the right questions, but Hopper a C- for a very incomplete analysis.

 

[IanC]

I re-read 379. I did not realize that you don't believe that objects made of gas, or objects made up of a single element or molecule were exempt from the law that every object emits radiation according to its temperature. Interesting.

I believe that a gas will radiate according to it's temperature. A higher rate of collisions will keep the vibration states more strongly populated.

The temperature of a single element or molecule doesn't make sense. You can describe it to have kinetic energy and internal energies, but you need a bunch of them to define temperature. A gas at a particular temperature has a statistical distribution of velocities given by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. You can't define a statistical distribution of one molecule.

Sorry if you were confused by my somewhat awkwardly phrased comment.

Single 'type' of element or molecule.

Obviously one single solitary molecule has no temperature. Temperature is a description of the average kinetic of a cohort of molecules. More importantly, there is no temperature 'tag' on molecules. No way for SSDD's smart photons to test their path.

In your post 379 you implied that only GHGs produce radiation in the atmosphere. That N2 and O2 were inert bystanders, and little blackbody radiation is produced by gases.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course, back radiation has been measured; your ignorance about it is no proof to the contrary, and neither is your failure to understand it. Also, the (decline of the) earth's radiation into space has been measured, and found changes over certain wavelengths characteristically associated with greenhouse gases, altering the earth's energy budget.

Sorry guy, but back radiation has not been either observed, or measured....do you believe measuring radiation with an instrument that is cooler than the emitter is measuring back anything? That is just measuring energy moving from a warm radiator to a cooler instrument....nothing special there.

That is just measuring energy moving from a warm radiator to a cooler instrument.

Yeah, radiation moving from the atmosphere BACK to the ground. Durr.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is just measuring energy moving from a warm radiator to a cooler instrument....nothing special there.

Exactly, there really is nothing special there. A warm radiator emits energy (radiation) into every direction, completely unaware of, and unaffected by, the temperature of the instrument measuring this radiation. It has been done and is being done. In the earlier days of LWIR measurement, those instruments had to be cooled to eliminate errors of measurement caused by the instrument's own radiation (which no longer is the case).

This has been explained to you so often on this thread alone, I lost count. You really are embarrassing yourself with your constant repetition of the same tripe.

Measuring energy moving from a warm radiator to a cool instrument is indeed nothing special...measuring energy moving from a cool radiator to a warmer instrument would be and never has been...energy doesn't move from cool to warm...an explanation is only valid if it is true...there has never been an observation of energy moving from cool to warm...saying that there has doesn't change the fact......the fact is that the cooling systems have only become more advanced so that the instruments can be cooled to lower temperatures....that's because the only way to measure energy moving from the atmosphere to the ground is to cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....unless a rare temperature inversion is present.

...energy doesn't move from cool to warm...an explanation is only valid if it is true...there has never been an observation of energy moving from cool to warm...

Derp.

 

[SSDD]

You didn't understand the equipartition theory! It shows why Happer misses out on the major absorption and emission mechanisms and only focuses on a mechanism with minimal effect. He then draws a faulty conclusion from that myopic "conversation". I would give his student an A+ for asking the right questions, but Hopper a C- for a very incomplete analysis.

I don't think Happer is missing anything....I think the more likely scenario is that you believe something is there which isn't, and the faulty conclusion is your own...and it is funny, you giving any sort of grade at all to a man of Dr. Happer's stature....the man is very well known for his writings and texts on topics ranging from mathematical physics to statistical mechanics and authored papers on various subjects including entries into the Encyclopedia of Applied Physics...there is little doubt that the man is brilliant and at the top of his field...and even less doubt that you aren't...

I belive in appealing to the equipartition theory, you are appealing to a theorem that says that all energy must be thermalized in an effort to prove that energy can not be thermalized...

 

[jc456]

That is just measuring energy moving from a warm radiator to a cooler instrument....nothing special there.

Exactly, there really is nothing special there. A warm radiator emits energy (radiation) into every direction, completely unaware of, and unaffected by, the temperature of the instrument measuring this radiation. It has been done and is being done. In the earlier days of LWIR measurement, those instruments had to be cooled to eliminate errors of measurement caused by the instrument's own radiation (which no longer is the case).

This has been explained to you so often on this thread alone, I lost count. You really are embarrassing yourself with your constant repetition of the same tripe.

Measuring energy moving from a warm radiator to a cool instrument is indeed nothing special...measuring energy moving from a cool radiator to a warmer instrument would be and never has been...energy doesn't move from cool to warm...an explanation is only valid if it is true...there has never been an observation of energy moving from cool to warm...saying that there has doesn't change the fact......the fact is that the cooling systems have only become more advanced so that the instruments can be cooled to lower temperatures....that's because the only way to measure energy moving from the atmosphere to the ground is to cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....unless a rare temperature inversion is present.

...energy doesn't move from cool to warm...an explanation is only valid if it is true...there has never been an observation of energy moving from cool to warm...

Derp.

derp LOL

 

[Wuwei]

In your post 379 you implied that only GHGs produce radiation in the atmosphere. That N2 and O2 were inert bystanders, and little blackbody radiation is produced by gases.

A molecule can only emit photons by energy level transitions. What are they in a gas? N2 and O2 are diatomic molecules. They can't radiate by the "tuning fork" oscillations given in Hopper's picture.

N2 and O2 are like two bowling ball connected by a strong spring. That is a much stronger force than the wiggling of the three-element gasses. So N2 and O2 radiate at shorter wavelengths that are outside the thermal range. That is also why diatomic molecules are transparent to IR. CO2 also has "bowling ball" modes. In the above picture the O atoms will both bounce back and forth in opposite directions.

CH4 is a stronger GHG because it's four wings of Hydrogen have many more modes of vibration in the IR region than CO2, or H2O.

The second, and more familiar mode of energy level transitions are of course the orbital electrons. These energy levels transitions are well above the LWIR, and are often in the visible range.

As I said before, in a gas there are much fewer possibilities for energy level transitions than a solid which has "electric springs" throughout the solid lattice.If you want to think in terms of BB radiation you can, but a gas has a lot of areas of zero emissivity in the radiation spectra.

Even though some of the gases radiate outside the thermal range, of course they all contribute to radiation driving temperature flow.

 

[Wuwei]

I don't think Happer is missing anything....I think the more likely scenario is that you believe something is there which isn't, and the faulty conclusion is your own...and it is funny, you giving any sort of grade at all to a man of Dr. Happer's stature....the man is very well known for his writings and texts on topics ranging from mathematical physics to statistical mechanics and authored papers on various subjects including entries into the Encyclopedia of Applied Physics...there is little doubt that the man is brilliant and at the top of his field...and even less doubt that you aren't...

Maybe Hopper has stature, but he if he is claiming back-radiation does not exist, he does not agree with the majority of other even more eminent scientists.

I belive in appealing to the equipartition theory, you are appealing to a theorem that says that all energy must be thermalized in an effort to prove that energy can not be thermalized...

That makes no sense. You will have to explain that further.

 

[Olde Europe]

I never said water was different. I agree that H2O and all the GHGs exhibit similar behaviors in that the emission and absorption of LWIR is in the vibration states, and absorption and re-emission by the same molecule is very low probability.

Yes, and the whole debate is an entirely pointless side-show. What else was to be expected? Even if we accept that the re-emission by the same GHG molecule is rare, the conclusion that back radiation is negligible is just nonsense.

Assuming that only one molecule in a billion re-emits that a photon, and the others transfer the energy, say, by collision, means (in other words, taken as a mass phenomenon) an atmosphere heating up. (Nearly) Without emitted photons this would result in an atmosphere continuously heating up (convection only transports energy within that same atmosphere), or, by now, after billions of years, in an atmosphere so hot nothing would live. That's obviously nonsensical. The solution is, of course, that the energy from surface-to-troposphere photons is being re-emitted by other molecules elevated to a higher energy level by way of collisions. Hence the back radiation, even without photon emission by the molecule hit by a photon from the surface.

So, I'd say, what we've seen is just the SSDD.

 

[jc456]

I never said water was different. I agree that H2O and all the GHGs exhibit similar behaviors in that the emission and absorption of LWIR is in the vibration states, and absorption and re-emission by the same molecule is very low probability.

Yes, and the whole debate is an entirely pointless side-show. What else was to be expected? Even if we accept that the re-emission by the same GHG molecule is rare, the conclusion that back radiation is negligible is just nonsense.

Assuming that only one molecule in a billion re-emits that a photon, and the others transfer the energy, say, by collision, means (in other words, taken as a mass phenomenon) an atmosphere heating up. (Nearly) Without emitted photons this would result in an atmosphere continuously heating up (convection only transports energy within that same atmosphere), or, by now, after billions of years, in an atmosphere so hot nothing would live. That's obviously nonsensical. The solution is, of course, that the energy from surface-to-troposphere photons is being re-emitted by other molecules elevated to a higher energy level by way of collisions. Hence the back radiation, even without photon emission by the molecule hit by a photon from the surface.

So, I'd say, what we've seen is just the SSDD.

and yet you can't prove back radiation exists. you can't even offer up proof that a CO2 molecule emits. Yeah you're the man, you got nothing.

 

[Wuwei]

I never said water was different. I agree that H2O and all the GHGs exhibit similar behaviors in that the emission and absorption of LWIR is in the vibration states, and absorption and re-emission by the same molecule is very low probability.

Yes, and the whole debate is an entirely pointless side-show. What else was to be expected? Even if we accept that the re-emission by the same GHG molecule is rare, the conclusion that back radiation is negligible is just nonsense.

Assuming that only one molecule in a billion re-emits that a photon, and the others transfer the energy, say, by collision, means (in other words, taken as a mass phenomenon) an atmosphere heating up. (Nearly) Without emitted photons this would result in an atmosphere continuously heating up (convection only transports energy within that same atmosphere), or, by now, after billions of years, in an atmosphere so hot nothing would live. That's obviously nonsensical. The solution is, of course, that the energy from surface-to-troposphere photons is being re-emitted by other molecules elevated to a higher energy level by way of collisions. Hence the back radiation, even without photon emission by the molecule hit by a photon from the surface.

So, I'd say, what we've seen is just the SSDD.

SSDD and his minions have no understanding of the depth of radiation physics in gasses. They try to relate unrelated concepts without understanding either. Then they write derogatory posts. Ordinarily one would call this embarrassing, but they are too clueless to even see that.

Your reference to "SSDD" didn't make any sense until I looked it up. It isn't in my working vocabulary, and for others who don't know what it means, it stands for Same Shit, Different Day. I can't think of a better moniker that he could have given himself.

 

[Olde Europe]

They try to relate unrelated concepts without understanding either. Then they write derogatory posts. Ordinarily one would call this embarrassing, but they are too clueless to even see that.

It so happens I think their insults are just the true measure of their intellectual helplessness. Embarrassing it is, whether they actually see it or not.

 

[jc456]

They try to relate unrelated concepts without understanding either. Then they write derogatory posts. Ordinarily one would call this embarrassing, but they are too clueless to even see that.

It so happens I think their insults are just the true measure of their intellectual helplessness. Embarrassing it is, whether they actually see it or not.

excuse me, cough, who is insulting who? Wow dude that's just amazing. give me one post number of one of us insulting. I supposed you just wash by rolling blunders posts eh? LOL.

 

[SSDD]

I never said water was different. I agree that H2O and all the GHGs exhibit similar behaviors in that the emission and absorption of LWIR is in the vibration states, and absorption and re-emission by the same molecule is very low probability.

Yes, and the whole debate is an entirely pointless side-show. What else was to be expected? Even if we accept that the re-emission by the same GHG molecule is rare, the conclusion that back radiation is negligible is just nonsense.

Assuming that only one molecule in a billion re-emits that a photon, and the others transfer the energy, say, by collision, means (in other words, taken as a mass phenomenon) an atmosphere heating up. (Nearly) Without emitted photons this would result in an atmosphere continuously heating up (convection only transports energy within that same atmosphere), or, by now, after billions of years, in an atmosphere so hot nothing would live. That's obviously nonsensical. The solution is, of course, that the energy from surface-to-troposphere photons is being re-emitted by other molecules elevated to a higher energy level by way of collisions. Hence the back radiation, even without photon emission by the molecule hit by a photon from the surface.

So, I'd say, what we've seen is just the SSDD.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that radiation is a bit player in the transfer of energy from the surface to space...it doesn't become important till energy reaches the top of the atmosphere...convection and conduction are the drivers down here where we live..

 

[SSDD]

SSDD and his minions have no understanding of the depth of radiation physics in gasses. They try to relate unrelated concepts without understanding either. Then they write derogatory posts. Ordinarily one would call this embarrassing, but they are too clueless to even see that.

The problem is that you overestimate the importance of radiation...it is a bit player down here where we live...and CO2 is not even a walk on...

 

[Wuwei]

The problem is that you overestimate the importance of radiation...it is a bit player down here where we live...and CO2 is not even a walk on...

How can radiation be a bit player when the earth is radiating out 400 W/m2 on average, and the sun is only radiating in 160 W/m2. I wouldn't call that a bit player when it's out-radiating the sun.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've asked and still you can't explain why that doesn't happen above a desert at night. The hottest places during sunlight and extremely cold when the sunlight is gone. hmmmmmmmm.

That's easy enough to explain. One of the most potent GHGs is water vapor. That, however, is scarce in desert climates, which is why IR radiation from the desert surface escapes without notably warming up the troposphere, resulting in very low back radiation, which means deserts cool down quickly at night.

So can you show us a graph charting the measurements of water vapor over the same 150 year period your magical, glacier eating CO2 monster was changing the climate of planet Earth?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What the professor is saying is that in other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.

The professor is right for the one narrow aspect of it he covered. Yes, a CO2 molecule will probably loose its excited vibration state through a collision rather than an emission.

What the professor didn't cover is the equipartition theorem as it involves the energy states of CO2 and H2O and other GHGs. For a simple explanation see
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/eqpar.html

There will be equal amounts of energy divided among all the GHG vibration states, rotation states and kinetic energy. Most of the vibration states as shown in the animation will arise from the churning energy of the atmospheric molecules hitting the GHGs and not from the earth's upward LWIR. The upward IR will increase the population of the GHG vibration part of the total energy, and that energy will dissipate through collisions and some LWIR in arbitrary directions.

One way of looking at it is that CO2 can absorb IR, but CO2 excited by collisions will emit most of the IR.

In short, the animation shows a single CO2 molecule absorbing IR and emitting the same energy. In reality an large statistical ensemble CO2 molecules will absorb IR and the statistical ensemble will emit IR, although an individual molecule most likely won't do both in a small time window. Remember through the equipartition theorm there is a tremendous amount of energy in the vibrational states that scatter the LWIR.

That's fucking hilarious!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I never said water was different. I agree that H2O and all the GHGs exhibit similar behaviors in that the emission and absorption of LWIR is in the vibration states, and absorption and re-emission by the same molecule is very low probability.

Yes, and the whole debate is an entirely pointless side-show. What else was to be expected? Even if we accept that the re-emission by the same GHG molecule is rare, the conclusion that back radiation is negligible is just nonsense.

Assuming that only one molecule in a billion re-emits that a photon, and the others transfer the energy, say, by collision, means (in other words, taken as a mass phenomenon) an atmosphere heating up. (Nearly) Without emitted photons this would result in an atmosphere continuously heating up (convection only transports energy within that same atmosphere), or, by now, after billions of years, in an atmosphere so hot nothing would live. That's obviously nonsensical. The solution is, of course, that the energy from surface-to-troposphere photons is being re-emitted by other molecules elevated to a higher energy level by way of collisions. Hence the back radiation, even without photon emission by the molecule hit by a photon from the surface.

So, I'd say, what we've seen is just the SSDD.

Since when is our atmosphere a closed system? You must be thinking of a Dyson Sphere

And if your "theory" was even in the right universe there would be a troposphere hot spot. The other AGWCultists have told us: a) no hot spot is theorized, (after it wasn't found) or b) look, there's a hot spot! After the satellite data is adjusted

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They try to relate unrelated concepts without understanding either. Then they write derogatory posts. Ordinarily one would call this embarrassing, but they are too clueless to even see that.

It so happens I think their insults are just the true measure of their intellectual helplessness. Embarrassing it is, whether they actually see it or not.

But it's your cult that calls skeptics "deniers" and keeps insisting that you get to sidestep the scientific method because you have "consensus "