Map Makers Show Greenland Sections As Ice Free To Please AGW Advocates

[wirebender]

Basic Radiation Calculations

Basic Radiation Calculations
The foundation of any calculation of the greenhouse effect was a description of how radiation and heat move through a slice of the atmosphere. At first this foundation was so shaky that nobody could trust the results. With the coming of digital computers and better data, scientists gradually worked through the intricate technical problems. A rough idea was available by the mid 1960s, and by the late 1970s, the calculations looked solid — for idealized cases. Much remained to be done to account for all the important real-world factors, especially the physics of clouds. (This genre of one-dimensional and two-dimensional models lay between the rudimentary, often qualitative models covered in the essay on Simple Models of Climate and the elaborate three-dimensional General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere.) Warning: this is the most technical of all the essays

I am sure that you didn't notice (being scripture and all) but there is nothing there more than a claim of some backradiation calculations. They are talking about the calculations used to support the notoriously poor climate models rocks. They are calculating backradiation in models rocks, not providing any observable evidence of backradiation in the real world.

As it has been stated before, you guys have come to the point that you accept output from computer models as if it were actual observed data. That isn't science.

 

[wirebender]

At least I post for myself and my beliefs.. We both can't say that can we greenpeace, or should we just call you windy? Fake...

It is only their profound ignorance that keeps them from being embarassed off the board. I don't think I have ever seen either of them express an original thought or idea and certainly never seen any examples of critical thinking on their part. They are cut and paste drones and the sad thing is that they don't have a clue as to the accuracy of anything they cut and paste and they prove it every time they are asked to provide information that isn't available as cut and paste.

 

[RollingThunder]

What can anyone say to a brainless troll like you, slackjawedidiot? People only respond to your idiotic drivel out of amusement at your utter ignorance and monumental stupidity so you shouldn't be surprised when people occasionally just choose to laugh at you and your incoherent and very moronic posts. You are a joke! But of course you are far too lacking in any kind of cognitive skills to be able to comprehend how extremely mentally incompetent you actually are. That's why you're soooooo funny.

Speaking of brainless trolls and slackjawedidiots, I am still waiting for you to name the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect

.....and that's why you are such a brainless troll, wiredup&bentover.....and soooo funny....but soooo tragically insane....just keep on claiming that all of the world's scientists are dead wrong and you, anonymous nutball internet poster, are really the only one who got it right about the role of CO2 in our atmosphere....LOLOLOLOL.....do you post from the day room of some funny farm or just from your momma's basement? You are truly the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[wirebender]

.....and that's why you are such a brainless troll, wiredup&bentover.....and soooo funny....but soooo tragically insane....just keep on claiming that all of the world's scientists are dead wrong and you, anonymous nutball internet poster, are really the only one who got it right about the role of CO2 in our atmosphere....LOLOLOLOL.....do you post from the day room of some funny farm or just from your momma's basement? You are truly the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

No answer huh? I ask a simple question and you are completely stymied by it. This is foundational stuff thunder. Which physical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect? And you can't answer the question? How pathetic is that? Of course, hansen couldn't answer it either.

It is sad that you don't recognize the symptoms of Dunning - Kruger in yourself thunder. You are asked a simple question and the best you can do is call names and make fallacious appleals to authority. If you were 1/4 as smart as you seem to think you are, and capable of rational thinking, you would have either a) answered the question demonstrating your knowledge of the topic or b) kept quiet and avoided a public display of your ignorance.

But you did neither. You failed to answer the question and by some strange mental gyrations and gymnastics inferred that I am an idiot because I asked a question that you are completely unable to answer and then you made your typical fallacious appeal to authority.

 

[Old Rocks]

Absortion bands of GHGs.

 

[gslack]

Absortion bands of GHGs.

Science? Oldsocks really... you are about as scientific as the pope is jewish....

 

[wirebender]

Absortion bands of GHGs.

Is that some sort of mantra to you rocks. You keep repeating it as if it means something. If I go about repeating the words emission spectra, I would effectively cancel you out since the emission spectra is precisely the opposite of the absorption bands. Tell you what, when you get the urge to spout absorption bands, just imagine me in your head saying emission spectra and save the owner of the board the bandwidth that you would otherwise be wasting with your inane bloviation.

 

[RollingThunder]

.....and that's why you are such a brainless troll, wiredup&bentover.....and soooo funny....but soooo tragically insane....just keep on claiming that all of the world's scientists are dead wrong and you, anonymous nutball internet poster, are really the only one who got it right about the role of CO2 in our atmosphere....LOLOLOLOL.....do you post from the day room of some funny farm or just from your momma's basement? You are truly the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

No answer huh? I ask a simple question and you are completely stymied by it.

You've been answered many times, you silly retard, but you're too stupid and confused to comprehend the answers. You claim that all of the real scientists in the world are wrong about the atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases and you are the only one who is getting it right. LOLOLOL. That's nothing but retarded megalomania and an extreme case of classic Dunning-Kruger Effect. As evidence that everyone else is wrong about the subject and you're right, you offer only your own hot air/unsubstantiated bullshyt and your very peculiar crackpot math. You are a joke.

Here's a climate scientist who, BTW, is one of the very few who actually is skeptical of AGW, to set you straight and clear up some of your delusions about the greenhouse effect.

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
July 23rd, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

If you're still in doubt over the basic mechanisms of the greenhouse effect, try reading this.

Greenhouse effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basic mechanism

The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form UV, visible, and near IR radiation, most of which passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed. Of the total amount of energy available at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), about 50% is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Because it is warm, the surface radiates far IR thermal radiation that consists of wavelengths that are predominantly much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed. Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated both upwards and downwards; that radiated downwards is absorbed by the Earth's surface. This trapping of long-wavelength thermal radiation leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere were absent.

This highly simplified picture of the basic mechanism needs to be qualified in a number of ways, none of which affect the fundamental process.
The solar radiation spectrum for direct light at both the top of the Earth's atmosphere and at sea level

* The incoming radiation from the Sun is mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths, largely in the range 0.2–4 μm, corresponding to the Sun's radiative temperature of 6,000 K.[12] Almost half the radiation is in the form of "visible" light, which our eyes are adapted to use.[13]

* About 50% of the Sun's energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface and the rest is reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere. The reflection of light back into space—largely by clouds—does not much affect the basic mechanism; this light, effectively, is lost to the system.

* The absorbed energy warms the surface. Simple presentations of the greenhouse effect, such as the idealized greenhouse model, show this heat being lost as thermal radiation. The reality is more complex: the atmosphere near the surface is largely opaque to thermal radiation (with important exceptions for "window" bands), and most heat loss from the surface is by sensible heat and latent heat transport. Radiative energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an important greenhouse gas. It is more realistic to think of the greenhouse effect as applying to a "surface" in the mid-troposphere, which is effectively coupled to the surface by a lapse rate.

* Within the region where radiative effects are important the description given by the idealized greenhouse model becomes realistic: The surface of the Earth, warmed to a temperature around 255 K, radiates long-wavelength, infrared heat in the range 4–100 μm.[12] At these wavelengths, greenhouse gases that were largely transparent to incoming solar radiation are more absorbent.[12] Each layer of atmosphere with greenhouses gases absorbs some of the heat being radiated upwards from lower layers. To maintain its own equilibrium, it re-radiates the absorbed heat in all directions, both upwards and downwards. This results in more warmth below, while still radiating enough heat back out into deep space from the upper layers to maintain overall thermal equilibrium. Increasing the concentration of the gases increases the amount of absorption and re-radiation, and thereby further warms the layers and ultimately the surface below.[9]

* Greenhouse gases—including most diatomic gases with two different atoms (such as carbon monoxide, CO) and all gases with three or more atoms—are able to absorb and emit infrared radiation. Though more than 99% of the dry atmosphere is IR transparent (because the main constituents—N2, O2, and Ar—are not able to directly absorb or emit infrared radiation), intermolecular collisions cause the energy absorbed and emitted by the greenhouse gases to be shared with the other, non-IR-active, gases.

* The simple picture assumes equilibrium. In the real world there is the diurnal cycle as well as seasonal cycles and weather. Solar heating only applies during daytime. During the night, the atmosphere cools somewhat, but not greatly, because its emissivity is low, and during the day the atmosphere warms. Diurnal temperature changes decrease with height in the atmosphere.

 

[wirebender]

You've been answered many times, you silly retard, but you're too stupid and confused to comprehend the answers.

Still no answer and not bright enough to even realize that you have no answer. Let me repeat the question for you one more time and I will ask it in big colorful letters.


Which physical law supports and predicts a greenouse effect as described by warmists?

By the way, the evidence you brought from spencer's blog was nothing more than a thought experiment. It proved nothing as no experiment or observable evidence resulted from it.

Ordinarily I would find it surprising that someone would attempt to present a thought experiment as actual data to prove a hypothesis, but from you thunder, it is entirely unsurprising since it is clear that you don't understand the material. You google search a couple of words and mindlessly cut and paste whatever you find because clearly you can't understand what is being said in the first place.

 

[RollingThunder]

You've been answered many times, you silly retard, but you're too stupid and confused to comprehend the answers.

Still no answer and not bright enough to even realize that you have no answer. Let me repeat the question for you one more time and I will ask it in big colorful letters.


Which physical law supports and predicts a greenouse effect as described by warmists?

By the way, the evidence you brought from spencer's blog was nothing more than a thought experiment. It proved nothing as no experiment or observable evidence resulted from it.

Ordinarily I would find it surprising that someone would attempt to present a thought experiment as actual data to prove a hypothesis, but from you thunder, it is entirely unsurprising since it is clear that you don't understand the material. You google search a couple of words and mindlessly cut and paste whatever you find because clearly you can't understand what is being said in the first place.

Those are your delusions and you're going to hold on to them like grim death....ok, I get that. You're still a crazy little retard who imagines that he is right about a scientific issue regarding the greenhouse effect and the entire world scientific community is wrong. You're too retarded to understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so you imagine that you can convince us by simply repeating your nonsense over and over without any evidence at all. I have explained the greenhouse effect to you several times in some detail and directed you to solid sources of scientific information about the research and evidence that supports the verifiable scientific facts about the greenhouse effect but you are oblivious to the facts as you cling to your crackpot delusional denial. You're always idiotically objecting to what you call "cut and paste" (which everyone else calls 'presenting the evidence') because you can find no evidence to support your moronic assertions and demented claims. You are a joke, and a bad one at that.

 

[wirebender]

Those are your delusions and you're going to hold on to them like grim death....ok, I get that.

It is no delusion thunder that you remain completely unable to answer such a simple question. Do you believe your inability to answer is going unnoticed?

You're still a crazy little retard who imagines that he is right about a scientific issue regarding the greenhouse effect and the entire world scientific community is wrong.[/qutoe]

Actually, I am a guy who has stopped you cold with the most basic and supposedly easily answered question possible. What physical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists? Why can't you answer the question thunder?

I already knew that you wouldn't be able to google anything up that would serve as an answer because your priests don't talk about actual science, they rely on appeals to complexity. I also knew that you would be completely unable to speak to the topic on your own because you are nothing more than a cut and paste drone.

And the entire scientific community is not on your side thunder. Only a very small minority support AGW. The consensus is as much a hoax as AGW itself.

You're too retarded to understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so you imagine that you can convince us by simply repeating your nonsense over and over without any evidence at all.

I have done the math here on this board in public to support my claims thunder. I note that you have not pointed to any law of physics that I might have mis applied or any math error on my part and yet, you are sure that I am wrong even though the math is over your head. That, thunder, is the definition of the Dunning - Kruger effect.

I have explained the greenhouse effect to you several times in some detail and directed you to solid sources of scientific information about the research and evidence that supports the verifiable scientific facts about the greenhouse effect but you are oblivious to the facts as you cling to your crackpot delusional denial.

And yet, my basic question remains unanswered. Don't you find it odd that you would not be able to google up an answer to such a basic scientific question? Why do you suppose your priests don't discuss the basic science?

You're always idiotically objecting to what you call "cut and paste" (which everyone else calls 'presenting the evidence') because you can find no evidence to support your moronic assertions and demented claims. You are a joke, and a bad one at that.

You are the pathetic joke thunder in your inability to answer such a basic question. You may as well run away and stay away thunder because the question is going to always be around to remind everyone here of your inability to answer it.

 

[RollingThunder]

Those are your delusions and you're going to hold on to them like grim death....ok, I get that.

It is no delusion thunder that you remain completely unable to answer such a simple question.

Well, actually, it is another one of your many delusions. I have answered you many times but, again, you're just too stupid and deluded to comprehend the answers.

Do you believe your inability to answer is going unnoticed?

Do you imagine that your repeated attempts to ignore the answers you're given is going unnoticed? LOL. Poor little retard.

You're still a crazy little retard who imagines that he is right about a scientific issue regarding the greenhouse effect and the entire world scientific community is wrong.

Actually, I am a guy who has stopped you cold with the most basic and supposedly easily answered question possible. What physical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists? Why can't you answer the question thunder?

I already knew that you wouldn't be able to google anything up that would serve as an answer because your priests don't talk about actual science, they rely on appeals to complexity. I also knew that you would be completely unable to speak to the topic on your own because you are nothing more than a cut and paste drone.

The only thing that "stopped cold" is your pathetic excuse for a brain. Everything you write is delusional nonsense. You're far too stupid to understand it, but here is the material you claim doesn't exist.

The Greenhouse Effect & Greenhouse Gases

And the entire scientific community is not on your side thunder. Only a very small minority support AGW. The consensus is as much a hoax as AGW itself.

And there's another of your delusions that you are completely unable to back with any evidence. I, on the other hand, can back up my claims with evidence.

Scientific opinion on climate change

The Consensus on Global Warming: From Science to Industry & Religion

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Expert credibility in climate change
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

1. William R. L. Anderegg a , 1 ,
2. James W. Prall b ,
3. Jacob Harold c , and
4. Stephen H. Schneider a , d , 1

Abstract

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

I have done the math here on this board in public to support my claims thunder.

LOLOLOL.....yeah, your crazy crackpot math that no one else on Earth agrees with. Just another part of your megalomaniacal delusions.

I note that you have not pointed to any law of physics that I might have mis applied

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you have a very flimsy grasp of the laws of physics so you basically mis-apply them all.

or any math error on my part and yet, you are sure that I am wrong even though the math is over your head. That, thunder, is the definition of the Dunning - Kruger effect.

Your 'pride' in your own math skills is another one of your delusions. You are a crackpot with delusions of grandeur. The fact that you don't understand just what the Dunning-Kruger Effect is only underscores how severely afflicted by it you are.

And yet, my basic question remains unanswered.

No it doesn't. You just close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and yell 'la-la-la-la-la-la-la' and pretend it hasn't been answered because you can't understand the answers.

Don't you find it odd that you would not be able to google up an answer to such a basic scientific question? Why do you suppose your priests don't discuss the basic science?

Still more of your delusions. Many explanations of the greenhouse effect by competent real scientists can be found on the internet. You're just too brainwashed and lost in your delusions to bother reading them.

 

[wirebender]

Well, actually, it is another one of your many delusions. I have answered you many times but, again, you're just too stupid and deluded to comprehend the answers.

Well, actually it isn't. You can't answer the question now and you never could. Of course, do feel free to link to any post in which you have answered the question and prove that you are not, in fact, a bald faced liar.

The only thing that "stopped cold" is your pathetic excuse for a brain. Everything you write is delusional nonsense. You're far too stupid to understand it, but here is the material you claim doesn't exist.

The Greenhouse Effect & Greenhouse Gases

Thunder you poor idiot, there isn't a word on that page about physical laws. That page is all assumption. It doesn't even begin to state which physical law supports or predicts a greenhouse effect. It is based entirely on false assumptions regarding the basic laws of physics.

Now once again:

WHICH PHYSICAL LAW SUPPORTS AND PREDICTS A GREENHOUSE EFFECT AS DESCRIBED BY WARMISTS?

Do you need for me to explain to you what a physical law is?

And there's another of your delusions that you are completely unable to back with any evidence. I, on the other hand, can back up my claims with evidence.

Actually thunder, all you back your claims with is fallacious appeals to authority, but I really don't fault you for not realizing it. One needs a certain depth of thought that you are clearly lacking in order to grasp such concepts.

LOLOLOL.....yeah, your crazy crackpot math that no one else on Earth agrees with. Just another part of your megalomaniacal delusions.

Says the guy to whom the math is so far over your head that he can't begin to understand the concept being described.

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you have a very flimsy grasp of the laws of physics so you basically mis-apply them all.

And yet, you remain unable to specify a single instance of such misapplication on my part. It is clear that you are grasping for straws here thunder.

Your 'pride' in your own math skills is another one of your delusions. You are a crackpot with delusions of grandeur. The fact that you don't understand just what the Dunning-Kruger Effect is only underscores how severely afflicted by it you are.

No pride thunder. I simply did the math and to date, no one has shown any error on my part or any misapplied physical law. If I am wrong, then point to my error and correct it. It is you who is railing against math and physical laws that you don't understand, not me.

No it doesn't. You just close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and yell 'la-la-la-la-la-la-la' and pretend it hasn't been answered because you can't understand the answers.

Of course it remains unanswered. Which physical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists. To date you have not named any physical law nor linked to any source that names a physical law.

Still more of your delusions. Many explanations of the greenhouse effect by competent real scientists can be found on the internet. You're just too brainwashed and lost in your delusions to bother reading them.

And apparently not one reference to a physical law that supports and predicts said greenhouse effect. Don't you find that odd? Skeptics invariably point to physical laws that state that no such greenhouse effect can exist and many do the math to support thier claims.

In this pissing contest I am afraid that it is you who is all wet thunder because you remain unable to name a physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.

 

[RollingThunder]

The only thing that "stopped cold" is your pathetic excuse for a brain. Everything you write is delusional nonsense. You're far too stupid to understand it, but here is the material you claim doesn't exist.

The Greenhouse Effect & Greenhouse Gases

Thunder you poor idiot, there isn't a word on that page about physical laws. That page is all assumption. It doesn't even begin to state which physical law supports or predicts a greenhouse effect. It is based entirely on false assumptions regarding the basic laws of physics.

And so....right there....your raving insanity is laid bare for all to see.

Those scientists from UCAR and NCAR are just full of "false assumptions regarding the basic laws of physics" but you are just the guy to set them all straight. Right?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......ROTFLMAO.......

The Greenhouse Effect & Greenhouse Gases

How do greenhouse gases "work"?

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 (below) 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.

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

 

[ScienceRocks]

It is one big cluster fuck.

 

[RollingThunder]

It is one big cluster fuck.

You're referring to the Republican presidential debates, I suppose. True, but kind of off-topic.

 

[gslack]

The only thing that "stopped cold" is your pathetic excuse for a brain. Everything you write is delusional nonsense. You're far too stupid to understand it, but here is the material you claim doesn't exist.

The Greenhouse Effect & Greenhouse Gases

Thunder you poor idiot, there isn't a word on that page about physical laws. That page is all assumption. It doesn't even begin to state which physical law supports or predicts a greenhouse effect. It is based entirely on false assumptions regarding the basic laws of physics.

And so....right there....your raving insanity is laid bare for all to see.

Those scientists from UCAR and NCAR are just full of "false assumptions regarding the basic laws of physics" but you are just the guy to set them all straight. Right?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......ROTFLMAO.......

The Greenhouse Effect & Greenhouse Gases

How do greenhouse gases "work"?

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 (below) 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.

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

Not that rehashed oversimplification again...

Seriously you guys get a reading list you all post from or what? Trolling blunder, do you really think that most basic of explanations is how it actually works in the real world? LOL of course you do... Well then lets ask some questions shall we..

1. IF as the article states all these particles are constantly moving how in the hell do they know how each will be hit or redirected, absorbed, destroyed whatever in every single instance at any and all points in time and space?

Answer: They don't and they can't know. And whats worse they go on ahead and make climate models using this basic way to teach the greenhouse effect concept to kids, as if it is reality. In reality there is no way they can know how much heat will be retained in this greenhouse effect by CO2 alone unless they can accurately predict the positions of all particles, waves, EM fields, at their interaction points and the various trajectories. Its guess work, they know it and thats why the oversimplified drawings and unrealistic examples. If they actually gave you a really accurate conceptual of this entire maddening system at work and all the variables included it would show for the utter madness it is.

2. Do you really think all particles, waves, and their respective electromagnetic fields line up in a row like that pic shows waiting all still and quiet for a photon to come along and give them a gentle push in the perfect direction and give the perfect scripted response in the manner they show?

Answer: Of course you do, its all in the religion and you are one of the faithful... Its utter bunk, and you are too much of a cow-toeing ditto-head follower to question it. If you can show me a perfect reaction to photons hitting a 3 atom molecule that looks exactly as that drawing depicts I would love to see it.. So would a great many others I am sure...

3. You left out something in that article that is very relevant, why?

Answer : you left out this part....

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.

Oh my... So they are guessing? Holy shit! Kind of like I said before huh.. Yeah exactly like i said before....

Now you can return to your mindless cut&paste trolling... Idiot...

 

[IanC]

I wish wirebender and gslack would convert to the other side. they are embarrassing the sceptical/lukewamer side.

 

[gslack]

I wish wirebender and gslack would convert to the other side. they are embarrassing the sceptical/lukewamer side.

And I wish you would actually prove wire wrong in his math or prove that EM field vectors aren't real, or that quantum mechanics does not apply because its an esoteric concept similar to magic as you claimed.... Not gonna do it? Didn't think so...

So Ian you have resorted to trolling and attacks from the side now? That's pretty konradv of you don't you think? So let me get this straight, I agree with you and you are never wrong or you harass me and stomp your foot? LOL, Ian pride can be a good thing or a bad thing. Its all in how you use it and how much of it you have. The idea you must be right because you said so and thats that is too much, and trolling because you can't show you are right or there is something you didn't know is just childish...

If you can prove him wrong or his math inaccurate please do so, if not troll to your hearts content. Show your ass as much as you need to fix your pride.

 

[wirebender]

And so....right there....your raving insanity is laid bare for all to see.

What is laid bare for all to see is your complete inability to answer a simple question thunder.

Which phisical law(s) support and predict a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.

None of your cut and paste addresses my question. They are all appeals to complexity that ignore the basic laws of physics. If any law of physics supported and predicted a greenhouse effect, you can bet that it would be in the beginning paragraph of every bit of warmist literature available anywhere as that would be a strong indication that the hypothesis is correct. Warmist don't go into that however, because there is no law of physics that either supports or predicts a greenhouse effect. The laws of thermodynamics make it pretty clear that no greenhouse effect is possible.