Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[IanC]

You didn't do much to defend your position there ian...shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving, ducking and covering are generally tactics used by the likes of wuwei, the skid mark, and the hairball...you usually don't resort to such tactics. Toobfreak had some pretty straight forward questions about your belief of how the greenhouse effect works...questions that your mathematical models should have been able to answer.

Why did you pretend that you didn't have any idea of what he was getting at

Tubesucker is an asshole. I responded to most of his criticisms, he made no attempt to respond to my criticisms of his posts.

Hey SHIT FOR BRAINS DIARRHEA MOUTH,

YOU are the one who attacked me right from the git-go and have been doing it ever since, and over nothing. Anyone can read these threads to see.

THEN you said: I can't imagine what in the world he doesn't like me for!

Obviously, if you actually had any formal education and degrees in anything remotely approaching science and physics, you'd just SAY SO.

2). Questions about light, heat, Sun and energy are not "criticisms." These forums are FOR debate and discussion. The fact that you took them as such and never answered any of my questions withing anything short of HORSESHIT PSEUDOSCIENCE MUMBOJUMBO, attacks and deflections speaks volumes about you. Unfortunately, assholes like you always turn them into spamming trolling threads to protect your personal pet garbage theories by trying to drown out dissent with noise..

There is no rational response to someone who refuses proof, refuses evidence and steadfastly changes the subject over and over, and turns everything into a deflection about personal attacks. You are one dumb, fucked up lying, arrogant, shit-brained motherfucker.

hahahahaha! quite the rant. do you feel better?

you're still just an incompetent blowhard.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere? What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?

Again, Convection and Conduction remove all energy from the surface to cloud top where it is released. There is NO RESERVOIR and the heat is lost.

This is why Trenbreth's cartoon is patently false and a hope-n-poke. The 40-131w/m^2 that is supposed to be retained is not being retained by the atmosphere. You people are missing the forest because of the trees..

Again, Convection and Conduction remove all energy from the surface to cloud top where it is released.

No radiation above the first few meters? None at all until above the clouds?

Tell me Todd, if a molecule is collided with 30,000 times during the time it can hold energy what are the probabilities it will be radiated vs kinetically transferred to water vapor or another high quantity molecule in our atmosphere?

The answer is slightly above 0 (maybe 1 in 1,000,000,000,000). given factors of 400 parts per million and the residency time.

The answer is slightly above 0 (maybe 1 in 1,000,000,000,000). given factors of 400 parts per million and the residency time.

Wow! Your very precise calculation would mean that a downward pointing IR detector would detect
almost nothing at those wavelengths higher than a few meters above the ground.

Any backup for your theory?

 

[IanC]

All GHGs produce the same type of result. They absorb more surface emitted radiation than they eventually emit to space from a cold high altitude.

Increasing the amount of a specific GHG will increase the radiation absorbed near the surface and decrease the amount released to space.

Do you have any idea what that high altitude is? I know it would span over a range. Is it in the troposphere or stratosphere or what?

.

That gives you the temperature. Just match it up to an atmospheric profile. All in the toposphere I think

 

[Wuwei]

That gives you the temperature. Just match it up to an atmospheric profile. All in the toposphere I think

Ah, Thank you. I have seen that before, but didn't catch the fact that it answers my question. It also answers questions I didn't ask such as the altitude of ozone and methane, etc.

.

 

[IanC]

That gives you the temperature. Just match it up to an atmospheric profile. All in the toposphere I think

Ah, Thank you. I have seen that before, but didn't catch the fact that it answers my question. It also answers questions I didn't ask such as the altitude of ozone and methane, etc.

.

you made a good observation years ago that a lot of radiation escapes at the freezing temperature of water.

 

[flacaltenn]

Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.. And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..

That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... DON'T hijack other specific topics.. Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...

Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...

I will debate Nuclear Physics with anyone on board.

If you a nuclear physics ace, you should already KNOW that misunderstands and "alt science" of thermodynamics and atmospheric physics has little or nothing to do with nuclear anything...

 

[Billy_Bob]

So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere? What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?

Again, Convection and Conduction remove all energy from the surface to cloud top where it is released. There is NO RESERVOIR and the heat is lost.

This is why Trenbreth's cartoon is patently false and a hope-n-poke. The 40-131w/m^2 that is supposed to be retained is not being retained by the atmosphere. You people are missing the forest because of the trees..

Again, Convection and Conduction remove all energy from the surface to cloud top where it is released.

No radiation above the first few meters? None at all until above the clouds?

Tell me Todd, if a molecule is collided with 30,000 times during the time it can hold energy what are the probabilities it will be radiated vs kinetically transferred to water vapor or another high quantity molecule in our atmosphere?

The answer is slightly above 0 (maybe 1 in 1,000,000,000,000). given factors of 400 parts per million and the residency time.

The answer is slightly above 0 (maybe 1 in 1,000,000,000,000). given factors of 400 parts per million and the residency time.

Wow! Your very precise calculation would mean that a downward pointing IR detector would detect
almost nothing at those wavelengths higher than a few meters above the ground.

Any backup for your theory?

Not from CO2... other gases and vapors yes... My recent experiment with atmospheric gases in a tube only resulted in 1.2% reflection/re-emission towards the source of energy was pretty conclusive of this.

 

[SSDD]

Emissivity is the ability of a substance to absorb/emit specific wavelengths of EMR. You cannot have the ability for one without the ability for the other. Obviously.

No ian...emissivity is about the ability of a substance to emit energy...period.

Let's use CO2 as an example. The amount of radiation energy it absorbs and adds to the atmosphere is only limited by the amount of 15 micron radiation the surface produces. The cooling it is responsible for is limited by the amount of 15 micron radiation produced by the cold atmosphere at the emission height.

All GHGs produce the same type of result. They absorb more surface emitted radiation than they eventually emit to space from a cold high altitude.

They absorb more than they emit because the vast bulk of what they absorb is lost via collisions with other molecules before they ever get the chance to emit said radiation and there is no requirement that it be emitted at the TOA at the same frequency at which it was absorbed in the lower troposphere.

You have this terribly skewed image in your head of how energy is moved through the troposphere...your belief that radiation is a major player in the movement of energy through the troposphere is simply wrong...and no amount of appeal to complexity will ever make it right.

 

[SSDD]

All GHGs produce the same type of result. They absorb more surface emitted radiation than they eventually emit to space from a cold high altitude.

Increasing the amount of a specific GHG will increase the radiation absorbed near the surface and decrease the amount released to space.

Please show me where this is happening in our atmosphere. There is no mid-troposphere hot spot and ERBE satellite measurements show linear parallel of input to output showing that your statement is false by empirical observation.

Try Again... Epic Failure..

View attachment 263217

You keep citing these crap models as if they were gospel.. They FAIL EMPIRICAL REVIEW!

It is his belief and his faith is strong...I doubt that anything could ever prompt him to change his mind...I suppose that even after the GH hypothesis finally goes down in flames, assuming he is still alive, he will maintain his insistence that he has been right all these years...and is still right.

 

[SSDD]

So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere? What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?

There is no energy reservoir.....what bit of energy that so called greenhouse gasses actually emit in the form of IR moves on to space at the speed of light rather than by the cumbersome process of conduction/convection...add more so called greenhouse gas molecules to the atmosphere and you have a greater number of them managing to emit a photon which skips the conduction/convection elevator to the top of the troposphere and moves directly to space....there is no back radiation, and "scattering" is so negligible as to be irrelevant...

The process that you imagine energy moving through the troposphere is simply, and completely wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere? What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?

Again, Convection and Conduction remove all energy from the surface to cloud top where it is released. There is NO RESERVOIR and the heat is lost.

This is why Trenbreth's cartoon is patently false and a hope-n-poke. The 40-131w/m^2 that is supposed to be retained is not being retained by the atmosphere. You people are missing the forest because of the trees..

Again, Convection and Conduction remove all energy from the surface to cloud top where it is released.

No radiation above the first few meters? None at all until above the clouds?

Tell me Todd, if a molecule is collided with 30,000 times during the time it can hold energy what are the probabilities it will be radiated vs kinetically transferred to water vapor or another high quantity molecule in our atmosphere?

The answer is slightly above 0 (maybe 1 in 1,000,000,000,000). given factors of 400 parts per million and the residency time.

The answer is slightly above 0 (maybe 1 in 1,000,000,000,000). given factors of 400 parts per million and the residency time.

Wow! Your very precise calculation would mean that a downward pointing IR detector would detect
almost nothing at those wavelengths higher than a few meters above the ground.

Any backup for your theory?

Not from CO2... other gases and vapors yes... My recent experiment with atmospheric gases in a tube only resulted in 1.2% reflection/re-emission towards the source of energy was pretty conclusive of this.

Not from CO2... other gases and vapors yes...

Other gases and vapors are allowed to radiate more than a few meters above the surface?
More frequently than "maybe 1 in 1,000,000,000,000"?
Why?

 

[Wuwei]

No ian...emissivity is about the ability of a substance to emit energy...period.

That's not true,
From UCSD: Black Body Radiation *

A black body is one that absorbs all the EM radiation (light...) that strikes it. To stay in thermal equilibrium, it must emit radiation at the same rate as it absorbs it so a black body also radiates well. ​

Let's use CO2 as an example. The amount of radiation energy it absorbs and adds to the atmosphere is only limited by the amount of 15 micron radiation the surface produces.

The equipartition principle requires that 2/9 of the CO2 energy is in a vibration mode.
There are 1.012 x10^22 CO2 molecules per cubic meter in air at 400ppm.
Number in excitation state 1.01 10^22 x 2/9 = 0.244 10^22
Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.24410^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.
So, the radiation is not limited to the surface. In fact the surface radiation adds to the above radiation that naturally occurs.


.

 

[miketx]

sig line

 

[IanC]

So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere? What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?

There is no energy reservoir.....what bit of energy that so called greenhouse gasses actually emit in the form of IR moves on to space at the speed of light rather than by the cumbersome process of conduction/convection...add more so called greenhouse gas molecules to the atmosphere and you have a greater number of them managing to emit a photon which skips the conduction/convection elevator to the top of the troposphere and moves directly to space....there is no back radiation, and "scattering" is so negligible as to be irrelevant...

The process that you imagine energy moving through the troposphere is simply, and completely wrong.

All of the atmosphere is an energy reserve. Kinetic energy stored as temperature, potential energy stored as height in the gravity field, latent energy stored by phase change.

You made the casual unsupported statement that more molecules of a GHG means more opportunity to radiate a photon to space. I say that GHGs only radiate to space once their density is low enought that a photonescapes rather than gets reabsorbed.


If the emission concentration is xx per cubic centimetre then you have to go up in the amosphere until that concentratin is reached, the emission height. If you double the GHG concentration, the emission concentration is still the same but you have to go farther up into the atmosphere where the overall density of air is 1/2 of what it was. There will only be the same amout of the GHG capable of radiating to space but it will be at a colder height.

Adding more of a GHG does not increase escaping radiation. It decreases it because the new height has less energy to convert into radiation.

So, where is the energy coming from for your claim of extra cooling and which wavelengths account for it?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.24410^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.

SO we add 16 zeros to your decimal... 0.000000000000000024410 Tell me again how this very small amount of 'back radiation' from CO2 can do anything?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.24410^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.

SO we add 16 zeros to your decimal... 0.000000000000000024410 Tell me again how this very small amount of 'back radiation' from CO2 can do anything?

SO we add 16 zeros to your decimal... 0.000000000000000024410

You have your decimal going the wrong way.

 

[Billy_Bob]

They absorb more than they emit because the vast bulk of what they absorb is lost via collisions with other molecules before they ever get the chance to emit said radiation and there is no requirement that it be emitted at the TOA at the same frequency at which it was absorbed in the lower troposphere.

Correct;

This is why when you look at the radiative properties of water vapor it begins at 12um and ends above 130um due to cooling as it rises above cloud boundary and re-nucleates into water droplets emitting its radiation at a much lower temperature .

 

[Billy_Bob]

So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere? What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?

There is no energy reservoir.....what bit of energy that so called greenhouse gasses actually emit in the form of IR moves on to space at the speed of light rather than by the cumbersome process of conduction/convection...add more so called greenhouse gas molecules to the atmosphere and you have a greater number of them managing to emit a photon which skips the conduction/convection elevator to the top of the troposphere and moves directly to space....there is no back radiation, and "scattering" is so negligible as to be irrelevant...

The process that you imagine energy moving through the troposphere is simply, and completely wrong.

All of the atmosphere is an energy reserve. Kinetic energy stored as temperature, potential energy stored as height in the gravity field, latent energy stored by phase change.

You made the casual unsupported statement that more molecules of a GHG means more opportunity to radiate a photon to space. I say that GHGs only radiate to space once their density is low enought that a photonescapes rather than gets reabsorbed.


If the emission concentration is xx per cubic centimetre then you have to go up in the amosphere until that concentratin is reached, the emission height. If you double the GHG concentration, the emission concentration is still the same but you have to go farther up into the atmosphere where the overall density of air is 1/2 of what it was. There will only be the same amout of the GHG capable of radiating to space but it will be at a colder height.

Adding more of a GHG does not increase escaping radiation. It decreases it because the new height has less energy to convert into radiation.

So, where is the energy coming from for your claim of extra cooling and which wavelengths account for it?

And water vapor blows a huge hole in your hypothesis... Water vapor in the atmosphere is the reason we have never gone outside the 14 deg C average temperature range for over 4.5 billion years. Even at concentrations above 7000ppm.

 

[IanC]

So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere? What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?

There is no energy reservoir.....what bit of energy that so called greenhouse gasses actually emit in the form of IR moves on to space at the speed of light rather than by the cumbersome process of conduction/convection...add more so called greenhouse gas molecules to the atmosphere and you have a greater number of them managing to emit a photon which skips the conduction/convection elevator to the top of the troposphere and moves directly to space....there is no back radiation, and "scattering" is so negligible as to be irrelevant...

The process that you imagine energy moving through the troposphere is simply, and completely wrong.

All of the atmosphere is an energy reserve. Kinetic energy stored as temperature, potential energy stored as height in the gravity field, latent energy stored by phase change.

You made the casual unsupported statement that more molecules of a GHG means more opportunity to radiate a photon to space. I say that GHGs only radiate to space once their density is low enought that a photonescapes rather than gets reabsorbed.


If the emission concentration is xx per cubic centimetre then you have to go up in the amosphere until that concentratin is reached, the emission height. If you double the GHG concentration, the emission concentration is still the same but you have to go farther up into the atmosphere where the overall density of air is 1/2 of what it was. There will only be the same amout of the GHG capable of radiating to space but it will be at a colder height.

Adding more of a GHG does not increase escaping radiation. It decreases it because the new height has less energy to convert into radiation.

So, where is the energy coming from for your claim of extra cooling and which wavelengths account for it?

And water vapor blows a huge hole in your hypothesis... Water vapor in the atmosphere is the reason we have never gone outside the 14 deg C average temperature range for over 4.5 billion years. Even at concentrations above 7000ppm.

View attachment 263304

My hypoothesis is that adding more of an existing GHG reduces escaping radiation in the wavelengths affected by the increased GHG. I explained my reasoning.

You say water vapour blows a hole in that statement. Where is the hole, what energy are you talking about and which wavelengths.

 

[IanC]

They absorb more than they emit because the vast bulk of what they absorb is lost via collisions with other molecules before they ever get the chance to emit said radiation and there is no requirement that it be emitted at the TOA at the same frequency at which it was absorbed in the lower troposphere.

Correct;

This is why when you look at the radiative properties of water vapor it begins at 12um and ends above 130um due to cooling as it rises above cloud boundary and re-nucleates into water droplets emitting its radiation at a much lower temperature .

View attachment 263301

Why do you say that water vapour starts reacting with radiation at 12 microns? Did you not look at your own diagram? There are lots of reactive bands in the mid and near IR. And water reacts very poorly with 12 micron radiation which is actually considered part of the Atmospheric Window.

I really dont know why I respond to your nonsense. Why dont you and tubesucker get together and tell each other your make believe qualifications?