Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[SSDD]

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.

You are actually a lot like him. The difference is that I am accustomed to you.

So carry on. I won't bother asking anything from you because I know you dont respond to pointed questions that require on-topic concise answers.

I tried to show you correlation of wave to particle energy in a chart. Toobfreak tried to go into greater depth than I am willing to go with these matters in an attempt to show you that the measurement in Joules are quantified so that the particles can be compared. You ignored that.

Your modeling fails in every aspect. You claim LWIR at 2.9um will carry the same energy as LWIR at 16um. It does not and is why your energy budgets fail.

They also believe that raising the emissivity of a thing does not result in cooling it down faster...they jump up and say that raising the emissivity allows a thing to absorb more energy. I suppose they think that every thing cools down and warms up at the same rate and emissivity has nothing to do with either the rate at which a thing warms or cools..

The things they have to believe in order to believe in AGW simply staggers the mind.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

You are actually a lot like him. The difference is that I am accustomed to you.

So carry on. I won't bother asking anything from you because I know you dont respond to pointed questions that require on-topic concise answers.

I tried to show you correlation of wave to particle energy in a chart. Toobfreak tried to go into greater depth than I am willing to go with these matters in an attempt to show you that the measurement in Joules are quantified so that the particles can be compared. You ignored that.

Your modeling fails in every aspect. You claim LWIR at 2.9um will carry the same energy as LWIR at 16um. It does not and is why your energy budgets fail.

They also believe that raising the emissivity of a thing does not result in cooling it down faster...they jump up and say that raising the emissivity allows a thing to absorb more energy. I suppose they think that every thing cools down and warms up at the same rate and emissivity has nothing to do with either the rate at which a thing warms or cools..

The things they have to believe in order to believe in AGW simply staggers the mind.

They also believe that raising the emissivity of a thing [the atmosphere] does not result in cooling it down faster...

Why would it? Be specific.

 

[SSDD]

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.

You are actually a lot like him. The difference is that I am accustomed to you.

So carry on. I won't bother asking anything from you because I know you dont respond to pointed questions that require on-topic concise answers.

I tried to show you correlation of wave to particle energy in a chart. Toobfreak tried to go into greater depth than I am willing to go with these matters in an attempt to show you that the measurement in Joules are quantified so that the particles can be compared. You ignored that.

Your modeling fails in every aspect. You claim LWIR at 2.9um will carry the same energy as LWIR at 16um. It does not and is why your energy budgets fail.

They also believe that raising the emissivity of a thing does not result in cooling it down faster...they jump up and say that raising the emissivity allows a thing to absorb more energy. I suppose they think that every thing cools down and warms up at the same rate and emissivity has nothing to do with either the rate at which a thing warms or cools..

The things they have to believe in order to believe in AGW simply staggers the mind.

They also believe that raising the emissivity of a thing [the atmosphere] does not result in cooling it down faster...

Why would it? Be specific.

Name anything at all that warms, or cools down more slowly as a result of having its emissivity increased....and do show your work.

Do you even know what the word emissivity means?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

You are actually a lot like him. The difference is that I am accustomed to you.

So carry on. I won't bother asking anything from you because I know you dont respond to pointed questions that require on-topic concise answers.

I tried to show you correlation of wave to particle energy in a chart. Toobfreak tried to go into greater depth than I am willing to go with these matters in an attempt to show you that the measurement in Joules are quantified so that the particles can be compared. You ignored that.

Your modeling fails in every aspect. You claim LWIR at 2.9um will carry the same energy as LWIR at 16um. It does not and is why your energy budgets fail.

They also believe that raising the emissivity of a thing does not result in cooling it down faster...they jump up and say that raising the emissivity allows a thing to absorb more energy. I suppose they think that every thing cools down and warms up at the same rate and emissivity has nothing to do with either the rate at which a thing warms or cools..

The things they have to believe in order to believe in AGW simply staggers the mind.

They also believe that raising the emissivity of a thing [the atmosphere] does not result in cooling it down faster...

Why would it? Be specific.

Name anything at all that warms, or cools down more slowly as a result of having its emissivity increased....and do show your work.

Do you even know what the word emissivity means?

Name anything at all that warms, or cools down more slowly as a result of having its emissivity increased..

The Earth's atmosphere.

Do you even know what the word emissivity means?

Do you?

 

[IanC]

Name anything at all that warms, or cools down more slowly as a result of having its emissivity increased....and do show your work.

Do you even know what the word emissivity means

Here we go again.

CO2 is what adds 15 micron radiation to the emissivity of air. The emissivity is one, unity. It cannot be higher. All that more CO2 can do is reduce the mean free path. All 15 micron radiation produced by the surface is absorbed to extinction. That amount is dependent on the temperature of the surface.

15 micron radiation can only escape from the atmosphere when the concentration of CO2 is low enough that it does not just get reabsorbed again. The amount of this escaping 15 micron radiation is dependent on the temperature of the emission height.

There is less escaping 15 micron radiation than absorbed from the surface because temperature is higher at the surface.


But you are interested in increased emissivity. I have asked you repeatedly for the wavelengths of this 'increased emissivity' but you always duck the question. Do you even know?

I could make a guess but then you would complain that I was putting words in your mouth, making a strawman of your position. So why don't you explain yourself for a change?

 

[IanC]

Your modeling fails in every aspect. You claim LWIR at 2.9um will carry the same energy as LWIR at 16um. It does not and is why your energy budgets fail.

What on earth are you talking about???

Quote my comment where I said that. I dont remember mentioning 2.9 microns, ever. And although I talk about 15 micron radiation a lot I seldom make note of 16 micron except perhaps as the wings of 15 micron radiation, as in 14-16 microns.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your modeling fails in every aspect. You claim LWIR at 2.9um will carry the same energy as LWIR at 16um. It does not and is why your energy budgets fail.

What on earth are you talking about???

Quote my comment where I said that. I dont remember mentioning 2.9 microns, ever. And although I talk about 15 micron radiation a lot I seldom make note of 16 micron except perhaps as the wings of 15 micron radiation, as in 14-16 microns.

And.... WOSH......

You still don't have a clue..

 

[xband]

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.

 

[SSDD]

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

You are actually a lot like him. The difference is that I am accustomed to you.

So carry on. I won't bother asking anything from you because I know you dont respond to pointed questions that require on-topic concise answers.

I tried to show you correlation of wave to particle energy in a chart. Toobfreak tried to go into greater depth than I am willing to go with these matters in an attempt to show you that the measurement in Joules are quantified so that the particles can be compared. You ignored that.

Your modeling fails in every aspect. You claim LWIR at 2.9um will carry the same energy as LWIR at 16um. It does not and is why your energy budgets fail.

They also believe that raising the emissivity of a thing does not result in cooling it down faster...they jump up and say that raising the emissivity allows a thing to absorb more energy. I suppose they think that every thing cools down and warms up at the same rate and emissivity has nothing to do with either the rate at which a thing warms or cools..

The things they have to believe in order to believe in AGW simply staggers the mind.

They also believe that raising the emissivity of a thing [the atmosphere] does not result in cooling it down faster...

Why would it? Be specific.

Name anything at all that warms, or cools down more slowly as a result of having its emissivity increased....and do show your work.

Do you even know what the word emissivity means?

Name anything at all that warms, or cools down more slowly as a result of having its emissivity increased..

The Earth's atmosphere.

Do you even know what the word emissivity means?

Do you?

So you have nothing.....that...or you think that the earth's atmosphere by some magic is the only thing that warms, or cools more slowly as a result of having its emissivity raised...You sure do believe in magic...don't you?

Yes, I do....clearly you do not.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 is what adds 15 micron radiation to the emissivity of air. The emissivity is one, unity. It cannot be higher. All that more CO2 can do is reduce the mean free path. All 15 micron radiation produced by the surface is absorbed to extinction. That amount is dependent on the temperature of the surface.

Which might actually mean something if radiation were more than a very minor bit player in the movement of energy to the top of the troposphere...you just don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that the gasses that are actually warming in the troposphere are water vapor, N2 and O2...CO2 provides a cooling mechanism...

If a gas can emit radiation, and if a function of a gas such as so called greenhouse gases is to emit radiation, and that more so called greenhouse gases emit more radiation, then such a gas provides a mechanism for cooling...not warming. The ability to emit radiation is given by a factor called emissivity. If a surface or substance has low emissivity, then it has to attain a higher temperature to emit a given quantity of energy. by the same token, something with high emissivity will conversely have a lower temperature needed to emit a given quantity of energy. The relation between a surface's or substance's temperature is inversely proportional to its ability to radiatively emit energy i.e. its emissivity.

15 micron radiation can only escape from the atmosphere when the concentration of CO2 is low enough that it does not just get reabsorbed again. The amount of this escaping 15 micron radiation is dependent on the temperature of the emission height.

Tell me ian...what percentage of the IR that the surface of the earth emits is 15 micron radiation? And who ever said that 15 micron energy must remain 15 micron energy?

There is less escaping 15 micron radiation than absorbed from the surface because temperature is higher at the surface.

That would be because it is being lost by CO2 molecules via collision and conducted and convected to the top of the troposphere...when it is lost to space, it will not be lost in the form of 15 micron radiation because it is not being lost by a CO2 molecule.

There is a reason climate models fail so miserably...they are based on a terribly flawed set of physics...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I tried to show you correlation of wave to particle energy in a chart. Toobfreak tried to go into greater depth than I am willing to go with these matters in an attempt to show you that the measurement in Joules are quantified so that the particles can be compared. You ignored that.

Your modeling fails in every aspect. You claim LWIR at 2.9um will carry the same energy as LWIR at 16um. It does not and is why your energy budgets fail.

They also believe that raising the emissivity of a thing does not result in cooling it down faster...they jump up and say that raising the emissivity allows a thing to absorb more energy. I suppose they think that every thing cools down and warms up at the same rate and emissivity has nothing to do with either the rate at which a thing warms or cools..

The things they have to believe in order to believe in AGW simply staggers the mind.

They also believe that raising the emissivity of a thing [the atmosphere] does not result in cooling it down faster...

Why would it? Be specific.

Name anything at all that warms, or cools down more slowly as a result of having its emissivity increased....and do show your work.

Do you even know what the word emissivity means?

Name anything at all that warms, or cools down more slowly as a result of having its emissivity increased..

The Earth's atmosphere.

Do you even know what the word emissivity means?

Do you?

So you have nothing.....that...or you think that the earth's atmosphere by some magic is the only thing that warms, or cools more slowly as a result of having its emissivity raised...You sure do believe in magic...don't you?

Yes, I do....clearly you do not.

or you think that the earth's atmosphere by some magic is the only thing that warms, or cools more slowly as a result of having its emissivity raised.

Magic? Hardly. How much energy is emitted by the atmosphere in the non-GHG wavelengths?

 

[Wuwei]

...shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving, ducking and covering are generally tactics used by the likes of wuwei...

That is your tactic. It is also the tactic of a troll to accuse someone of the very faults they have. I have always stood up for basic proven science and you know it. You have dodged and weaved in almost every post and your "alternate" science is full of contradictions and self contradictions.


.

 

[IanC]

If a gas can emit radiation, and if a function of a gas such as so called greenhouse gases is to emit radiation, and that more so called greenhouse gases emit more radiation, then such a gas provides a mechanism for cooling...not warming. The ability to emit radiation is given by a factor called emissivity. If a surface or substance has low emissivity, then it has to attain a higher temperature to emit a given quantity of energy. by the same token, something with high emissivity will conversely have a lower temperature needed to emit a given quantity of energy. The relation between a surface's or substance's temperature is inversely proportional to its ability to radiatively emit energy i.e. its emissivity.

Thanks for actually making an attempt at explaining your position. It helps me see where you are coming from.

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.

You mentioned that temperature has a relationship with emissivity. Indeed it does, while a substance can always absorb favoured bands of radiation it can only produce that radiation if there is enough available energy. And the higher the amount of available energy (AKA temperature), the larger the amount of radiation (j=eaT^4).

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.

Ordinarily I would mention that some radiation energy would reurn to the surface but I don't want to leave the topic of emissivity.

CO2 has three bands in IR where the emissivity is one, unity. 15, 4, 3 microns. Why do we not talk about the bands at 4 and 3? Because the Sun sends very little of those to the Earth, and the Earth's surface is not warm enough to produce it.

Are there bands that CO2 has an emissivity of 0<x <1 ? Yes of course. Near the surface there are pressure effects that widen the 15 micron band to a 14-16 micron band. Like a badly fitting key, it only works if you hold it just right. That is why the CO2 notch gets wider at higher concentration but any escaping radition comes from a high temperature low altitude 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.

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

Personally I think that the miniscule amount of increased emissivity near the surface (via widening the wings by pressure) should be ignored here as unnecessary complexity. It does not reduce the GreenhouseEffect, it adds to it.

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?

 

[IanC]

Magic? Hardly. How much energy is emitted by the atmosphere in the non-GHG wavelengths?

About 40w from the surface bypasses the atmosphere and GHGs. Another 30w from the secondary surface, also known as cloudtops. 70 w out of 235. The rest comes from GHG wavelengths escaping from various different emission heights.


(Edit- I suppose it is incorrect to say that surface produced radiation exiting through the Atmospheric Window comes from the atmosphere. It only transits the atmosphere).

 

[toobfreak]

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.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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..

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

 

[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..

 

[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?

 

[Wuwei]

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?

.

 

[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.