Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[Wuwei]

CO2 doesnt impeded IR..it absorbs and emits in a frav=ction of a nanosecond...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision first.

You got it totally backwards!!!

Molecules in a gas have average speeds of around 500 meters per second, and around 0.2 nanoSec between collisions. This is at room temperature and pressure. The average relaxation time that a CO2 molecule can hold the vibration state is much longer: 13 microsec. A random molecule is 26000 times more likely to hit the vibrating GHG molecule before it has a chance to emit a photon. That random molecule gains energy from the vibration and turns into heat.

My gosh you and billy have a tiresome lack of knowledge of physics, and yet you both continue to spout effluvium from your rectal sphincters. (metaphorically)

Where are you getting this crap?

Energy residency is 0.03ns. It is incapable of warming itself.. Empirically observed experiment proves that it can not warm itself... Only collision with a warmer molecule will warm it..

He just makes it up as he goes.

"He just makes it up as he goes."

I cited verified experiments. What verified experiments do you have?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Trenbreth miscalculations and doubling of energy within the earths atmosphere is a fraud. There is only 396W/m^2 going out bound and less than 33W/m^2 is reflected or redirected towards earth. That is where Trenbreth failed in his calculations saying it is roughly 139w/m^2. Trenbreth inserted over 90W/m^2 into our atmosphere that does not belong.

There is no missing heat which is also why there is no hot spot.

I really don't care what Trenberth thinks. Since you deny the properties of radiation physics, I really don't care what you think anymore either.

You accept the same flawed physics that result in the models being so wrong,,,the same physics trenberth applies.

Once again...in real science, what happens to hypotheses that experience even one predictive failure?

They have so much invested in the lie that they refuse to reassess their failures..

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 doesnt impeded IR..it absorbs and emits in a frav=ction of a nanosecond...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision first.

You got it totally backwards!!!

Molecules in a gas have average speeds of around 500 meters per second, and around 0.2 nanoSec between collisions. This is at room temperature and pressure. The average relaxation time that a CO2 molecule can hold the vibration state is much longer: 13 microsec. A random molecule is 26000 times more likely to hit the vibrating GHG molecule before it has a chance to emit a photon. That random molecule gains energy from the vibration and turns into heat.

My gosh you and billy have a tiresome lack of knowledge of physics, and yet you both continue to spout effluvium from your rectal sphincters. (metaphorically)

Where are you getting this crap?

Energy residency is 0.03ns. It is incapable of warming itself.. Empirically observed experiment proves that it can not warm itself... Only collision with a warmer molecule will warm it..

He just makes it up as he goes.

"He just makes it up as he goes."

I cited verified experiments. What verified experiments do you have?

Your hot spot is where again?

The Boulder CO AP lab says your wrong about CO2... And yet you 'believe'..

 

[Wuwei]

You accept the same flawed physics that result in the models being so wrong,,,the same physics trenberth applies.

Once again...in real science, what happens to hypotheses that experience even one predictive failure?

If you are talking about CO2 absorption of LWIR and back-radiation, it has been empirically measured. But you don't believe it and you believe Gareff who said, The temperature differences may be used to generate work, resulting in a decrease of entropy.

So now it seems you don't believe entropy always increases in the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 doesnt impeded IR..it absorbs and emits in a frav=ction of a nanosecond...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision first.

You got it totally backwards!!!

Molecules in a gas have average speeds of around 500 meters per second, and around 0.2 nanoSec between collisions. This is at room temperature and pressure. The average relaxation time that a CO2 molecule can hold the vibration state is much longer: 13 microsec. A random molecule is 26000 times more likely to hit the vibrating GHG molecule before it has a chance to emit a photon. That random molecule gains energy from the vibration and turns into heat.

My gosh you and billy have a tiresome lack of knowledge of physics, and yet you both continue to spout effluvium from your rectal sphincters. (metaphorically)

Where are you getting this crap?

Energy residency is 0.03ns. It is incapable of warming itself.. Empirically observed experiment proves that it can not warm itself... Only collision with a warmer molecule will warm it..

He just makes it up as he goes.

"He just makes it up as he goes."

I cited verified experiments. What verified experiments do you have?

In real science, when you form a hypothesis and collect data, and make predictions based on how you believe that data relates to your hypothesis, and the prediction fails, what happens wo the hypothesis? Do you adjust the hypothesis to try to sweep the figure out of sight and continue looking for some data to make the hypothesis seem valid, no matter how many predictive failures the hypothesis experiences? Keep in mind, it is real science we are talking about here.

Oh, and where is that hot spot?

So which is it? Will you answer, or will you dodge...i predict a dodge.

 

[SSDD]

You accept the same flawed physics that result in the models being so wrong,,,the same physics trenberth applies.

Once again...in real science, what happens to hypotheses that experience even one predictive failure?

If you are talking about CO2 absorption of LWIR and back-radiation, it has been empirically measured. But you don't believe it and you believe Gareff who said, The temperature differences may be used to generate work, resulting in a decrease of entropy.

So now it seems you don't believe entropy always increases in the atmosphere.

No it hasn't....not with an instrument at ambient temperature..Being fooled by instruments dopant make what you thought they were measuring real.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted.

As I watch many claim global warming for the current weather events, it appears it is time for some sanity and a reality check. The earth has always been a paradoxical presentation and its high time people were taught that what they see is in far to short a time span for any realistic determination to be made about what our climate is doing.

When the sun is active the flows from the sun, like wind, push against our atmosphere. As the earth rotates this pressure pushes atmosphere to the poles increasing the mass of the atmosphere above them. The NASA photo below shows how solar wind pushes against the magnetosphere and against our atmosphere.

View attachment 172129

When the wind reduces so do the pressures against our atmosphere. If you spin a partially filled balloon and apply a wind pressure against it the center will flatten and the ends round. This is what happens to earths atmosphere.

When there is high pressures against our atmosphere from the sun the depth of atmosphere above the equator decreases and above the poles increase.

View attachment 172131

This allows the polar jet to reside high in latitudes and warming of the equator will push towards the polls keeping the polar jet tightly constrained to the poles. This is a warming globe.

With cooling and low solar influence things are very different. With low pressures (as we have today) against the magnetosphere and atmosphere, the mass of the atmosphere is flung out due to earths rotation, allowing the atmosphere near the poles to be drawn to the equator.

View attachment 172132

The draw down of atmosphere causes the polar Cells to thin and widen pulling the polar jet to mid latitudes. This results in a paradoxical warming of the arctic regions and massive cooling of the mid latitudes. The thin atmosphere mass above the poles allows heat escape to accelerate.

What we see today is a natural and normal presentation of the earth entering a cooling phase. With Solar influence now slated to be very low for the next 30-60 years our cooling is just beginning.

As we near the new thermal equilibrium of the earths new energy input/output levels, the zones will return to what we have seen as normal over recent years. When that happens, the poles will freeze over rapidly and glaciation will resume. Many Northern Hemisphere glaciers have already begun to increase in size. The ice mass on Greenland has tripled in just three years.

This is just the beginning..

Non-linear dynamic systems are unpredictable..by definition. The natural component is unpredictable, by definition.

Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos | With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering


" Our work in the previous three chapters has revealed quite a bit about chaotic systems, but something important is missing: intuition. We know what happens but not why it happens. For instance, we don’t know what causes sensitive dependence on initial conditions, nor how a differential equation can generate a fractal attractor. Our first goal is to understand such things in a simple, geometric way."

History gives a look at how our chaotic system reacts... Given that history we have had levels well above 7,000ppm and our 12 deg C range over earths lifespan has never been breached..

You can place known limitations on a chaotic system... Failing to do so allows you to make wild assumptions about Man Made Global Warming even though you can not quantify it or prove its causation in deference to Natural Variation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

l

The one that can cause warming within the molecule is "IR-inactive".

That's wrong.

The other three are kinetic in nature and can only warm with collision.

That's wrong.

Without water vapor our atmosphere is opaque to LWIR.

That's wrong.

Again where is your 'Hot Spot'... I'll wait..

The "hot spot" has to do with models involving water vapor and latent heat, etc. That is certainly a hot topic in the understanding of modeling complexities of the atmosphere, but state changes of water vapor is not related to the more basic physics of LWIR exciting the transverse modes of CO2 etc. It is premature to introduce more complex topics when you deny the simpler topic of accepted radiation physics. As I said before, I have not read any of the IPCC documents to know details of the controversy.

.

Again, these assumptions were proven wrong by physical experiment in the last two years... Keep on believing.... Just like the mid-evil church and monarchs, its going to take getting kicked in the teeth by mother nature before you reassess, as people are dying..

 

[Wuwei]

You accept the same flawed physics that result in the models being so wrong,,,the same physics trenberth applies.

Once again...in real science, what happens to hypotheses that experience even one predictive failure?

If you are talking about CO2 absorption of LWIR and back-radiation, it has been empirically measured. But you don't believe it and you believe Gareff who said, The temperature differences may be used to generate work, resulting in a decrease of entropy.

So now it seems you don't believe entropy always increases in the atmosphere.

No it hasn't....not with an instrument at ambient temperature..Being fooled by instruments dopant make what you thought they were measuring real.

Yeah, yeah, we all know your obsession with fake physics. You make a supposition about blocked radiation and then admit that you have no idea on how to explain that.

 

[Wuwei]

In real science, when you form a hypothesis and collect data, and make predictions based on how you believe that data relates to your hypothesis, and the prediction fails, what happens wo the hypothesis? Do you adjust the hypothesis to try to sweep the figure out of sight and continue looking for some data to make the hypothesis seem valid, no matter how many predictive failures the hypothesis experiences? Keep in mind, it is real science we are talking about here.

We were talking about how GHG's stay in an excited state many thousands of times longer than the time between collisions from surrounding molecules. That wasn't a prediction; I gave you experimental sources somewhere. That shows how GHG's can pass random energy to those surrounding molecules.

Oh, and where is that hot spot?

So which is it? Will you answer, or will you dodge...i predict a dodge.

I have no idea if and where a hot might exist.

 

[SSDD]

You accept the same flawed physics that result in the models being so wrong,,,the same physics trenberth applies.

Once again...in real science, what happens to hypotheses that experience even one predictive failure?

If you are talking about CO2 absorption of LWIR and back-radiation, it has been empirically measured. But you don't believe it and you believe Gareff who said, The temperature differences may be used to generate work, resulting in a decrease of entropy.

So now it seems you don't believe entropy always increases in the atmosphere.

No it hasn't....not with an instrument at ambient temperature..Being fooled by instruments dopant make what you thought they were measuring real.

Yeah, yeah, we all know your obsession with fake physics. You make a supposition about blocked radiation and then admit that you have no idea on how to explain that.

Yeah...my obsession with actual observations and measurements regarding observable measurable entities like energy and the atmosphere...
i don't blindly accept models and mind experiments as being real like you.

 

[SSDD]

We were talking about how GHG's stay in an excited state many thousands of times longer than the time between collisions from surrounding molecules. That wasn't a prediction; I gave you experimental sources somewhere. That shows how GHG's can pass random energy to those surrounding molecules.

You just acknowledged that CO2 molecules lose their energy so rapidly due to collision that radiation becomes the next thing to irrelevant in our gravity/pressure controlled, convective troposphere.

I have no idea if and where a hot might exist.

Dodge...just as i predicted. You prefer to ignore predictive failures and sweep them under the rug as if they don't invalidate the hypothesis....that is more akin to religion than science,

 

[Wuwei]

Yeah...my obsession with actual observations and measurements regarding observable measurable entities like energy and the atmosphere...
i don't blindly accept models and mind experiments as being real like you.

I accept models that have been verified to parts per billion or trillion. You don't. I don't accept models that predict climate 50 years into the future.

 

[Wuwei]

We were talking about how GHG's stay in an excited state many thousands of times longer than the time between collisions from surrounding molecules. That wasn't a prediction; I gave you experimental sources somewhere. That shows how GHG's can pass random energy to those surrounding molecules.

You just acknowledged that CO2 molecules lose their energy so rapidly due to collision that radiation becomes the next thing to irrelevant in our gravity/pressure controlled, convective troposphere.

I have no idea if and where a hot might exist.

Dodge...just as i predicted. You prefer to ignore predictive failures and sweep them under the rug as if they don't invalidate the hypothesis....that is more akin to religion than science,

The loss of radiation to excited vibration states to transfer by collisions increases the temperature of the atmosphere. That is a major point that you fail to realize, and has direct bearing to atmospheric physics.

Dodge hot spot prediction? How can I dodge something that I don't about?

 

[SSDD]

Yeah...my obsession with actual observations and measurements regarding observable measurable entities like energy and the atmosphere...
i don't blindly accept models and mind experiments as being real like you.

I accept models that have been verified to parts per billion or trillion. You don't. I don't accept models that predict climate 50 years into the future.

Those models have nothing to do with either the greenhouse hypothesis or AGW..and the models are abject failures..they have no predictive capability...they can't even hindcast.

 

[SSDD]

We were talking about how GHG's stay in an excited state many thousands of times longer than the time between collisions from surrounding molecules. That wasn't a prediction; I gave you experimental sources somewhere. That shows how GHG's can pass random energy to those surrounding molecules.

You just acknowledged that CO2 molecules lose their energy so rapidly due to collision that radiation becomes the next thing to irrelevant in our gravity/pressure controlled, convective troposphere.

I have no idea if and where a hot might exist.

Dodge...just as i predicted. You prefer to ignore predictive failures and sweep them under the rug as if they don't invalidate the hypothesis....that is more akin to religion than science,

The loss of radiation to excited vibration states to transfer by collisions increases the temperature of the atmosphere. That is a major point that you fail to realize, and has direct bearing to atmospheric physics.

Dodge hot spot prediction? How can I dodge something that I don't about?

Only if the energy is converted to heat...it isn't. This goes back to the inability of iR to heat the air...If you acknowledge that the temperature is a result of gravity/pressure, and conduction, then you must give up on the nonsensical idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere dominated by gravity/pressure and convection.

And I am still waiting for you to describe the physical reason for the temperature variation at the grand canyon and other such places in the context of a radiative greenhouse effect.

By the way..here is an interesting tidbit about venus...

Venus Compared to Earth - Universe Today

“Venus’ surface temperature experiences little to no variation, owing to its dense atmosphere, very slow rotation, and very minor axial tilt. Its mean surface temperature of 735 K (462 °C/863.6 °F) is virtually constant, with little or no change between day and night, at the equator or the poles. The one exception is the highest point on Venus, Maxwell Montes, where atmospheric pressure drops to about 4.5 MPa (45 bar) and the temperature drops to about 655 K (380 °C).”

Care to explain that in the context of a greenhouse effect?

By the way...all one has to do is a quick search to see what you have said about the hot spot in the past to see that you are lying when you claim to know nothing about it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Just face it. GHG's can cause the air to gain some of the 396 W/m^2 energy emanating from the earth surface, and you guys have no science do disprove it.

The Boulder Co AP lab did a very extensive experiment on exactly this and found the earths atmosphere does not warm due to LWIR. IT IS INCAPABLE OF WARMING FROM THIS absent water vapor!!

 

[SSDD]

Just face it. GHG's can cause the air to gain some of the 396 W/m^2 energy emanating from the earth surface, and you guys have no science do disprove it.

The Boulder Co AP lab did a very extensive experiment on exactly this and found the earths atmosphere does not warm due to LWIR. IT IS INCAPABLE OF WARMING FROM THIS absent water vapor!!

These guys just ignore the glaring empirical evidence that calls their hypothesis into question and just keep on believing.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Just face it. GHG's can cause the air to gain some of the 396 W/m^2 energy emanating from the earth surface, and you guys have no science do disprove it.

The Boulder Co AP lab did a very extensive experiment on exactly this and found the earths atmosphere does not warm due to LWIR. IT IS INCAPABLE OF WARMING FROM THIS absent water vapor!!

These guys just ignore the glaring empirical evidence that calls their hypothesis into question and just keep on believing.

I have tried several times to explain why CO2 can not do what they claim and each time I get into the mechanics of it, they refuse to even acknowledge recent studies that disprove their hypothesis. They have become religious zealots and they have abandoned empirically observed and objective science.

I simply do not have time to teach these people what we see in our current studies and explain it mechanically to the molecular level. A lot of things we assumed are not being observed when we test them. I simply do not have time to bring these people back to reality. You have much greater patience than I do. Kudos!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Just face it. GHG's can cause the air to gain some of the 396 W/m^2 energy emanating from the earth surface, and you guys have no science do disprove it.

The Boulder Co AP lab did a very extensive experiment on exactly this and found the earths atmosphere does not warm due to LWIR. IT IS INCAPABLE OF WARMING FROM THIS absent water vapor!!

These guys just ignore the glaring empirical evidence that calls their hypothesis into question and just keep on believing.

I have tried several times to explain why CO2 can not do what they claim and each time I get into the mechanics of it, they refuse to even acknowledge recent studies that disprove their hypothesis. They have become religious zealots and they have abandoned empirically observed and objective science.

I simply do not have time to teach these people what we see in our current studies and explain it mechanically to the molecular level. A lot of things we assumed are not being observed when we test them. I simply do not have time to bring these people back to reality. You have much greater patience than I do. Kudos!

I gave up a while ago when I realized they never will accept that CO2 absorbs and release IR, and nothing else. It can't generate any heat with it or cause warming anywhere else since it is EMITTED IR and nothing else.