Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Billy_Bob]

Don't get all "sciency" on him...he is busy demonstrating that his comfort level doesn't extend beyond swapping insults...he is showing us that he can't interpret, in plain english, what even the most simple mathematical expression is saying.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...

"Covailent [sic] bonds repel photons" is sciency? DERP!

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band? What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not. There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

Tell me.

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band?

Tell me.

What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

Tell me.

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not.

Hold a photon? With what?

There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

What is that reason?

LOL... Basic Atomic Sciences taught to first year chemistry students.. DO some research.

You want me to research your idiotic claims? Nice try Sparky.

When you get a real source that says "covailent [sic] bonds repel photons from cooler matter", then I'll take your silliness more seriously.
Until then, your idiocy is damaging the anti-AGW argument. Moron.

I asked you if you knew. It is basic atomic structure of atoms. I got taught this in high school AP chemistry.

How can this point damage a failed hypothesis? It clearly demonstrates that the CO2 monster is but a fallacy.

This doesn't show the magnetic bonds, but you can determine the covalent field strength of each layer and dominating polarity with what is shown.

While simplistic, this gives you the basic picture of the varying fields.

Now tell me how a Photon, with a positive charge, will react to a low energy third level shell with a positive imbalance? (one or two negative charges vs 6 positive in the core) as is the case with CO. Remember like charges repel and if the predominate charge is positive what happens to the positively charged particle?

It is deflected..

Again the outer shell is positive and why photons are not held.

Water vapor's outer shell is NEGATIVE and the positive photon affects it by being held by it until it is dislodged by another photon or the molecule changes up due to chemical reaction (such as re-nucleating into a water droplet where the bonds share the outer bands making its cumulative charge positive repelling the photon particle).

Each of these molecules are resonating at their temperature values. This is important because that wavelength coupled with resonate frequency of the magnetic band can stop penetration of the outer shell. This is why there are bands of emission and absorption for each molecule.

Its pretty basic stuff..

The wave length of the dislodged photon is determined by the temperature of the molecule it was dislodged from.

A molecule resonating at a higher frequency will deflect a lower frequency photon. A warmer object will deflect a cooler objects radiated energy. Again this is shown in the absorption and emission bands of all matter.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't get all "sciency" on him...

"Covailent [sic] bonds repel photons" is sciency? DERP!

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band? What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not. There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

Tell me.

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band?

Tell me.

What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

Tell me.

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not.

Hold a photon? With what?

There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

What is that reason?

LOL... Basic Atomic Sciences taught to first year chemistry students.. DO some research.

You want me to research your idiotic claims? Nice try Sparky.

When you get a real source that says "covailent [sic] bonds repel photons from cooler matter", then I'll take your silliness more seriously.
Until then, your idiocy is damaging the anti-AGW argument. Moron.

I asked you if you knew. It is basic atomic structure of atoms. I got taught this in high school AP chemistry.

How can this point damage a failed hypothesis? It clearly demonstrates that the CO2 monster is but a fallacy.

This doesn't show the magnetic bonds, but you can determine the covalent field strength of each layer and dominating polarity with what is shown.

While simplistic, this gives you the basic picture of the varying fields.

Now tell me how a Photon, with a positive charge, will react to a low energy third level shell with a positive imbalance? (one or two negative charges vs 6 positive in the core) as is the case with CO. Remember like charges repel and if the predominate charge is positive what happens to the positively charged particle?

It is deflected..

Again the outer shell is positive and why photons are not held.

Water vapor's outer shell is NEGATIVE and the positive photon affects it by being held by it until it is dislodged by another photon or the molecule changes up due to chemical reaction (such as re-nucleating into a water droplet where the bonds share the outer bands making its cumulative charge positive repelling the photon particle).

Each of these molecules are resonating at their temperature values. This is important because that wavelength coupled with resonate frequency of the magnetic band can stop penetration of the outer shell. This is why there are bands of emission and absorption for each molecule.

Its pretty basic stuff..

The wave length of the dislodged photon is determined by the temperature of the molecule it was dislodged from.

I asked you if you knew.

Yes, I know your claims are silly and unsourced.

Now tell me how a Photon, with a positive charge

When you see your first year chemistry teacher on Monday get him to explain the error in your above quote.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You want me to research your idiotic claims? Nice try Sparky.

Todd, shame on you for ignoring BIlly. I will answer his thoughtful questions for you.

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?
23 Macro Farsteds

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band?
92.6 femptoFouriers

What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?
42.0 HertzSoBad

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not.
Yes. Water creates an anti-vortex of positronium. CO2 is only a diaevialieant subspace.

To Funny;

You got some of basic numbers and some of the basic theroy..

Congrats!

Now, what do like charges do and unlike charges do? And how do we determine this in molecules?

 

[Billy_Bob]

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band? What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not. There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

Tell me.

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band?

Tell me.

What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

Tell me.

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not.

Hold a photon? With what?

There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

What is that reason?

LOL... Basic Atomic Sciences taught to first year chemistry students.. DO some research.

You want me to research your idiotic claims? Nice try Sparky.

When you get a real source that says "covailent [sic] bonds repel photons from cooler matter", then I'll take your silliness more seriously.
Until then, your idiocy is damaging the anti-AGW argument. Moron.

I asked you if you knew. It is basic atomic structure of atoms. I got taught this in high school AP chemistry.

How can this point damage a failed hypothesis? It clearly demonstrates that the CO2 monster is but a fallacy.

This doesn't show the magnetic bonds, but you can determine the covalent field strength of each layer and dominating polarity with what is shown.

While simplistic, this gives you the basic picture of the varying fields.

Now tell me how a Photon, with a positive charge, will react to a low energy third level shell with a positive imbalance? (one or two negative charges vs 6 positive in the core) as is the case with CO. Remember like charges repel and if the predominate charge is positive what happens to the positively charged particle?

It is deflected..

Again the outer shell is positive and why photons are not held.

Water vapor's outer shell is NEGATIVE and the positive photon affects it by being held by it until it is dislodged by another photon or the molecule changes up due to chemical reaction (such as re-nucleating into a water droplet where the bonds share the outer bands making its cumulative charge positive repelling the photon particle).

Each of these molecules are resonating at their temperature values. This is important because that wavelength coupled with resonate frequency of the magnetic band can stop penetration of the outer shell. This is why there are bands of emission and absorption for each molecule.

Its pretty basic stuff..

The wave length of the dislodged photon is determined by the temperature of the molecule it was dislodged from.

I asked you if you knew.

Yes, I know your claims are silly and unsourced.

Now tell me how a Photon, with a positive charge

When you see your first year chemistry teacher on Monday get him to explain the error in your above quote.

What quote are you referring too? I wrote that. LOL

 

[Crick]

I am not an alarmist or warmer but I am very well versed in the sciences. Those graphs do represent a very basic understanding of the Green House Effect but they do not deal with secondary routes of energy loss so they are incomplete in defining the GHE.

They know this and they are afraid if they admit that it is the basic premise they will be shown for What they are.. petulant children who don't like to be put on the spot.

but I am very well versed in the sciences.

Your claim that "covailent [sic] bonds repel photons" tends to disprove that claim.

Covailence is the magnetic bands which bond molecules together. How do you suppose that they affect photons? The solar system and the earth itself is an observable demonstration of how that works on our level to see.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...he is busy demonstrating that his comfort level doesn't extend beyond swapping insults...he is showing us that he can't interpret, in plain english, what even the most simple mathematical expression is saying.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...

"Covailent [sic] bonds repel photons" is sciency? DERP!

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band? What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not. There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

Valence and conduction bands are not magnetic. They are energy bands occupied by the electrons in a material created by the quantized nature of energy on that scale. The photon has an electrical charge of zero. A photon can spontaneously break into a virtual electron and positron which will respond to a magnetic field, but since they will do so in mirrored directions (and are no longer photons), the net response is still zero. Photons traveling through materials susceptible to the Faraday Effect within a strong magnetic field can experience a rotation of the polarization of their electrical field. This is an indirect effect caused by charged electrons within the material and does NOT effect the motion or momentum of the photon.

 

[Wuwei]

Does that equation care whether I put 239.7 which is the IR from the earth and atmosphere or 314 which is the approximate wm^2 that an ice cube radiates? Does that equation care whether we are talking about atmosphere or ice cubes or rocks?

The equation doesn't care what we are talking about...or where the radiation comes from....it is stating that you can take two objects radiating at roughly the same wm^2 and add the two numbers together, run them through the SB equation and the result will be a temperature higher than that of either of the objects...ice cubes....ground and atmosphere....floor and ceiling...the equation doesn't care.....the result will be a final temperature greater than either of the objects....

Again...a thermodynamic impossibility...now run away with your hands clapped over your ears screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs if you like, but the fact is that you have a thermodynamic impossibility at the heart of the claimed mechanism for the greenhouse effect...

There is more, if you care to continue, but I will understand if you run away...

You are putting science words in sentences and referencing the S-B equation with no context. You will have to show a diagram like the one from the university with arrows and energy flows before you can get your point across.

Otherwise all I can say is that for you to compare ice cubes with the University example, one of the ice cubes or something else will have to be continually receiving thermal energy from an outside source (such as the sun.). You have to specify the full configuration of your "counterexample" before it makes any sense.

I still think you should continue this dialog with BillyBob.

 

[SSDD]

Does that equation care whether I put 239.7 which is the IR from the earth and atmosphere or 314 which is the approximate wm^2 that an ice cube radiates? Does that equation care whether we are talking about atmosphere or ice cubes or rocks?

The equation doesn't care what we are talking about...or where the radiation comes from....it is stating that you can take two objects radiating at roughly the same wm^2 and add the two numbers together, run them through the SB equation and the result will be a temperature higher than that of either of the objects...ice cubes....ground and atmosphere....floor and ceiling...the equation doesn't care.....the result will be a final temperature greater than either of the objects....

Again...a thermodynamic impossibility...now run away with your hands clapped over your ears screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs if you like, but the fact is that you have a thermodynamic impossibility at the heart of the claimed mechanism for the greenhouse effect...

There is more, if you care to continue, but I will understand if you run away...

You are putting science words in sentences and referencing the S-B equation with no context. You will have to show a diagram like the one from the university with arrows and energy flows before you can get your point across.

Otherwise all I can say is that for you to compare ice cubes with the University example, one of the ice cubes or something else will have to be continually receiving thermal energy from an outside source (such as the sun.). You have to specify the full configuration of your "counterexample" before it makes any sense.

I still think you should continue this dialog with BillyBob.

Nothing else to talk about...the expression at the heart of the description of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect is bullshit...it is a thermodynamic impossibility....you can't take two radiators radiating at 239.7wm^2...or any other amount of radiation put them together and end up with an output temperature greater than their individual temperatures....such a claim would certainly be provable in a laboratory....

In addition to that....you have the problem associated with adding an emissive gas to the atmosphere...CO2 is emissive...it emits IR...and adding an emissive gas to the atmosphere increases its emissivity....by definition..what happens to temperature when emissivity is increased...

Now run along and do your best to ignore the thermodynamic impossibility at the core of the greenhouse hypothesis..tell yourself that it is a basic model and if you make it complicated enough, that thermodynamic impossibility will become possible...tell yourself that you can start with a flawed concept and build a model complicated enough to overcome the flaw.....recognizing and accepting the truth is a pretty big job and most people aren't up to it...especially those of the liberal persuasion.... (239.7 + 239.7) Two radiators radiating at -18 C combined to give a net radiation of 479.4 wm^2 and a temperature of 28.5 C....frankly, I am surprised that you would admit to believing such bullshit....but hey...you are invested and accepting truth is a big job....don't worry if you aren't up to it...not many people are.

 

[SSDD]

So check this out...using the formula which describes the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect....


239.7 + 239.7 = sigmaT^4
=>T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K or 29.85C

We can plug in the radiation emitted from a couple of ice cubes....approximately 315.64wm^2 each

315.64 + 315.64 = sigma T^4
=> T + (315.64 + 315.64) / (5.67 x 10^-8) = 324K or 50.85C

Imagine...putting two ice cubes at 32 degrees and getting an output of 631wm^2 or almost 51 degrees C....who would have thought....and this thermodynamic impossibility is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

 

[polarbear]

Does that equation care whether I put 239.7 which is the IR from the earth and atmosphere or 314 which is the approximate wm^2 that an ice cube radiates? Does that equation care whether we are talking about atmosphere or ice cubes or rocks?

The equation doesn't care what we are talking about...or where the radiation comes from....it is stating that you can take two objects radiating at roughly the same wm^2 and add the two numbers together, run them through the SB equation and the result will be a temperature higher than that of either of the objects...ice cubes....ground and atmosphere....floor and ceiling...the equation doesn't care.....the result will be a final temperature greater than either of the objects....

Again...a thermodynamic impossibility...now run away with your hands clapped over your ears screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs if you like, but the fact is that you have a thermodynamic impossibility at the heart of the claimed mechanism for the greenhouse effect...

There is more, if you care to continue, but I will understand if you run away...

You are putting science words in sentences and referencing the S-B equation with no context. You will have to show a diagram like the one from the university with arrows and energy flows before you can get your point across.

Otherwise all I can say is that for you to compare ice cubes with the University example, one of the ice cubes or something else will have to be continually receiving thermal energy from an outside source (such as the sun.). You have to specify the full configuration of your "counterexample" before it makes any sense.

I still think you should continue this dialog with BillyBob.

Nothing else to talk about...the expression at the heart of the description of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect is bullshit...it is a thermodynamic impossibility....you can't take two radiators radiating at 239.7wm^2...or any other amount of radiation put them together and end up with an output temperature greater than their individual temperatures....such a claim would certainly be provable in a laboratory....

In addition to that....you have the problem associated with adding an emissive gas to the atmosphere...CO2 is emissive...it emits IR...and adding an emissive gas to the atmosphere increases its emissivity....by definition..what happens to temperature when emissivity is increased...

Now run along and do your best to ignore the thermodynamic impossibility at the core of the greenhouse hypothesis..tell yourself that it is a basic model and if you make it complicated enough, that thermodynamic impossibility will become possible...tell yourself that you can start with a flawed concept and build a model complicated enough to overcome the flaw.....recognizing and accepting the truth is a pretty big job and most people aren't up to it...especially those of the liberal persuasion.... (239.7 + 239.7) Two radiators radiating at -18 C combined to give a net radiation of 479.4 wm^2 and a temperature of 28.5 C....frankly, I am surprised that you would admit to believing such bullshit....but hey...you are invested and accepting truth is a big job....don't worry if you aren't up to it...not many people are.

Remember a couple of months ago I asked the question what an IR gun would see if you point it at 2 soda cans standing close to each other. That`s when the same people who refused to answer your question replied "a temperature somewhere in the middle of the 2 temperatures of the 2 soda cans". And now they won`t tell you what`s in the middle of (239.7 + 239.7) although they all say that they are experts in sophisticated statistics.

 

[yiostheoy]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

I personally believe that global warming is cyclical and beyond the means of men and insects to influence.

There are also some advantages of warming -- it stimulates plant growth and favors reforestation.

We are also getting more rain and storms out of the warming process too. We should build more dams and reservoirs to contain and conserve the water.

 

[Wuwei]

you can't take two radiators radiating at 239.7wm^2...or any other amount of radiation put them together and end up with an output temperature greater than their individual temperatures....such a claim would certainly be provable in a laboratory....

That is true. However, what you fail to realize is that in the GHG example one of the radiators is the sun. That is much hotter than anything else, including ice cubes, and it will out-radiate anything else. The phrase, "output temperature greater than their individual temperatures", does not apply since one of the "output temperatures" is much greater than anything else involved.

So when you say "output temperature greater than their individual temperatures" that is certainly true with two ice cubes, but not when one of the ice cubes is replaced by the sun.

 

[SSDD]

you can't take two radiators radiating at 239.7wm^2...or any other amount of radiation put them together and end up with an output temperature greater than their individual temperatures....such a claim would certainly be provable in a laboratory....

That is true. However, what you fail to realize is that in the GHG example one of the radiators is the sun. That is much hotter than anything else, including ice cubes, and it will out-radiate anything else. The phrase, "output temperature greater than their individual temperatures", does not apply since one of the "output temperatures" is much greater than anything else involved.

So when you say "output temperature greater than their individual temperatures" that is certainly true with two ice cubes, but not when one of the ice cubes is replaced by the sun.

Sorry guy...according to climate science, the sun's input is 239.7wm^2...which the earth then radiates upward..and then the atmosphere radiates downward....

If I plug two ice cubes into the formula which claims to describe the fundamental mechanism for the radiative greenhouse effect, the formula tells me that those two ice cubes will radiate 631 wm^2 at a temperature of better than 50 degrees C. That formula is for two radiators and it doesn't matter a whit which two radiators you plug in....IR radiation is IR radiation and the source is completely irrelevant....

The formula says that those two ice cubes combined will radiate 631wm^2 at better than 50 degrees....such a claim is of course, bullshit, but it is the core claim of climate science to be the fundamental mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect....no matter how complicated you make your model you still have that combined radiation upward from the earth and downward from the atmosphere resulting in more energy than either and a greater temperature than either...a thermodynamic impossibility which is the basis of the radiative greenhouse effect....you can't design a model complicated enough to make that impossibility a reality.

 

[Wuwei]

Remember a couple of months ago I asked the question what an IR gun would see if you point it at 2 soda cans standing close to each other. That`s when the same people who refused to answer your question replied "a temperature somewhere in the middle of the 2 temperatures of the 2 soda cans". And now they won`t tell you what`s in the middle of (239.7 + 239.7) although they all say that they are experts in sophisticated statistics.

As I remember, one of the guys did answer that to your satisfaction. It had to do with the FOV and how much of the cans or gap was in the FOV.

 

[SSDD]

Does that equation care whether I put 239.7 which is the IR from the earth and atmosphere or 314 which is the approximate wm^2 that an ice cube radiates? Does that equation care whether we are talking about atmosphere or ice cubes or rocks?

The equation doesn't care what we are talking about...or where the radiation comes from....it is stating that you can take two objects radiating at roughly the same wm^2 and add the two numbers together, run them through the SB equation and the result will be a temperature higher than that of either of the objects...ice cubes....ground and atmosphere....floor and ceiling...the equation doesn't care.....the result will be a final temperature greater than either of the objects....

Again...a thermodynamic impossibility...now run away with your hands clapped over your ears screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs if you like, but the fact is that you have a thermodynamic impossibility at the heart of the claimed mechanism for the greenhouse effect...

There is more, if you care to continue, but I will understand if you run away...

You are putting science words in sentences and referencing the S-B equation with no context. You will have to show a diagram like the one from the university with arrows and energy flows before you can get your point across.

Otherwise all I can say is that for you to compare ice cubes with the University example, one of the ice cubes or something else will have to be continually receiving thermal energy from an outside source (such as the sun.). You have to specify the full configuration of your "counterexample" before it makes any sense.

I still think you should continue this dialog with BillyBob.

Nothing else to talk about...the expression at the heart of the description of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect is bullshit...it is a thermodynamic impossibility....you can't take two radiators radiating at 239.7wm^2...or any other amount of radiation put them together and end up with an output temperature greater than their individual temperatures....such a claim would certainly be provable in a laboratory....

In addition to that....you have the problem associated with adding an emissive gas to the atmosphere...CO2 is emissive...it emits IR...and adding an emissive gas to the atmosphere increases its emissivity....by definition..what happens to temperature when emissivity is increased...

Now run along and do your best to ignore the thermodynamic impossibility at the core of the greenhouse hypothesis..tell yourself that it is a basic model and if you make it complicated enough, that thermodynamic impossibility will become possible...tell yourself that you can start with a flawed concept and build a model complicated enough to overcome the flaw.....recognizing and accepting the truth is a pretty big job and most people aren't up to it...especially those of the liberal persuasion.... (239.7 + 239.7) Two radiators radiating at -18 C combined to give a net radiation of 479.4 wm^2 and a temperature of 28.5 C....frankly, I am surprised that you would admit to believing such bullshit....but hey...you are invested and accepting truth is a big job....don't worry if you aren't up to it...not many people are.

Remember a couple of months ago I asked the question what an IR gun would see if you point it at 2 soda cans standing close to each other. That`s when the same people who refused to answer your question replied "a temperature somewhere in the middle of the 2 temperatures of the 2 soda cans". And now they won`t tell you what`s in the middle of (239.7 + 239.7) although they all say that they are experts in sophisticated statistics.

If they have the stomach to continue the discussion, I am eager to see what sorts of appeals to complexity they make in an attempt to turn that thermodynamic impossibility into reality...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

Tell me.

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band?

Tell me.

What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

Tell me.

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not.

Hold a photon? With what?

There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

What is that reason?

LOL... Basic Atomic Sciences taught to first year chemistry students.. DO some research.

You want me to research your idiotic claims? Nice try Sparky.

When you get a real source that says "covailent [sic] bonds repel photons from cooler matter", then I'll take your silliness more seriously.
Until then, your idiocy is damaging the anti-AGW argument. Moron.

I asked you if you knew. It is basic atomic structure of atoms. I got taught this in high school AP chemistry.

How can this point damage a failed hypothesis? It clearly demonstrates that the CO2 monster is but a fallacy.

This doesn't show the magnetic bonds, but you can determine the covalent field strength of each layer and dominating polarity with what is shown.

While simplistic, this gives you the basic picture of the varying fields.

Now tell me how a Photon, with a positive charge, will react to a low energy third level shell with a positive imbalance? (one or two negative charges vs 6 positive in the core) as is the case with CO. Remember like charges repel and if the predominate charge is positive what happens to the positively charged particle?

It is deflected..

Again the outer shell is positive and why photons are not held.

Water vapor's outer shell is NEGATIVE and the positive photon affects it by being held by it until it is dislodged by another photon or the molecule changes up due to chemical reaction (such as re-nucleating into a water droplet where the bonds share the outer bands making its cumulative charge positive repelling the photon particle).

Each of these molecules are resonating at their temperature values. This is important because that wavelength coupled with resonate frequency of the magnetic band can stop penetration of the outer shell. This is why there are bands of emission and absorption for each molecule.

Its pretty basic stuff..

The wave length of the dislodged photon is determined by the temperature of the molecule it was dislodged from.

I asked you if you knew.

Yes, I know your claims are silly and unsourced.

Now tell me how a Photon, with a positive charge

When you see your first year chemistry teacher on Monday get him to explain the error in your above quote.

What quote are you referring too? I wrote that. LOL

Now tell me how a Photon, with a positive charge

^That one.

I wrote that.

You sure did.

 

[SSDD]

Remember a couple of months ago I asked the question what an IR gun would see if you point it at 2 soda cans standing close to each other. That`s when the same people who refused to answer your question replied "a temperature somewhere in the middle of the 2 temperatures of the 2 soda cans". And now they won`t tell you what`s in the middle of (239.7 + 239.7) although they all say that they are experts in sophisticated statistics.

As I remember, one of the guys did answer that to your satisfaction. It had to do with the FOV and how much of the cans or gap was in the FOV.

two cans at 4 degrees C radiating 336wm^2....

According to the formula we have

(336.7 + 336.7)/(5.67 X 10^-8) = 637.4wm^2 or 330K or 56.87 degrees C

You think that anywhere within that field of view, the radiation from those two cans at 40F is generating a temperature in excess of 134 degrees F?

 

[Wuwei]

If I plug two ice cubes into the formula which claims to describe the fundamental mechanism for the radiative greenhouse effect, the formula tells me that those two ice cubes will radiate 631 wm^2

As you said earlier one ice cube radiates at approximately 315.64 W per square meter.
Two ice cubes will radiate the same.
One million ice cubes will radiate the same.
The S-B equation explicitly uses units of W per square meter.
If you have a 1 square meter ice cube, it will radiate 315.64 Watts total.
If you have an ice cube of 100 square meters it will radiate 31,564 Watts total.
But that large ice cube still radiates 315.64 W per square meter.

You have got to be careful with the units involved and not just throw around numbers.

There is a difference between Watts per square meter and Watts

The GHG example was able to add the two energy rates together because they were both coming from the same area – the same square meter. Two ice cubes don't share the same square meter.

 

[Wuwei]

two cans at 4 degrees C radiating 336wm^2....

According to the formula we have

(336.7 + 336.7)/(5.67 X 10^-8) = 637.4wm^2 or 330K or 56.87 degrees C

You think that anywhere within that field of view, the radiation from those two cans at 40F is generating a temperature in excess of 134 degrees F?

You really don't know how to apply the S-B equation! Now you are essentially saying S-B gives ludicrous results! Have you ever thought to yourself that you might be wrong?

 

[Billy_Bob]

but I am very well versed in the sciences.

Your claim that "covailent [sic] bonds repel photons" tends to disprove that claim.

Covailence is the magnetic bands which bond molecules together. How do you suppose that they affect photons? The solar system and the earth itself is an observable demonstration of how that works on our level to see.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...he is busy demonstrating that his comfort level doesn't extend beyond swapping insults...he is showing us that he can't interpret, in plain english, what even the most simple mathematical expression is saying.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...

"Covailent [sic] bonds repel photons" is sciency? DERP!

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band? What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not. There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

Valence and conduction bands are not magnetic. They are energy bands occupied by the electrons in a material created by the quantized nature of energy on that scale. The photon has an electrical charge of zero. A photon can spontaneously break into a virtual electron and positron which will respond to a magnetic field, but since they will do so in mirrored directions (and are no longer photons), the net response is still zero. Photons traveling through materials susceptible to the Faraday Effect within a strong magnetic field can experience a rotation of the polarization of their electrical field. This is an indirect effect caused by charged electrons within the material and does NOT effect the motion or momentum of the photon.

"They are energy bands occupied by the electrons in a material created by the quantized nature of energy on that scale."

You fucking moron, what the hell do you think magnetism is? Magnetism IS the energy produced by matter relevant to its mass.

And the magnetism is incapable of influencing the photon? REALLY? So I guess a black hole doesn't exist and light can not be bent by gravitational pull?

Do you read what you write? All of what has been stated can be proven by empirically observed evidence.

Keep digging....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Covailence is the magnetic bands which bond molecules together. How do you suppose that they affect photons? The solar system and the earth itself is an observable demonstration of how that works on our level to see.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...he is busy demonstrating that his comfort level doesn't extend beyond swapping insults...he is showing us that he can't interpret, in plain english, what even the most simple mathematical expression is saying.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...

"Covailent [sic] bonds repel photons" is sciency? DERP!

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band? What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not. There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

Valence and conduction bands are not magnetic. They are energy bands occupied by the electrons in a material created by the quantized nature of energy on that scale. The photon has an electrical charge of zero. A photon can spontaneously break into a virtual electron and positron which will respond to a magnetic field, but since they will do so in mirrored directions (and are no longer photons), the net response is still zero. Photons traveling through materials susceptible to the Faraday Effect within a strong magnetic field can experience a rotation of the polarization of their electrical field. This is an indirect effect caused by charged electrons within the material and does NOT effect the motion or momentum of the photon.

"They are energy bands occupied by the electrons in a material created by the quantized nature of energy on that scale."

You fucking moron, what the hell do you think magnetism is? Magnetism IS the energy produced by matter relevant to its mass.

And the magnetism is incapable of influencing the photon? REALLY? So I guess a black hole doesn't exist and light can not be bent by gravitational pull?

Do you read what you write? All of what has been stated can be proven by empirically observed evidence.

Keep digging....

And the magnetism is incapable of influencing the photon? REALLY? so i guess a black hole doesn't exist and light can not be bent by gravitational pull

Why do you keep conflating gravity and magnetism? Besides stupidity.