Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Billy_Bob]

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.

So tell me what the value is retaliative to the outer shells polarity..

 

[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.

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.

They are both a function of electromagnetic activity. Thus the laws governing them are the same.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

So tell me what the value is retaliative to the outer shells polarity..

Value of what?

 

[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.

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.

They are both a function of electromagnetic activity. Thus the laws governing them are the same.

Gravity is a function of "electromagnetic activity"?

Reference please.

 

[SSDD]

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.

I wondered what sorts of appeals to complexity you would make in an attempt to turn that thermodynamic impossibility into reality....land and atmosphere are no more and no less in the same area than the two ice cubes...the two are clearly delineated and named....if they are in the same space, then there should be no need to separate them and then erroneously add them together....in a word...bullshit...but it was an interesting try...any others?

 

[mamooth]

[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.

Here's the thread.
The pseudo science of man-made global warming...

Nothing like you claimed happened. You're making crazy stories up. Stop it. It's not fooling anyone.

 

[SSDD]

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?

No...the SB law gives accurate results...misusing the SB law...applying it incorrectly as in the greenhouse effect yields ludicrous results....attempting to add together the output of two radiators so that the result is a temperature higher than either is erroneous and the results are ludicrous.....

The example adding the output of the cans to yield a wildly exaggerated result is precisely as valid as adding together the radiation from the surface of the earth and the radiation that supposedly radiates from the atmosphere...that is to say..neither is valid....

 

[Crick]

So, all of this boils down to your thermodynamic lunacy. You wonder why people didn't want to humor you?

 

[Olde Europe]

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.

Exactly. Somewhat clearer - perhaps - there's two different kinds of radiation, from the sun and the atmosphere, adding up radiative energy from two different sources hitting the earth, every square meter of it (on average).

 

[Wuwei]

I wondered what sorts of appeals to complexity you would make in an attempt to turn that thermodynamic impossibility into reality....land and atmosphere are no more and no less in the same area than the two ice cubes...the two are clearly delineated and named....if they are in the same space, then there should be no need to separate them and then erroneously add them together....in a word...bullshit...but it was an interesting try...any others?

Appeals to complexity? The difference between power and power density is quite elementary. At least three others on this thread understood it. I made it as simple as possible for you. The rest of your post does show you are confused. It's really too bad you don't understand these simplest aspects of science.

.

 

[Wuwei]

No...the SB law gives accurate results...misusing the SB law...applying it incorrectly as in the greenhouse effect yields ludicrous results....attempting to add together the output of two radiators so that the result is a temperature higher than either is erroneous and the results are ludicrous.....

You say it's ludicrous? Yes it is. But that's precisely what you did here.

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

That is so wrong. You really are in the same league as JC and BillyBob.

 

[SSDD]

No...the SB law gives accurate results...misusing the SB law...applying it incorrectly as in the greenhouse effect yields ludicrous results....attempting to add together the output of two radiators so that the result is a temperature higher than either is erroneous and the results are ludicrous.....

You say it's ludicrous? Yes it is. But that's precisely what you did here.

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

Of course its wrong...I did it to demonstrate how stupid the idea of adding the output of two radiators in an attempt to predict their temperature would be...duh........it is absolutely wrong...and stupid..and yet...that very stupidity is the basis of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....how stupid is that?.......if you are interested in learning the output wattage of two radiators...and predicting the temperature, you work with the difference between the two...not their combined radiation...show me an example in thermodynamics...where the output of two radiators is combined and the resulting temperature of the two is higher than either alone....I would like to see it....

Of course, you won't find any such example...anywhere within thermodynamics....the radiating temperature of two radiators is going to be somewhere between their individual temperatures...that would be because if they are different temperatures, the warmer will cool and the cooler will warm...if they are the same temperature, the radiating temperature will be that temperature...a bucket full of ice at 32 degrees is no warmer than a single ice cube at 32 degrees....

As to the SB Law...again...if you want to predict the radiating temperature of two objects...you work with the difference between the temperature...or radiation output of the two...you don't add them together and work from there...if you believe that there is any situation...anywhere where you can combine the radiation of two objects and end up with an output temperature higher than either then you are, in a word...stupid and gullible...and stupid...

 

[SSDD]

So, all of this boils down to your thermodynamic lunacy. You wonder why people didn't want to humor you?

So you think that if you want to determine the radiative output of two radiators....and their temperature...that you add the output together so that you end up with a temperature considerably higher than either of the radiators individually? Is that what you think...can you show me an example of such thinking anywhere on earth other than climate science...can you show me an example of such a thing happening anywhere...you believe that happens and you claim that I don't grasp thermodynamics?

 

[Crick]

"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....

Wow... just... wow... You didn't graduate high school, did you.

PS, empiric and observed are synonymous terms.

 

[Olde Europe]

Here's an even prettier one, perhaps that helps:

The picture above says: There are two radiative sources, one of them (the sun) radiating through the other (the atmosphere), which is why their radiation combines (adds up) radiative energy reaching the earth's surface (every square meter of it).

It takes staggeringly stubborn, fierce, belligerent determination not to see the difference between the greenhouse effect and "adding" two cans or ice cubes or whatever.

 

[SSDD]

Here's an even prettier one, perhaps that helps:

The picture above says: There are two radiative sources, one of them (the sun) radiating through the other (the atmosphere), which is why their radiation combines (adds up) radiative energy reaching the earth's surface (every square meter of it).

Since there is only one energy source...the sun....there is nothing to add but the sun...anything that isn't an energy source, decreases the energy...you think the atmosphere has its own energy source?....there is no example in all of thermodynamics where you add the radiation of multiple sources and end up with an output temperature greater than either...the combined output of any two or more energy sources is determined by the difference (that's subtraction) between the energy sources...the final temperature is somewhere between the temperature of the warmer source and the cooler source...

According to climate science...the energy coming in and absorbed by the earth from the sun is enough to raise the temperature of the earth to about -18 degrees...that in and of itself should clue you in to a fundamental problem....then climate science claims that the earth radiates out at a temperature of about -18 degrees and the atmosphere radiates back at a temperature of -18 degrees...so you have them claiming radiation out from the earth..and radiation in from the atmosphere...two sources radiating at -18 degrees combining to make an output of 33 degrees.

Don't count the incoming from the sun with regard to the atmosphere because the incoming from the sun is mostly shortwave and doesn't warm the atmosphere...

It takes staggeringly stubborn, fierce, belligerent determination not to see the difference between the greenhouse effect and "adding" two cans or ice cubes or whatever.

According to thermodynamics...what the radiator is is completely irrelevant...it doesn't matter whether you are talking about a gas...a rock...a soda can....the corpse of a goldfish...anything...it doesn't matter...it radiates at some temperature...then climate science adds the sum of two radiators and then figures the temperature based on the sum of the output of the two radiators...it doesn't matter what the radiators...according to the formula that climate science uses to determine the temperature of the earth,using the radiation emitted from the earth..and the radiation emitted from the atmosphere....the temperature of two objects radiating at a temperature of -18 degrees equals 33 degrees.... the combined output of two soda cans radiating at a temperature of 40 degrees...according to the formula climate science uses...and thermodynamically, it doesn't matter what the radiators are, the combined output of two cans at 40 degrees is 134 degrees....it takes a staggeringly stubborn, fierce, belligerent determination to accept that claim...or accept that thermodynamically, the output of the earth and the atmosphere is somehow different and must be handled differently than every other radiator known to man...the greenhouse effect, mathematically is no different thermodynamically than adding two cans...in thermodynamics a radiator is a radiator...and when you have more than 1 radiator...the radiating temperature is somewhere between the temperature of the warmest radiator and the temperature of the coolest radiator...not considerably warmer than either radiator...

 

[Wuwei]

The picture above says: There are two radiative sources, one of them (the sun) radiating through the other (the atmosphere), which is why their radiation combines (adds up) radiative energy reaching the earth's surface (every square meter of it).

It takes staggeringly stubborn, fierce, belligerent determination not to see the difference between the greenhouse effect and "adding" two cans or ice cubes or whatever.

Half the people on this thread agree with the basics of the atmospheric energy flow diagram. The other half have an amazingly ignorant idea of what science is, or they have absolutely no idea. SSDD is one who has the misfortune of seeing variables in equations and totally misinterpreting what they mean. He then makes statements that defy all scientists dating back to the beginnings of thermodynamic science. He thinks he is right and all the millions of scientists are wrong.

 

[SSDD]

Half the people on this thread agree with the basics of the atmospheric energy flow diagram. The other half have an amazingly ignorant idea of what science is, or they have absolutely no idea. SSDD is one who has the misfortune of seeing variables in equations and totally misinterpreting what they mean. He then makes statements that defy all scientists dating back to the beginnings of thermodynamic science. He thinks he is right and all the millions of scientists are wrong.

So you feel free to show me a single example in all of thermodynamics where the radiation of two radiators are added together and the combined output is used to determine a temperature...lets see it. You really believe that combining the output of two radiators emitting at a temperature of -18 degrees can ever, in reality, result in a temperature of 33 degrees?...you really believe that? if so then you are an abject idiot...if that could ever happen, we would have a limitless energy source to power every device on earth and it wouldn't cost any more than simply placing objects near each other and collecting the increased energy emitted by them being in proximity...

 

[Wuwei]

Since there is only one energy source...the sun....there is nothing to add but the sun...anything that isn't an energy source, decreases the energy...you think the atmosphere has its own energy source?....there is no example in all of thermodynamics where you add the radiation of multiple sources and end up with an output temperature greater than either...the combined output of any two or more energy sources is determined by the difference (that's subtraction) between the energy sources...the final temperature is somewhere between the temperature of the warmer source and the cooler source...

According to climate science...the energy coming in and absorbed by the earth from the sun is enough to raise the temperature of the earth to about -18 degrees...that in and of itself should clue you in to a fundamental problem....then climate science claims that the earth radiates out at a temperature of about -18 degrees and the atmosphere radiates back at a temperature of -18 degrees...so you have them claiming radiation out from the earth..and radiation in from the atmosphere...two sources radiating at -18 degrees combining to make an output of 33 degrees.

Don't count the incoming from the sun with regard to the atmosphere because the incoming from the sun is mostly shortwave and doesn't warm the atmosphere...

The sun heats the earth. The GHG's keep the earth from loosing as much heat as it would without them. Period.

According to thermodynamics...blah blah blah.

You must have misunderstood. Here is the correct physics:

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.

The energy rates of two ice cubes cannot be added together because they don't share the same area.

 

[Wuwei]

So you feel free to show me a single example in all of thermodynamics where the radiation of two radiators are added together and the combined output is used to determine a temperature...lets see it. You really believe that combining the output of two radiators emitting at a temperature of -18 degrees can ever, in reality, result in a temperature of 33 degrees?...you really believe that? if so then you are an abject idiot...if that could ever happen, we would have a limitless energy source to power every device on earth and it wouldn't cost any more than simply placing objects near each other and collecting the increased energy emitted by them being in proximity...

Listen very carefully: Two ice cubes cannot heat up anything hotter than the two ice cubes.