The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Billy_Bob, Jun 30, 2018.

  1. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    13,653
    Thanks Received:
    2,705
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +12,194
    A friend of mine asked me the other day what was back radiation capable of and if true, could it cause catastrophic warming. While the explanation of our deserts does a fine job of showing AGW a complete failure, I am taking a look at the molecular level as to why it can not cause this.

    Lets go straight to the heart of AGW..

    The premise is; energy absorbed by our atmosphere is re-emitted towards surface causing warming. The so called big player is CO2, that re-emits energy in a narrow band at 12-16um.

    The problems come from several sources when it comes to energy transmission;

    1. The electrical state of the molecule. Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state. In a positive state the molecule either reflects the energy or passes it. Each molecule also reacts differently to different wavelengths of energy. Not only does the molecule have to be in the right state it must also be in the range it is capable of reacting to.

    2. The time energy resides within the molecule. Water has a very long residency time while CO2 a very short one. CO2 will not warm unless it collides with a warmer object (conduction), where water will absorb and use the energy to warm. Absent another warmer object, CO2 passes energy rapidly and can not warm.

    3. The mass/mass conversion of energy. A mass emitting at -80 Deg F can not warm a mass that is warmer. The mass, as a whole, will lose energy more slowly logarithmicly to its surroundings simply due to the increase of mass.

    In order to discuss this, one must agree on basic items. First, we must agree that all matter emits energy in all directions above absolute zero (0 deg K). Second, we must agree on how differing energy excitements affect one another. (This is the one which is not settled.) This is the crux of the AGW meme. Depending on the outcome of this determines the failure of the hypothesis, specifically any multiplier of effect (sensitivity).

    SO.... How do two molecules, of differing temperatures, affect each-other. How does the energy emitted affect each molecule?

    In my next post I will explain what I observe...
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    96,970
    Thanks Received:
    17,689
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +60,318
    But but but but but the altered data, after heavily weighting the heat "trapped" in the oceans and the record rise in Arctic temperatures up to -22F, clearly shows back radiation, er, or something
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  3. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    13,653
    Thanks Received:
    2,705
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +12,194
    Differing types of matter react differently to all forms of energy.

    There are so many iterations to this I need to narrow the scope.

    SO for the purpose of this post how does the energy emitted from CO2 affect the surface of the earth and atmosphere..
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    13,653
    Thanks Received:
    2,705
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +12,194
    Energy Absorbed by CO2 is emitted in three bands. In the spectral emissions chart below you will note two very narrow bands and one small band in the 12-16um band. (note: narrow bandwidth indicates very low energy residency time as the energy has no time to cool before it is re-emitted)

    The spectral intensity of the first two bands CO2 emits is so low they are inconsequential as they carry little energy.

    co2-atmospheric_transmission.png

    What effect does EM energy (blackbody) have on other gasses?

    First we must determine wavelength, which will determine the energetic temperature. 16um = -80 Deg C.

    How does energy emitted at -80 deg C warm anything? A black body will indeed absorb the energy it receives as a black body is always in a negative state. However, it is emitting energy at a much higher wavelength. When you apply energy, which is negative of the output energy you create a dampening state or cooling.

    If you place a piece of steel in a chamber of CO2, at 1000ppm, heated to 400 deg F, its rate of cooling is unchanged from a chamber with no CO2. Now add water vapor to that chamber and the time increases. CO2 absent water vapor is a no go.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    13,653
    Thanks Received:
    2,705
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +12,194
    Think about this like a bowl of small marbles that is spinning. Now drop slower moving marbles into the bowl.. What happens to the marbles?

    The movement of the faster ones will expel marbles throwing them off and/or it slows the unit as a whole.

    If we look at sea water (grey body) the energy can not penetrate the skin layer. The water absorbs the energy at the skin layer, where evaporation is occurring at all temperatures above freezing, and the energy is thrown off.

    In every occurrence, the energy fails to do as the AGW premise states and no multiplying effect is seen.

    While energy is indeed being exchanged by all matter, there are factors which dampen or pass the energy having little or no effects.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  6. skookerasbil
    Online

    skookerasbil Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    30,777
    Thanks Received:
    3,527
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +11,444
    @www.whosnotwinning.com

    Ahhhhhh Billy....information matters nada to the religion. They'll come back with some half-baked bullcrap and do the pidgeon pooping on a chessboard march.:gay::gay:
     
  7. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    13,653
    Thanks Received:
    2,705
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +12,194
    Its rather telling that none of our resident alarmist want to get into the actual mechanics of energy transfer and why we are seeing base line CO2 warming at 1/2 that lab LOG rate. The dampening effect is one they didn't think about...
     
  8. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    42,421
    Thanks Received:
    5,356
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +21,622

    The premise is; energy absorbed by our atmosphere is re-emitted towards surface causing warming.

    Some is emitted toward the surface, some toward space, basically in all directions.

    Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state.

    Sounds like gibberish.

    In a positive state the molecule either reflects the energy or passes it.

    You have to explain what "negative state" and "positive state" mean.
    Provide a link, please.
    Because this just sounds like more stuff you invented.

    The mass/mass conversion of energy.

    Huh?

    A mass emitting at -80 Deg F can not warm a mass that is warmer.

    Can it cause the warmer mass to cool more slowly than otherwise?

    First, we must agree that all matter emits energy in all directions above absolute zero (0 deg K).

    Shhhh…..don't let SSDD hear you say that.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    42,421
    Thanks Received:
    5,356
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +21,622
    (note: narrow bandwidth indicates very low energy residency time as the energy has no time to cool before it is re-emitted)

    Energy can cool?

    16um = -80 Deg C.


    You need to explain this claim more fully.
    How does energy emitted at -80 deg C warm anything?


    The same way any energy warms anything.
    A black body will indeed absorb the energy it receives as a black body is always in a negative state. However, it is emitting energy at a much higher wavelength.


    Higher wavelength than what? How do you know?
    When you apply energy, which is negative of the output energy you create a dampening state or cooling.


    Wow!!

    So much gibberish.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. denmark
    Offline

    denmark Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2018
    Messages:
    201
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Ratings:
    +118
    You should submit your ideas to a scientific journal and see what responses you get!
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 2

Share This Page