The Sound of Settled Science

[Wuwei]

Storage doesn't enter the picture -- is PRETTY much what I described in the post above. Some posters are rejecting the fact that absorption/re-emission is a thing. Quoting "residency times" for that energy to be RETAINED by a CO2 molecule that don't have a fixed number..

GH theory doesn't require "storage" in the sense that the layer doesn't have to heat up to radiate back thermal energy to the planet.. But it does require that one accept the ability of those molecules to "retain" energy from kinetics and photons and pass that energy off again.. Which is where SSDD and BillyBob are stick in the ditch..

I agree. Here is another slant on relaxation (residency) times. The actual time does not matter. No matter what it is, there will always be a large population (2/9) of CO2 in an excited vibration state. (From the equipartition theory).

If a CO2 molecule in an excited state is hit by 15 micron radiation will undergo stimulated emission and drop to the ground state and emit a photon along with the photon that stimulated it.

And of course the 7/9 ground state CO2 molecules are excited by 15 microns.

Of course collisions add to the chaos, but will not change the 2/9, 7/9 ratios for CO2 state mixtures. The whole atmosphere is always swarming with a high density of 15 micron radiation no matter what the collision rate or the CO2 relaxation rate. I looked into the radiation density above 100 meters once and it was small but significant.

As for the saturation effect, you can see that by isobar levels there's substantial projection of the surface warming thru most of the troposphere. Lots to do with mighty strong convection processes.. In fact, have you ever read about the "hot spot" prediction?

Climate scientists find warming in higher atmosphere: Elusive tropospheric hot spot located

All of the logarithmic basics of CO2 saturation are based on "well mixed" assumptions. And there's lots of debate on HOW well-mixed one can assume the Troposphere to be...

I haven't paid much attention to the hot spot problem except it was supposed to an embarrassment. The idea that the hot spot disappears with a better method of handling sparse data will not keep some from shouting data manipulation!


.

 

[Wuwei]

Doesn't lose it all from kinetics. In fact, just as likely to be gaining total thermal energy from collision.. They just dont believe that CO2 "back radiates".. Which is simply because in SSDD's case, photons can not travel towards warmer objects.

Or in BillyBob's case, I think the issue is he believes the layer of gas has to warm and store in order to reflect or backradiate a portion of the energy coming from surface IR... So the word "store" enters a discussion in a misunderstood way..

Ironically, we can believe that there is back radiation, but if SSDD wants to deny it, it gives the same result. He believes the T is always greater than Tc of the SB equation.

But since radiation is outward and from the warmer earth to the colder atmosphere his (ill-conceived) idea still gets you the same answer for P. Of course the problem is in defining the emissivity and temperature Tc for an optically thick enough slab of atmosphere in terms of the Beer Lambert law for CO2.


.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course not...IR can not warm the air.

Yes it does near the earth surface. You haven't shown why not.

 

[SSDD]

Storage doesn't enter the picture -- is PRETTY much what I described in the post above. Some posters are rejecting the fact that absorption/re-emission is a thing. Quoting "residency times" for that energy to be RETAINED by a CO2 molecule that don't have a fixed number..

GH theory doesn't require "storage" in the sense that the layer doesn't have to heat up to radiate back thermal energy to the planet.. But it does require that one accept the ability of those molecules to "retain" energy from kinetics and photons and pass that energy off again.. Which is where SSDD and BillyBob are stick in the ditch..

I agree. Here is another slant on relaxation (residency) times. The actual time does not matter. No matter what it is, there will always be a large population (2/9) of CO2 in an excited vibration state. (From the equipartition theory).

If a CO2 molecule in an excited state is hit by 15 micron radiation will undergo stimulated emission and drop to the ground state and emit a photon along with the photon that stimulated it.

And of course the 7/9 ground state CO2 molecules are excited by 15 microns.

Of course collisions add to the chaos, but will not change the 2/9, 7/9 ratios for CO2 state mixtures. The whole atmosphere is always swarming with a high density of 15 micron radiation no matter what the collision rate or the CO2 relaxation rate. I looked into the radiation density above 100 meters once and it was small but significant.

As for the saturation effect, you can see that by isobar levels there's substantial projection of the surface warming thru most of the troposphere. Lots to do with mighty strong convection processes.. In fact, have you ever read about the "hot spot" prediction?

Climate scientists find warming in higher atmosphere: Elusive tropospheric hot spot located

All of the logarithmic basics of CO2 saturation are based on "well mixed" assumptions. And there's lots of debate on HOW well-mixed one can assume the Troposphere to be...

I haven't paid much attention to the hot spot problem except it was supposed to an embarrassment. The idea that the hot spot disappears with a better method of handling sparse data will not keep some from shouting data manipulation!


.

You seem to forget that CO2 is a mere trace gas in the atmosphere...the "whole" atmosphere is never "swarming" with a high density of any sort of CO2...for every million molecules there are a mere 400 CO2 molecules...you are letting your models get away from you if you believe the whole atmosphere is "swarming" with a trace gas...The atmosphere is swarming with O2 and N2..the atmosphere is randomly dotted with CO2 molecules.

 

[SSDD]

Doesn't lose it all from kinetics. In fact, just as likely to be gaining total thermal energy from collision.. They just dont believe that CO2 "back radiates".. Which is simply because in SSDD's case, photons can not travel towards warmer objects.

Or in BillyBob's case, I think the issue is he believes the layer of gas has to warm and store in order to reflect or backradiate a portion of the energy coming from surface IR... So the word "store" enters a discussion in a misunderstood way..

Ironically, we can believe that there is back radiation, but if SSDD wants to deny it, it gives the same result. He believes the T is always greater than Tc of the SB equation.

But since radiation is outward and from the warmer earth to the colder atmosphere his (ill-conceived) idea still gets you the same answer for P. Of course the problem is in defining the emissivity and temperature Tc for an optically thick enough slab of atmosphere in terms of the Beer Lambert law for CO2.


.

You guys crack me up....you claim that back radiation happens and alters the global climate while at the same time stating that if net energy exchange were a real thing, and actually happened in the real world, the result would be the same as if back radiation did not happen... When you set T and Tc to the same temperature in the equation above P= 0, when you set T and Tc to the same temperature and Tc and T to the same temperature in your own bogus equation, P still equals zero..and whatever difference you set T and Tc to in either the actual equation or your bogus equation, the number is the same...You are claiming that a thing happens that looks just like if nothing happens and never mind that it can't be observed, or measured, and never mind that it changes nothing whatsoever in the physical world, the model says that it must be happening so therefore it must be happening....and therefore this thing which alters nothing in the real world regulates the global climate. Have you ever actually listened to yourself?

 

[SSDD]

Of course not...IR can not warm the air.

Yes it does near the earth surface. You haven't shown why not.

No..it doesn't...Energy lost by CO2 molecules via collisions is not IR...I am sure that you wish your feats of mental masturbation could actually result in IR warming the air, but alas, it doesn't...nor does it make a radiative greenhouse effect real in a troposphere completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection.

 

[Wuwei]

You seem to forget that CO2 is a mere trace gas in the atmosphere...the "whole" atmosphere is never "swarming" with a high density of any sort of CO2...for every million molecules there are a mere 400 CO2 molecules...you are letting your models get away from you if you believe the whole atmosphere is "swarming" with a trace gas...The atmosphere is swarming with O2 and N2..the atmosphere is randomly dotted with CO2 molecules.

I never said it was swarming with CO2. Read it again. I said it is swarming with 15 micron radiation.


.

 

[Wuwei]

Doesn't lose it all from kinetics. In fact, just as likely to be gaining total thermal energy from collision.. They just dont believe that CO2 "back radiates".. Which is simply because in SSDD's case, photons can not travel towards warmer objects.

Or in BillyBob's case, I think the issue is he believes the layer of gas has to warm and store in order to reflect or backradiate a portion of the energy coming from surface IR... So the word "store" enters a discussion in a misunderstood way..

Ironically, we can believe that there is back radiation, but if SSDD wants to deny it, it gives the same result. He believes the T is always greater than Tc of the SB equation.

But since radiation is outward and from the warmer earth to the colder atmosphere his (ill-conceived) idea still gets you the same answer for P. Of course the problem is in defining the emissivity and temperature Tc for an optically thick enough slab of atmosphere in terms of the Beer Lambert law for CO2.

You guys crack me up....you claim that back radiation happens and alters the global climate while at the same time stating that if net energy exchange were a real thing, and actually happened in the real world, the result would be the same as if back radiation did not happen... When you set T and Tc to the same temperature in the equation above P= 0, when you set T and Tc to the same temperature and Tc and T to the same temperature in your own bogus equation, P still equals zero..and whatever difference you set T and Tc to in either the actual equation or your bogus equation, the number is the same...You are claiming that a thing happens that looks just like if nothing happens and never mind that it can't be observed, or measured, and never mind that it changes nothing whatsoever in the physical world, the model says that it must be happening so therefore it must be happening....and therefore this thing which alters nothing in the real world regulates the global climate. Have you ever actually listened to yourself?

Your post is a bit rambling.

at the same time stating that if net energy exchange were a real thing​

??? get rid of the "if"

When you set T and Tc to the same temperature in the equation above P= 0, when you set T and Tc to the same temperature and Tc and T to the same temperature in your own bogus equation, P still equals zero..and whatever difference you set T and Tc to in either the actual equation or your bogus equation, the number is the same.​

That is a bit wordy, but I'm only referring to the near earth atmosphere where the warmer earth is radiating to a colder atmosphere. Then your idea and real physics give the same result, even for the wrong reason. Otherwise your view if the equation is nonsense.

.and therefore this thing which alters nothing in the real world regulates the global climate.​

Again, there is back radiation, proven by the laws of science, and it has an effect on global climate. You don't have to use the phrase "back radiation" since the SB equation still shows how the earth radiation is slowed down. But to understand the real physics of what is happening the phrase is used.


.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course not...IR can not warm the air.

Yes it does near the earth surface. You haven't shown why not.

No..it doesn't...Energy lost by CO2 molecules via collisions is not IR...I am sure that you wish your feats of mental masturbation could actually result in IR warming the air, but alas, it doesn't...nor does it make a radiative greenhouse effect real in a troposphere completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection.

Energy lost by CO2 molecules via collisions is not IR​

That is exactly right. But I'm referring to the fact that the CO2 got that energy from IR. It is a two step process. 1. Get energy from IR. 2. Collide with air. You are forgetting the first step.


.

 

[SSDD]

Doesn't lose it all from kinetics. In fact, just as likely to be gaining total thermal energy from collision.. They just dont believe that CO2 "back radiates".. Which is simply because in SSDD's case, photons can not travel towards warmer objects.

Or in BillyBob's case, I think the issue is he believes the layer of gas has to warm and store in order to reflect or backradiate a portion of the energy coming from surface IR... So the word "store" enters a discussion in a misunderstood way..

Ironically, we can believe that there is back radiation, but if SSDD wants to deny it, it gives the same result. He believes the T is always greater than Tc of the SB equation.

But since radiation is outward and from the warmer earth to the colder atmosphere his (ill-conceived) idea still gets you the same answer for P. Of course the problem is in defining the emissivity and temperature Tc for an optically thick enough slab of atmosphere in terms of the Beer Lambert law for CO2.

You guys crack me up....you claim that back radiation happens and alters the global climate while at the same time stating that if net energy exchange were a real thing, and actually happened in the real world, the result would be the same as if back radiation did not happen... When you set T and Tc to the same temperature in the equation above P= 0, when you set T and Tc to the same temperature and Tc and T to the same temperature in your own bogus equation, P still equals zero..and whatever difference you set T and Tc to in either the actual equation or your bogus equation, the number is the same...You are claiming that a thing happens that looks just like if nothing happens and never mind that it can't be observed, or measured, and never mind that it changes nothing whatsoever in the physical world, the model says that it must be happening so therefore it must be happening....and therefore this thing which alters nothing in the real world regulates the global climate. Have you ever actually listened to yourself?

Your post is a bit rambling.

at the same time stating that if net energy exchange were a real thing​

??? get rid of the "if"

When you set T and Tc to the same temperature in the equation above P= 0, when you set T and Tc to the same temperature and Tc and T to the same temperature in your own bogus equation, P still equals zero..and whatever difference you set T and Tc to in either the actual equation or your bogus equation, the number is the same.​

That is a bit wordy, but I'm only referring to the near earth atmosphere where the warmer earth is radiating to a colder atmosphere. Then your idea and real physics give the same result, even for the wrong reason. Otherwise your view if the equation is nonsense.

.and therefore this thing which alters nothing in the real world regulates the global climate.​

Again, there is back radiation, proven by the laws of science, and it has an effect on global climate. You don't have to use the phrase "back radiation" since the SB equation still shows how the earth radiation is slowed down. But to understand the real physics of what is happening the phrase is used.


.

there is no back radiation...but if you believe there is, feel free to provide a measurement of a discrete wavelength measured with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the air. Failing that, you only have faith...nothing more. Been through it all before...no less tedious this time..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Doesn't lose it all from kinetics. In fact, just as likely to be gaining total thermal energy from collision.. They just dont believe that CO2 "back radiates".. Which is simply because in SSDD's case, photons can not travel towards warmer objects.

Or in BillyBob's case, I think the issue is he believes the layer of gas has to warm and store in order to reflect or backradiate a portion of the energy coming from surface IR... So the word "store" enters a discussion in a misunderstood way..

Ironically, we can believe that there is back radiation, but if SSDD wants to deny it, it gives the same result. He believes the T is always greater than Tc of the SB equation.

But since radiation is outward and from the warmer earth to the colder atmosphere his (ill-conceived) idea still gets you the same answer for P. Of course the problem is in defining the emissivity and temperature Tc for an optically thick enough slab of atmosphere in terms of the Beer Lambert law for CO2.

You guys crack me up....you claim that back radiation happens and alters the global climate while at the same time stating that if net energy exchange were a real thing, and actually happened in the real world, the result would be the same as if back radiation did not happen... When you set T and Tc to the same temperature in the equation above P= 0, when you set T and Tc to the same temperature and Tc and T to the same temperature in your own bogus equation, P still equals zero..and whatever difference you set T and Tc to in either the actual equation or your bogus equation, the number is the same...You are claiming that a thing happens that looks just like if nothing happens and never mind that it can't be observed, or measured, and never mind that it changes nothing whatsoever in the physical world, the model says that it must be happening so therefore it must be happening....and therefore this thing which alters nothing in the real world regulates the global climate. Have you ever actually listened to yourself?

Your post is a bit rambling.

at the same time stating that if net energy exchange were a real thing​

??? get rid of the "if"

When you set T and Tc to the same temperature in the equation above P= 0, when you set T and Tc to the same temperature and Tc and T to the same temperature in your own bogus equation, P still equals zero..and whatever difference you set T and Tc to in either the actual equation or your bogus equation, the number is the same.​

That is a bit wordy, but I'm only referring to the near earth atmosphere where the warmer earth is radiating to a colder atmosphere. Then your idea and real physics give the same result, even for the wrong reason. Otherwise your view if the equation is nonsense.

.and therefore this thing which alters nothing in the real world regulates the global climate.​

Again, there is back radiation, proven by the laws of science, and it has an effect on global climate. You don't have to use the phrase "back radiation" since the SB equation still shows how the earth radiation is slowed down. But to understand the real physics of what is happening the phrase is used.


.

there is no back radiation...but if you believe there is, feel free to provide a measurement of a discrete wavelength measured with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the air. Failing that, you only have faith...nothing more. Been through it all before...no less tedious this time..

there is no back radiation..

Any sources to back up your claim? Or are you still all alone?

The US being a free country, you are entitled to take on an entire field of science.

 

[SSDD]

Of course not...IR can not warm the air.

Yes it does near the earth surface. You haven't shown why not.

No..it doesn't...Energy lost by CO2 molecules via collisions is not IR...I am sure that you wish your feats of mental masturbation could actually result in IR warming the air, but alas, it doesn't...nor does it make a radiative greenhouse effect real in a troposphere completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection.

Energy lost by CO2 molecules via collisions is not IR​

That is exactly right. But I'm referring to the fact that the CO2 got that energy from IR. It is a two step process. 1. Get energy from IR. 2. Collide with air. You are forgetting the first step.


.

That doesn't make a radiative greenhouse effect. No amount of mental masturbation will ever make it so.

The radiative greenhouse effect is defined as: warming of the surface and lower atmosphere of a planet (such as Earth or Venus) that is caused by conversion of solar radiation into heat in a process involving selective transmission of short wave solar radiation by the atmosphere, its absorption by the planet's surface, and reradiation as infrared which is absorbed and partly reradiated back to the surface by atmospheric gases

Feel free to point out the part where it is acknowledged that conduction is the primary mode of energy movement through the troposphere and radiation plays a very small bit role at most...climate models are based on the definition above...a process that is not happening, has never happened, and never will happen...which explains why they are go grossly wrong.

 

[Wuwei]

there is no back radiation...but if you believe there is, feel free to provide a measurement of a discrete wavelength measured with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the air. Failing that, you only have faith...nothing more. Been through it all before...no less tedious this time..

What you think about back radiation really doesn't matter. The SB equation that you believe gives the same result as the real SB equation, which is consistent with physics.

Again, faith is not an issue because observed science allows two way radiation.


.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course not...IR can not warm the air.

Yes it does near the earth surface. You haven't shown why not.

No..it doesn't...Energy lost by CO2 molecules via collisions is not IR...I am sure that you wish your feats of mental masturbation could actually result in IR warming the air, but alas, it doesn't...nor does it make a radiative greenhouse effect real in a troposphere completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection.

Energy lost by CO2 molecules via collisions is not IR​

That is exactly right. But I'm referring to the fact that the CO2 got that energy from IR. It is a two step process. 1. Get energy from IR. 2. Collide with air. You are forgetting the first step.


.

That doesn't make a radiative greenhouse effect. No amount of mental masturbation will ever make it so.

The radiative greenhouse effect is defined as: warming of the surface and lower atmosphere of a planet (such as Earth or Venus) that is caused by conversion of solar radiation into heat in a process involving selective transmission of short wave solar radiation by the atmosphere, its absorption by the planet's surface, and reradiation as infrared which is absorbed and partly reradiated back to the surface by atmospheric gases

Feel free to point out the part where it is acknowledged that conduction is the primary mode of energy movement through the troposphere and radiation plays a very small bit role at most...climate models are based on the definition above...a process that is not happening, has never happened, and never will happen...which explains why they are go grossly wrong.

Your first paragraph is about masturbation.

Your second paragraph is about warming of the surface and lower atmosphere of a planet.

Your third paragraph jumps to movement through the full troposphere. That has nothing to do with my post nor the second paragraph explaination of the green house effect, which is only about back radiation near the surface.

If your point is also saying that I have not said how the energy at the surface rises to the top of the troposphere, that is correct it was outside the scope of my point.



.

 

[SSDD]

What you think about back radiation really doesn't matter. The SB equation that you believe gives the same result as the real SB equation, which is consistent with physics.

Again, faith is not an issue because observed science allows two way radiation.


.

So with no back radiation, there is no warming..and with back radiation, there is the same answer..which is no warming..you keep arguing for a non existent thing to be happening which gives you the same result as if the thing didn't happen...either way there is no difference....and it is irrelevant anyway since there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

 

[SSDD]

Of course not...IR can not warm the air.

Yes it does near the earth surface. You haven't shown why not.

No..it doesn't...Energy lost by CO2 molecules via collisions is not IR...I am sure that you wish your feats of mental masturbation could actually result in IR warming the air, but alas, it doesn't...nor does it make a radiative greenhouse effect real in a troposphere completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection.

Energy lost by CO2 molecules via collisions is not IR​

That is exactly right. But I'm referring to the fact that the CO2 got that energy from IR. It is a two step process. 1. Get energy from IR. 2. Collide with air. You are forgetting the first step.


.

And it is not a radiative greenhouse effect...no matter how you twist it...it just isn't.

 

[SSDD]

Again, there is back radiation, proven by the laws of science, and it has an effect on global climate.
.

Which law....Lets see the statement of any law which states that spontaneous two way energy flow between objects of different temperature happens...

 

[SSDD]

Your third paragraph jumps to movement through the full troposphere. That has nothing to do with my post nor the second paragraph explaination of the green house effect, which is only about back radiation near the surface.

Sorry guy...maybe your bastardized version of the greenhouse effect is only about near the surface, but the greenhouse effect described by climate science deals with the entire troposphere...


yet another example of you just making it up as you go in an effort to support your argument..

 

[Wuwei]

So with no back radiation, there is no warming..and with back radiation, there is the same answer..which is no warming..you keep arguing for a non existent thing to be happening which gives you the same result as if the thing didn't happen...either way there is no difference....and it is irrelevant anyway since there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

In the SB law the term T is the earth temperature. The term Tc is the atmosphere temperature.

T>Tc for this example​

Plug those numbers in and you get the P. You don't even have to think about whether it's radiation exchange or not.


.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course not...IR can not warm the air.

Yes it does near the earth surface. You haven't shown why not.

No..it doesn't...Energy lost by CO2 molecules via collisions is not IR...I am sure that you wish your feats of mental masturbation could actually result in IR warming the air, but alas, it doesn't...nor does it make a radiative greenhouse effect real in a troposphere completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection.

Energy lost by CO2 molecules via collisions is not IR​

That is exactly right. But I'm referring to the fact that the CO2 got that energy from IR. It is a two step process. 1. Get energy from IR. 2. Collide with air. You are forgetting the first step.


.

And it is not a radiative greenhouse effect...no matter how you twist it...it just isn't.

I didn't say it was. It's the mode of transfer of earths heat to the atmosphere.


.