Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[SSDD]

The process of CO2 absorbing a photon and emitting a photon are mirrored. Show us a valid source which states emission and absorption take place at different frequencies because it looks to me as if you're attempting to violate Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation

Is it your claim that it requires zero energy to excite a molecule to a higher energy state so that it emit's a photon? Is that really your claim...and if you acknowledge that some small bit of energy is required to accomplish that task...how do you suppose the photon is emitted at the same frequency as it was emitted?

 

[IanC]

The process of CO2 absorbing a photon and emitting a photon are mirrored. Show us a valid source which states emission and absorption take place at different frequencies because it looks to me as if you're attempting to violate Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation

Is it your claim that it requires zero energy to excite a molecule to a higher energy state so that it emit's a photon? Is that really your claim...and if you acknowledge that some small bit of energy is required to accomplish that task...how do you suppose the photon is emitted at the same frequency as it was emitted?

no energy is consumed during quantum jumps. the energy stored when the electron is excited is exactly the same energy that is released when it drops back to groundstate.

 

[SSDD]

So your claim is that it requires no energy to excite a molecule to a higher energy state... Higher energy state...no energy required....more magic...

 

[Wuwei]

So your claim is that it requires no energy to excite a molecule to a higher energy state... Higher energy state...no energy required....more magic...

You are misquoting IanC. He said no energy consumed, not no energy required.

no energy is consumed

It's a simple matter of the conservation of energy. That means in any interaction the total energy must remain constant in all the forms it may have before, during, or after the interaction.

 

[IanC]

So your claim is that it requires no energy to excite a molecule to a higher energy state... Higher energy state...no energy required....more magic...

Please quote my actual words when you rephrase what you think I said.

the whole point of quantum mechanics is to restrict the available possibilities for electrons. to describe the granularity of the atomic scale, to point out distances that cannot be further divided.

you continue to impose macroscopic rules on atomic scale interactions. macroscopically, the electron should produce radiation as it 'circles' the nucleus, getting closer and closer until it crashes into the nucleus. every atom would disintegrate in less than a second. that doesnt happen so a better theory was needed.

you say that some 'portion' of the energy needed to excite an electron is used up during every cycle of excitation/relaxation. where does this energy go? what form does it take? you say that the wavelength coming out is a different frequency than what went in. where is the evidence for this? absorbance/emission lines for any substance are exactly congruent. why doesnt your theory of ever diminishing frequency show up in the data?

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guys..when molecule absorbs light, one of its electrons is sent to a higher energy level. When the electron drops to its ground state from the excited state at the higher energy level, a photon is emitted at a lower frequency than the excitation frequency...like it or not, believe it or not...I could not possibly care less...that is how it is.

http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf

There are three general vibrations for a CO2 molecule: a symmetric mode, a bending mode, and an asymmetric mode (Figure 1). Each mode is able to absorb certain bands of wavelengths, with the bending mode absorbing longer wavelengths (667 cm-1) and the asymmetric absorbing shorter wavelengths, 2349 cm-1 (Figure 2). (Kverno) Ultimately, the energy from the photon has two pathways. It can either be converted into thermal energy by the conversion of the internal kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule to the kinetic energy of a different, inert molecule such as N2. Or the molecule can reemit a photon at a lower frequency.

 

[IanC]

Sorry guys..when molecule absorbs light, one of its electrons is sent to a higher energy level. When the electron drops to its ground state from the excited state at the higher energy level, a photon is emitted at a lower frequency than the excitation frequency...like it or not, believe it or not...I could not possibly care less...that is how it is.

http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf

There are three general vibrations for a CO2 molecule: a symmetric mode, a bending mode, and an asymmetric mode (Figure 1). Each mode is able to absorb certain bands of wavelengths, with the bending mode absorbing longer wavelengths (667 cm-1) and the asymmetric absorbing shorter wavelengths, 2349 cm-1 (Figure 2). (Kverno) Ultimately, the energy from the photon has two pathways. It can either be converted into thermal energy by the conversion of the internal kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule to the kinetic energy of a different, inert molecule such as N2. Or the molecule can reemit a photon at a lower frequency.

As usual, SSDD's link supports my position and nullifies his. The presented quote is rather ambiguous in meaning when taken in context.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guys..when molecule absorbs light, one of its electrons is sent to a higher energy level. When the electron drops to its ground state from the excited state at the higher energy level, a photon is emitted at a lower frequency than the excitation frequency...like it or not, believe it or not...I could not possibly care less...that is how it is.

http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf

There are three general vibrations for a CO2 molecule: a symmetric mode, a bending mode, and an asymmetric mode (Figure 1). Each mode is able to absorb certain bands of wavelengths, with the bending mode absorbing longer wavelengths (667 cm-1) and the asymmetric absorbing shorter wavelengths, 2349 cm-1 (Figure 2). (Kverno) Ultimately, the energy from the photon has two pathways. It can either be converted into thermal energy by the conversion of the internal kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule to the kinetic energy of a different, inert molecule such as N2. Or the molecule can reemit a photon at a lower frequency.

As usual, SSDD's link supports my position and nullifies his. The presented quote is rather ambiguous in meaning when taken in context.

It says what it says ian...and you know it...what small bit of radiation that CO2 molecules emit as opposed to transferring via collisions is emitted at a lower frequency than at which it was absorbed...and therefore not absorbed by another CO2 molecule... And where is that hot spot that would inevitably appear in the troposphere if the greenhouse hypothesis, and in turn, the AGW hypothesis was correct?

Your fantasy world is becoming as rich as those of crick and rocks and mammoth...better make a reality check or you will be as lost in fantasy as they are.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guys..when molecule absorbs light, one of its electrons is sent to a higher energy level. When the electron drops to its ground state from the excited state at the higher energy level, a photon is emitted at a lower frequency than the excitation frequency...like it or not, believe it or not...I could not possibly care less...that is how it is.

http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf

There are three general vibrations for a CO2 molecule: a symmetric mode, a bending mode, and an asymmetric mode (Figure 1). Each mode is able to absorb certain bands of wavelengths, with the bending mode absorbing longer wavelengths (667 cm-1) and the asymmetric absorbing shorter wavelengths, 2349 cm-1 (Figure 2). (Kverno) Ultimately, the energy from the photon has two pathways. It can either be converted into thermal energy by the conversion of the internal kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule to the kinetic energy of a different, inert molecule such as N2. Or the molecule can reemit a photon at a lower frequency.

The paper gives no date or institution on the title page. (Presumably Wesleyan college).
The authors screw up their units "wavelengths (667 cm-1)". A length is given by a inverse length units!

The paper reads like a class project which is not done all that well. This is the last paragraph:

This experimental setup is a prototype that should be developed further to remove errors inherent to its design. First and foremost, the light, gas cell, and detector should be fastened to a solid surface, because every injection of gas resulted in a slight movement of the gas cell relative to the light and detector. Second, a check valve should be installed on the outflow of the gas cell to prevent leaking of the high concentration gas between measurements. Finally, a pressure gauge should be installed inside the cell so that the molecular density can be more accurately measured, as this value is critical to determination of the absorption coefficient.​

If you want to believe that an unidentified student project shows a flaw in the conservation of energy ... that is how it is.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Long term trend of surface and troposphere heat loss are paralleled at the same gradient slope. This indicates that water vapor is acting as the heat transport mechanism and CO2 is incapable of stopping it.. Result is no hot spot..

CO2 is a heat transporting mechanism as well...CO2 is not the blanket, but small holes in the blanket. It is just goofy to suggest that a radiative gas would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

CO2 does increase radiation loss to space at high altitudes where CO2 specific radiation does not get recaptured by another CO2 molecule because of the thinness of the air. Stratospheric cooling. At lower levels it is quickly reabsorbed and cannot escape.

Water covers a very wide range of the spectrum. And no the energy at lower levels is not being reabsorbed by CO2.. The hot spot does not exist and would have to exist if this were true.

SO where do you think the magical energy is being reabsorbed?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The process of CO2 absorbing a photon and emitting a photon are mirrored. Show us a valid source which states emission and absorption take place at different frequencies because it looks to me as if you're attempting to violate Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation

Is it your claim that it requires zero energy to excite a molecule to a higher energy state so that it emit's a photon? Is that really your claim...and if you acknowledge that some small bit of energy is required to accomplish that task...how do you suppose the photon is emitted at the same frequency as it was emitted?

no energy is consumed during quantum jumps. the energy stored when the electron is excited is exactly the same energy that is released when it drops back to groundstate.

Now were talking perpetual motion.. I know of nothing that can do what you claim..

 

[Billy_Bob]

That would apply to everything. Water vapor would be eliminated as an effective GHG agent. Is that what you're suggesting.

It might...except that water vapor absorbs and emits over a far greater range of frequencies than CO2...A slight change in the frequency of IR won't put it out of the range of water vapor.

Crick can not grasp the graph he posts as proof of AGW..


He simply can not read this very simple graph...

Now for Ian, and others...

Note the wavelength indication at the bottom of the graph.. Note the components of our atmosphere and the bandwidths they absorb.. Water vapor most certainly absorbs throughout all CO2 spectrums in the up-welling portion of energy release.

The new papers coming out show that water vapor is indeed sucking up the energy at lower altitudes and releasing it above cloud boundary where water vapor re-nucleates. This is the reason we have no hot spot... Its the shear mass of water vs CO2 that is the reason...

 

[Billy_Bob]

The process of CO2 absorbing a photon and emitting a photon are mirrored. Show us a valid source which states emission and absorption take place at different frequencies because it looks to me as if you're attempting to violate Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation

Is it your claim that it requires zero energy to excite a molecule to a higher energy state so that it emit's a photon? Is that really your claim...and if you acknowledge that some small bit of energy is required to accomplish that task...how do you suppose the photon is emitted at the same frequency as it was emitted?

Quantum mechanics is a fledgling hypothesis but it is used to explain things we do not understand.

Energy must be lost in photon transmission. Commonsense and observed reactions indicate there is no exception to this rule.. Work consumes energy..

 

[SSDD]

The process of CO2 absorbing a photon and emitting a photon are mirrored. Show us a valid source which states emission and absorption take place at different frequencies because it looks to me as if you're attempting to violate Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation

Is it your claim that it requires zero energy to excite a molecule to a higher energy state so that it emit's a photon? Is that really your claim...and if you acknowledge that some small bit of energy is required to accomplish that task...how do you suppose the photon is emitted at the same frequency as it was emitted?

Quantum mechanics is a fledgling hypothesis but it is used to explain things we do not understand.

Energy must be lost in photon transmission. Commonsense and observed reactions indicate there is no exception to this rule.. Work consumes energy..

Even magic consumes energy...except the magic that ian believes in.

 

[Crick]

If you want to be a science idiot, be a science idiot. Just do it somewhere else, eh.

 

[IanC]

The process of CO2 absorbing a photon and emitting a photon are mirrored. Show us a valid source which states emission and absorption take place at different frequencies because it looks to me as if you're attempting to violate Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation

Is it your claim that it requires zero energy to excite a molecule to a higher energy state so that it emit's a photon? Is that really your claim...and if you acknowledge that some small bit of energy is required to accomplish that task...how do you suppose the photon is emitted at the same frequency as it was emitted?

no energy is consumed during quantum jumps. the energy stored when the electron is excited is exactly the same energy that is released when it drops back to groundstate.

Now were talking perpetual motion.. I know of nothing that can do what you claim..

No energy is consumed during quantum leaps. That is why there are sharp spectral lines. Only specific jumps are allowed.

However, there IS a transfer of momentum associated with absorption/emission of a photon. Two atoms that swapped a photon between them would be slightly driven apart. Hence entropy.

No perpetual motion.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The process of CO2 absorbing a photon and emitting a photon are mirrored. Show us a valid source which states emission and absorption take place at different frequencies because it looks to me as if you're attempting to violate Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation

Is it your claim that it requires zero energy to excite a molecule to a higher energy state so that it emit's a photon? Is that really your claim...and if you acknowledge that some small bit of energy is required to accomplish that task...how do you suppose the photon is emitted at the same frequency as it was emitted?

no energy is consumed during quantum jumps. the energy stored when the electron is excited is exactly the same energy that is released when it drops back to groundstate.

Now were talking perpetual motion.. I know of nothing that can do what you claim..

No energy is consumed during quantum leaps. That is why there are sharp spectral lines. Only specific jumps are allowed.

However, there IS a transfer of momentum associated with absorption/emission of a photon. Two atoms that swapped a photon between them would be slightly driven apart. Hence entropy.

No perpetual motion.

Unproven hypothesis.. Nothing more.. The math simply does not add up..

 

[Crick]

Quantum mechanics is the most successfully tested physical system ever conceived. It's predictions have been shown accurate in excess of ten decimal places. If you think the math doesn't add up, you've simply admitted you're no good at math.

And you are CERTAINLY not the "atmospheric physicist" you claimed to be.

 

[SSDD]

Quantum mechanics is the most successfully tested physical system ever conceived. It's predictions have been shown accurate in excess of ten decimal places. If you think the math doesn't add up, you've simply admitted you're no good at math.

And you are CERTAINLY not the "atmospheric physicist" you claimed to be.

You say that like you think all of qm has been successfully tested...a couple of points have been successfully tested and some of the "successful testing" is nothing more than the output of computer models....the successful tests, while they are fine baby steps on a long road are hardly the major advances you claim...they are like comparing the first step of a child to the performance of a world champion try-athelete.

 

[Wuwei]

You say that like you think all of qm has been successfully tested...a couple of points have been successfully tested and some of the "successful testing" is nothing more than the output of computer models....

That is simply not true.

The level of precision of anything "measurable, observable, or repeatable" has been done to parts per billion or trillion. For example laboratory measurements of the energy states of hydrogen and helium. These measurements also agree with models at the same level of calculated precision: one part per trillion. Virtually every aspect of atomic physics that can possibly be observed and measured agrees with the modern physics models to unprecedented accuracy.

....the successful tests, while they are fine baby steps on a long road are hardly the major advances you claim...they are like comparing the first step of a child to the performance of a world champion try-athelete.

Quantum Electrodynamics has won the triathlon long ago. Of course you think science is taking baby steps because the only place that is taking baby steps is your understanding of modern physics.