What AGW is doing to the planet

[Toddsterpatriot]

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

Photons don't collide. Once emitted they continue on their path until they interact with matter. A trillion photons could occupy the same nanometer cubed and they would not notice each other. Light does not have the same restrictions as matter.

And what matter is it they interact with?

Matter they hit.

 

[IanC]

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

Photons don't collide. Once emitted they continue on their path until they interact with matter. A trillion photons could occupy the same nanometer cubed and they would not notice each other. Light does not have the same restrictions as matter.

And what matter is it they interact with?

Typically the first particle in their path.

Could you be more specific?

 

[flacaltenn]

CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

So the question is how much. How much does 10 ppm of CO2 hold of radiated energy what's the temperature of that CO2? .9° C in the ocean?

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

The surface heat (infrared) going skyward is always greater than the infrared coming back down from the GHouse. So the NET transfer is a loss to space. The streams simply add and subtract much like voltages in a circuit. So when you INCREASE the GHouse downward IR (back radiation) it's not warming the surface. What it is doing is reducing the LOSS to space. So over time -- with the same solar stimulus -- there will eventually be a higher surface equilibrium temperature.

KINDA like insulation in the attic. Except that is thermal CONDUCTION, not thermal RADIATION..

 

[jc456]

So the question is how much. How much does 10 ppm of CO2 hold of radiated energy what's the temperature of that CO2? .9° C in the ocean?

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today.

Because you're an idiot.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate

All matter above 0K radiates. It doesn't "look around" before deciding whether or not to radiate.
It doesn't "measure the temperature around it" and decide to radiate in only one direction.
It radiates in all directions, all the time.
Even if it's a CO2 molecule high above the Earth, radiating toward the warmer surface.

I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide

Photons don't collide or push each other out of the way.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens

You'd have to see evidence that photons don't collide? LOL!

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

Photons don't collide. Once emitted they continue on their path until they interact with matter. A trillion photons could occupy the same nanometer cubed and they would not notice each other. Light does not have the same restrictions as matter.

And what matter is it they interact with?

Typically the first particle in their path.

Could you be more specific?

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface? I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs, then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed? I thought it did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today.

Because you're an idiot.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate

All matter above 0K radiates. It doesn't "look around" before deciding whether or not to radiate.
It doesn't "measure the temperature around it" and decide to radiate in only one direction.
It radiates in all directions, all the time.
Even if it's a CO2 molecule high above the Earth, radiating toward the warmer surface.

I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide

Photons don't collide or push each other out of the way.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens

You'd have to see evidence that photons don't collide? LOL!

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

Photons don't collide. Once emitted they continue on their path until they interact with matter. A trillion photons could occupy the same nanometer cubed and they would not notice each other. Light does not have the same restrictions as matter.

And what matter is it they interact with?

Typically the first particle in their path.

Could you be more specific?

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface? I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs, then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed? I thought it did.

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface?

CO2, water vapor other greenhouse gasses.

I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs

Why would CO2 no longer absorb?

then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

Well, yeah, eventually it radiates away into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed?

Yes, lots of back radiation involves clouds and water vapor.

 

[jc456]

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today.

Because you're an idiot.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate

All matter above 0K radiates. It doesn't "look around" before deciding whether or not to radiate.
It doesn't "measure the temperature around it" and decide to radiate in only one direction.
It radiates in all directions, all the time.
Even if it's a CO2 molecule high above the Earth, radiating toward the warmer surface.

I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide

Photons don't collide or push each other out of the way.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens

You'd have to see evidence that photons don't collide? LOL!

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

Photons don't collide. Once emitted they continue on their path until they interact with matter. A trillion photons could occupy the same nanometer cubed and they would not notice each other. Light does not have the same restrictions as matter.

And what matter is it they interact with?

Typically the first particle in their path.

Could you be more specific?

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface? I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs, then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed? I thought it did.

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface?

CO2, water vapor other greenhouse gasses.

I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs

Why would CO2 no longer absorb?

then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

Well, yeah, eventually it radiates away into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed?

Yes, lots of back radiation involves clouds and water vapor.

Sure CO2 saturates. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901 was the evidence.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

So the question is how much. How much does 10 ppm of CO2 hold of radiated energy what's the temperature of that CO2? .9° C in the ocean?

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

OK. Simple experiment to show you the lack of validity in your logic.

Light is made of photons. So, you take one flashlight, have a friend take another. Stand about 30 feet apart at night and shine the lights at each other. Do you see each other? Of course you do. Did the photons push each other out of the way, or cancel each other out? No, of course not, or you would not be seeing each other. Now, if you want to further refine the experiment, take photometer and measure the light with just one flashlight on. Then turn your flashlight on toward your friend holding the the other flashlight on you. The amount of light will be the same, no attenuation from the fact the two light beams are going through each other.

You don't have to take my word for it, just do the simple experiment as outlined.

 

[Old Rocks]

So the question is how much. How much does 10 ppm of CO2 hold of radiated energy what's the temperature of that CO2? .9° C in the ocean?

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

The surface heat (infrared) going skyward is always greater than the infrared coming back down from the GHouse. So the NET transfer is a loss to space. The streams simply add and subtract much like voltages in a circuit. So when you INCREASE the GHouse downward IR (back radiation) it's not warming the surface. What it is doing is reducing the LOSS to space. So over time -- with the same solar stimulus -- there will eventually be a higher surface equilibrium temperature.

KINDA like insulation in the attic. Except that is thermal CONDUCTION, not thermal RADIATION..

During the day there is more incoming heat than outgoing. At night, the situation is reversed. However, add some GHGs to the atmosphere, and the ratio is changed, so there is a lower percentage outgoing. And that is why the nights are warming at a more rapid rate than the days.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today.

Because you're an idiot.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate

All matter above 0K radiates. It doesn't "look around" before deciding whether or not to radiate.
It doesn't "measure the temperature around it" and decide to radiate in only one direction.
It radiates in all directions, all the time.
Even if it's a CO2 molecule high above the Earth, radiating toward the warmer surface.

I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide

Photons don't collide or push each other out of the way.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens

You'd have to see evidence that photons don't collide? LOL!

Photons don't collide. Once emitted they continue on their path until they interact with matter. A trillion photons could occupy the same nanometer cubed and they would not notice each other. Light does not have the same restrictions as matter.

And what matter is it they interact with?

Typically the first particle in their path.

Could you be more specific?

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface? I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs, then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed? I thought it did.

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface?

CO2, water vapor other greenhouse gasses.

I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs

Why would CO2 no longer absorb?

then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

Well, yeah, eventually it radiates away into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed?

Yes, lots of back radiation involves clouds and water vapor.

Sure CO2 saturates. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901 was the evidence.

Okay. Did his experiment show that back radiation didn't exist?
Realize your error yet?

 

[Crick]

If I've mucked up the quotes, my apologies.

The surface heat (infrared) going skyward is always greater than the infrared coming back down from the GHouse. So the NET transfer is a loss to space. The streams simply add and subtract much like voltages in a circuit. So when you INCREASE the GHouse downward IR (back radiation) it's not warming the surface. What it is doing is reducing the LOSS to space. So over time -- with the same solar stimulus -- there will eventually be a higher surface equilibrium temperature.

KINDA like insulation in the attic. Except that is thermal CONDUCTION, not thermal RADIATION..

During the day there is more incoming heat than outgoing. At night, the situation is reversed. However, add some GHGs to the atmosphere, and the ratio is changed, so there is a lower percentage outgoing. And that is why the nights are warming at a more rapid rate than the days.

I think it's a mistake here to use the term "percentage". I think a better description is to say "Add more GHGs and the rate of energy out decreases."

 

[jc456]

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today.

Because you're an idiot.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate

All matter above 0K radiates. It doesn't "look around" before deciding whether or not to radiate.
It doesn't "measure the temperature around it" and decide to radiate in only one direction.
It radiates in all directions, all the time.
Even if it's a CO2 molecule high above the Earth, radiating toward the warmer surface.

I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide

Photons don't collide or push each other out of the way.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens

You'd have to see evidence that photons don't collide? LOL!

And what matter is it they interact with?

Typically the first particle in their path.

Could you be more specific?

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface? I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs, then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed? I thought it did.

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface?

CO2, water vapor other greenhouse gasses.

I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs

Why would CO2 no longer absorb?

then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

Well, yeah, eventually it radiates away into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed?

Yes, lots of back radiation involves clouds and water vapor.

Sure CO2 saturates. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901 was the evidence.

Okay. Did his experiment show that back radiation didn't exist?
Realize your error yet?

No error. Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today.

Because you're an idiot.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate

All matter above 0K radiates. It doesn't "look around" before deciding whether or not to radiate.
It doesn't "measure the temperature around it" and decide to radiate in only one direction.
It radiates in all directions, all the time.
Even if it's a CO2 molecule high above the Earth, radiating toward the warmer surface.

I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide

Photons don't collide or push each other out of the way.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens

You'd have to see evidence that photons don't collide? LOL!

Typically the first particle in their path.

Could you be more specific?

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface? I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs, then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed? I thought it did.

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface?

CO2, water vapor other greenhouse gasses.

I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs

Why would CO2 no longer absorb?

then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

Well, yeah, eventually it radiates away into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed?

Yes, lots of back radiation involves clouds and water vapor.

Sure CO2 saturates. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901 was the evidence.

Okay. Did his experiment show that back radiation didn't exist?
Realize your error yet?

No error. Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

Why can't you absorb it?

 

[jc456]

So the question is how much.

As soon as you admit SSDDs and your error about back radiation, we can discuss how much.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers. BTW there's no evidence of back radiation. And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

Oh well, I see still no magic CO2 numbers.

I don't have any magic CO2 numbers. Do you?

BTW there's no evidence of back radiation.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?

And the logarithmic characteristics of CO2 makes it impossible to do what the warmer's say.

"I'm not defending the warmers, just pointing out SSDD's idiocy. Idiocy that you defend.

I said, "CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth"
You said, "So the question is how much"
You're claiming the "how much" is zero?"

I'm claiming the 'how much' is zero today. I'm saying due to the characteristics of the gas, there is little to no absorbing happening today.

Look, you know I'm no scientist, but, if all things radiate as I have learned in here through all the tech discussions, I don't see how radiative waves from the atmosphere can make it back to the surface, If the surface is also radiating. Somewhere in my logical mind, the two directions must collide and all I'm saying is since the upper atmosphere is cooler, that the warmer waves collide nearer the upper atmosphere and not near the surface.

And for me to change that logic, I'd have to actually see some evidence the reverse happens, and so far I haven't seen any. So, since there has not been any evidence, it must be a tough one to prove. And that alone makes it less likely in my mind.

The surface heat (infrared) going skyward is always greater than the infrared coming back down from the GHouse. So the NET transfer is a loss to space. The streams simply add and subtract much like voltages in a circuit. So when you INCREASE the GHouse downward IR (back radiation) it's not warming the surface. What it is doing is reducing the LOSS to space. So over time -- with the same solar stimulus -- there will eventually be a higher surface equilibrium temperature.

KINDA like insulation in the attic. Except that is thermal CONDUCTION, not thermal RADIATION..

During the day there is more incoming heat than outgoing. At night, the situation is reversed. However, add some GHGs to the atmosphere, and the ratio is changed, so there is a lower percentage outgoing. And that is why the nights are warming at a more rapid rate than the days.

Sounds like a pretty simple experiment to set up. I suppose you have an experiment that shows a containment of CO2 with light as energy source and log the temperature in the container. Remove the light and then again log the temperature of the container. Now time how long until the heat dissipates to room temperature and log it.

Now repeat the whole scenario without adding CO2 to the container and do the exact same experiment timing again how long after the light goes out The container was back at room temperature and tell me whether or not the times are the same.

Surely that's been done correct?

 

[jc456]

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface? I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs, then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed? I thought it did.

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface?

CO2, water vapor other greenhouse gasses.

I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs

Why would CO2 no longer absorb?

then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

Well, yeah, eventually it radiates away into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed?

Yes, lots of back radiation involves clouds and water vapor.

Sure CO2 saturates. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901 was the evidence.

Okay. Did his experiment show that back radiation didn't exist?
Realize your error yet?

No error. Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

Why can't you absorb it?

I already told you dude saturation

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is it IR hits in the atmosphere to emit it back down to the surface?

CO2, water vapor other greenhouse gasses.

I was assuming it was CO2, and if CO2 no longer absorbs

Why would CO2 no longer absorb?

then it has nothing to hit and hence goes into space.

Well, yeah, eventually it radiates away into space.

And what about clouds, does IR get absorbed?

Yes, lots of back radiation involves clouds and water vapor.

Sure CO2 saturates. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901 was the evidence.

Okay. Did his experiment show that back radiation didn't exist?
Realize your error yet?

No error. Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

Why can't you absorb it?

I already told you dude saturation

I already told you dude saturation

You'll have to give me your definition of saturation, because it's clear you don't understand what it means.

 

[jc456]

Sure CO2 saturates. Herr Koch's experiment in 1901 was the evidence.

Okay. Did his experiment show that back radiation didn't exist?
Realize your error yet?

No error. Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

Why can't you absorb it?

I already told you dude saturation

I already told you dude saturation

You'll have to give me your definition of saturation, because it's clear you don't understand what it means.

Sure I do

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Okay. Did his experiment show that back radiation didn't exist?
Realize your error yet?

No error. Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

Why can't you absorb it?

I already told you dude saturation

I already told you dude saturation

You'll have to give me your definition of saturation, because it's clear you don't understand what it means.

Sure I do

So post it.

 

[jc456]

No error. Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

Why can't you absorb it?

I already told you dude saturation

I already told you dude saturation

You'll have to give me your definition of saturation, because it's clear you don't understand what it means.

Sure I do

So post it.

Why?

 

[jc456]

Go look up logarithmic characteristics of CO2 and look at the way the line goes as CO2 increases temperature does not follow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can't have radiation if you can't absorb it and then emit it.

Why can't you absorb it?

I already told you dude saturation

I already told you dude saturation

You'll have to give me your definition of saturation, because it's clear you don't understand what it means.

Sure I do

So post it.

Why?

Because that will prove you didn't know it.