What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?

[SSDD]

My interpretation of you is that you are an unequivocal idiot. Always has been. Always will. Just one more unqualified voice in the dark. Your opinion means nothing.

Fair enough. I will take that assertion as seriously as The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space.

Can you show us a physical law which predicts that a body can be warmed by reabsorbing its own radiation?

 

[gtopa1]

I looked for a reasonably scientific explanation of the GHE on Google and was very disappointed. You would think it would be everywhere but it isnt.

I then specifically searched for the IPCC version. Imagine my surprise when 'denier' sites were the major places of discussion.

How weak is their case if they are effectively hiding it? For the record, I believe in the GHE in principle as a very important part of atmospheric radiative physics. I don't see how the addition of more CO2 can cause huge changes though.

What is your reference site for the GHE? Or do you just know it?

I'll post up a few links later if no one cares to post theirs.

I go here.

Watts Up With That?

Solid site.

Greg

 

[Wuwei]

ALL atoms of the Periodic Table have at least one Valence Electron in it. It is clear you didn't read the link, it would have saved you here. .... etc...
GHG all have Valence electrons in them, stop fighting the evidence!.

This was my reply:
Yes, elementary but irrelevant. As I said several times already. Those higher energy transitions in atoms or molecules are not involved in the GHE.

I already said it is irrelevant to the GHE. You don't have to keep posting elementary Quantum Mechanics 101. There is no point in it. Read my reply again.


.

It IS relevant since CO2, DUE to the 16 Valence Electrons set up can absorb IR photons.

"Bonding in Carbon Dioxide
From the Lewis structure we can see that the carbon in CO2 must make 2 sigma bonds and it has no lone pairs. This atom will be 2sp hybridized with remaining 2px and 2py atomic orbitals."



View attachment 262035

The 16 valence electrons fill through the 2 pi bonding orbitals so there is a full double bond between carbon and each oxygen.


from Wikipedia:

"Similar to an electron in an inner shell, a valence electron has the ability to absorb or release energy in the form of a photon. An energy gain can trigger an electron to move (jump) to an outer shell; this is known as atomic excitation. Or the electron can even break free from its associated atom's valence shell; this is ionization to form a positive ion. When an electron loses energy (thereby causing a photon to be emitted), then it can move to an inner shell which is not fully occupied."

bolding and size increase mine

IR is known as a PHOTON

Animation from NCAR shows this simple vibrational process:

View attachment 262031

That's ONE Carbon atom in the middle and TWO Oxygen atoms on the outside.

Like I said before they are indeed involved.

You can stop ignoring the hard evidence.

Congratulations you finally got the picture. So to speak.
That's right; it's the vibration, or bending mode that is involved in GHGs.


.

 

[Wuwei]

Never said it was. Ask your OP. He is the one who brought up distant stars, color temperature, collimated light and so much more totally unrelated to greenhouse theories! ALL of this extraneous dialog was generated by several of YOU simply because I gave a very simple definition as asked for by the OP and qualified my background as being in the physics sciences.

I've yet to hear that any of you even have a high school diploma.

That doesn't matter anymore. Sunsetommy finally understood what I was talking about. It's the vibration mode that is important in 15 micron absorption and emission.

But his animation is wrong in one important aspect. The CO2 that is excited by an incoming photon most likely will NOT emit a photon as the animation suggests. A collision with another gas molecule is much more likely to happen. In that way the capture of a photon by CO2 will transfer it's energy to linear kinetic energy of a different molecule and go to it's ground state without emission. The gain in the other molecule of course is random and manifests as local heat.

.

 

[Wuwei]

The trenberth cartoon? HAAHAHHHAHHA SNORT HAAAHHAAHAAHAHAAHAH NNSNORT HHHA AHAAAHAHHHAHAHHA

Anyone who takes the trenberth cartoon seriously is a top shelf idiot...

Yes, we know how you feel about that. You don't believe that CO2 in a vibration mode emits radiation isotropically. Your reason is because of a failure in black body radiation near a warmer object. Many people here don't believe that failure.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whatever the CO2 molecule is doing with the energy, the fact remains that the energy radiated from the surface of the earth...any belief that radiation from the surface of the earth can result in warming is a de facto belief that a body can be warmed by reabsorbing its own energy

Whatever SSDD. By your bizarroland version of physics, a blanket doesn't keep you warm.

A blanket can't raise your temperature...and it doesn't do what it does by means of anything like a radiative greenhouse effect.

Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

You create buzzwords like 'spontaneous'. The surface spontaneously radiatrs because the Sun added energy and reduces entropy. The atmosphere spontaneously radiates because the surface added energy and reduced entropy.

Sorry guy...not my words...I just go along with the laws of physics...sorry if they throw a monkey wrench in your made up greenhouse hypothesis.

I am not going to go further.

Of course not...you do this every time...talk and talk and talk but when it becomes clear that you aren't going to be able to support your beliefs with anything like the actual laws of physics, you walk away. It is to be expected...a belief is a very hard thing to overcome...especially when you come to hold said belief in spite of reality.

Sorry guy...not my words...I just go along with the laws of physics...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Never said it was. Ask your OP. He is the one who brought up distant stars, color temperature, collimated light and so much more totally unrelated to greenhouse theories! ALL of this extraneous dialog was generated by several of YOU simply because I gave a very simple definition as asked for by the OP and qualified my background as being in the physics sciences.

I've yet to hear that any of you even have a high school diploma.

That doesn't matter anymore. Sunsetommy finally understood what I was talking about. It's the vibration mode that is important in 15 micron absorption and emission.

But his animation is wrong in one important aspect. The CO2 that is excited by an incoming photon most likely will NOT emit a photon as the animation suggests. A collision with another gas molecule is much more likely to happen. In that way the capture of a photon by CO2 will transfer it's energy to linear kinetic energy of a different molecule and go to it's ground state without emission. The gain in the other molecule of course is random and manifests as local heat.

.

Oh my!

I NEVER once disputed that it vibrates in contact with specific IR, what YOU couldn't admit was that the MOLECULE was entirely built by those 16 Valence Electrons, in a configuration that made it possible for it to absorb those three IR bands that it vibrates in, heck I showed you the molecular formula. Stop with your obvious dishonest backtracking as you never refuted that the 16 Valence Electrons that make up the Molecule made it possible.

Of course the NCAR chart didn't cover every aspect, that is why I called it a simple animation chart. The point I made with it apparently STILL flies over your head. Here is what I wrote about that animation,

"Animation from NCAR shows this simple vibrational process:"

Snicker...….

 

[jc456]

The entire climate thing is a fraud.

Entire climate thing? Are you thinking the physical basis of the GHE is fraudulent? If so, can you be more specific?

.

sure, 99% of the CO2 absorbed IR is handed off on collisions resulting in a conduction. If 99% hand their energy off, then how does downward IR from CO2 occur?

 

[toobfreak]

I've only asked you to explain one thing to me clown, SHOW ME A LINK to a scientific article that sites sunlight as collimated light. You haven't. As to the rest, you've not shown you are trained in anything but dog catcher, so I listen to nothing you say. Any butt munch can produce a chart of wavy lines and the words "greenhouse effect." OF COURSE there is a greenhouse effect you Idiot! Without it, Earth would be as cold as the North Pole. Wow.

Why did you link to my post refuting your understanding of the Atmospheric Window, when all you are doing is whinging about collimation again?

Collimated light
light whose rays are parallel, and therefore will spread minimally as it propagates

I think that is a reasonable description of sunlight arriving at the Earth. If you want to use a different word then you are free to do so.

Still waiting for you to show me ONE EXAMPLE of that term "collimated light" being used in science literature. You don't just pull the word "collimated" out of thin air! If you can't then it invalidates everything else you claim as well as being made up!

FRAUD!

CHARLATAN!

What makes your opinions on climate change anymore valid than a shoe salesman's?

Wow!!!!

You really are unhinged!

How often have you had Restraining Orders taken out on you?

So you have no documentation anywhere of the term "collimated light" ever being used by anyone anywhere and you just made it up. I thought so.

When I used to own a 25" F5 Obsession Telescope (Yes the Mirror was 25" across, 2" thick) I had to use a Collimating Laser unit, similar to a 2" Ocular in size, to line up the Large and small mirrors together, it was a spread pattern light to account for the edges and large mirror tilt, this way the image would be sharp and in focus with minor off axis errors and cometary star images to a minimum.

Otherwise never see the phrase collimating light/laser anywhere.

So you knew the dentist Dave Kreige! Agreed. Collimation is the act of aligning or being aligned, it is not simply a "state" of radiating light like that of a light bulb. By the OP's definitions then, if sunlight is collimated, so then is an ordinary light bulb, which is ridiculous.

 

[jc456]

Never said it was. Ask your OP. He is the one who brought up distant stars, color temperature, collimated light and so much more totally unrelated to greenhouse theories! ALL of this extraneous dialog was generated by several of YOU simply because I gave a very simple definition as asked for by the OP and qualified my background as being in the physics sciences.

I've yet to hear that any of you even have a high school diploma.

That doesn't matter anymore. Sunsetommy finally understood what I was talking about. It's the vibration mode that is important in 15 micron absorption and emission.

But his animation is wrong in one important aspect. The CO2 that is excited by an incoming photon most likely will NOT emit a photon as the animation suggests. A collision with another gas molecule is much more likely to happen. In that way the capture of a photon by CO2 will transfer it's energy to linear kinetic energy of a different molecule and go to it's ground state without emission. The gain in the other molecule of course is random and manifests as local heat.

.

so, if you agree that most all CO2 transfers its energy, how is it possible for CO2 to radiate the absorbed IR back to the surface? I'm still waiting on that explanation!

 

[toobfreak]

My interpretation of you is that you are an unequivocal idiot. Always has been. Always will. Just one more unqualified voice in the dark. Your opinion means nothing.

Fair enough. I will take that assertion as seriously as The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space.

Without the atmosphere, NO greenhouse effect takes place. Really pretty easy to understand.

 

[toobfreak]

Never said it was. Ask your OP. He is the one who brought up distant stars, color temperature, collimated light and so much more totally unrelated to greenhouse theories! ALL of this extraneous dialog was generated by several of YOU simply because I gave a very simple definition as asked for by the OP and qualified my background as being in the physics sciences.

I've yet to hear that any of you even have a high school diploma.

That doesn't matter anymore. Sunsetommy finally understood what I was talking about. It's the vibration mode that is important in 15 micron absorption and emission.

But his animation is wrong in one important aspect. The CO2 that is excited by an incoming photon most likely will NOT emit a photon as the animation suggests. A collision with another gas molecule is much more likely to happen. In that way the capture of a photon by CO2 will transfer it's energy to linear kinetic energy of a different molecule and go to it's ground state without emission. The gain in the other molecule of course is random and manifests as local heat.

.

Actually, no. If a CO2 atom is excited by a photon, it has taken some part of that photon and converted it to heat, the source of the excitation. It will then re-radiate that heat in the form of another photon returning to its ground state. Gas molecules OTOH are rather far apart and collisions comparatively less likely.

 

[toobfreak]

Never said it was. Ask your OP. He is the one who brought up distant stars, color temperature, collimated light and so much more totally unrelated to greenhouse theories! ALL of this extraneous dialog was generated by several of YOU simply because I gave a very simple definition as asked for by the OP and qualified my background as being in the physics sciences.

I've yet to hear that any of you even have a high school diploma.

That doesn't matter anymore. Sunsetommy finally understood what I was talking about. It's the vibration mode that is important in 15 micron absorption and emission.

But his animation is wrong in one important aspect. The CO2 that is excited by an incoming photon most likely will NOT emit a photon as the animation suggests. A collision with another gas molecule is much more likely to happen. In that way the capture of a photon by CO2 will transfer it's energy to linear kinetic energy of a different molecule and go to it's ground state without emission. The gain in the other molecule of course is random and manifests as local heat.

.

so, if you agree that most all CO2 transfers its energy, how is it possible for CO2 to radiate the absorbed IR back to the surface? I'm still waiting on that explanation!

Not sure all of the context here as I've long since given up closely flowing this thread, but if I understand you right, when gas molecules in the atmosphere re-radiated their stored IR energy, some of that energy is directed downward at the Earth slightly warming it as well as taking in IR from the Earth and trapping it in by absorbing the IR and then re-radiating it back.

When using a telescope, especially a refractor with glass at the front subject to dewing, one common practice when temporarily not using it, is to aim the scope at a tree or a building. The mild IR radiating from these objects as they cool is actually enough to help keep the glass above ambient and prevent the formation of dew on its surface.

 

[SSDD]

Whatever the CO2 molecule is doing with the energy, the fact remains that the energy radiated from the surface of the earth...any belief that radiation from the surface of the earth can result in warming is a de facto belief that a body can be warmed by reabsorbing its own energy

Whatever SSDD. By your bizarroland version of physics, a blanket doesn't keep you warm.

A blanket can't raise your temperature...and it doesn't do what it does by means of anything like a radiative greenhouse effect.

Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

You create buzzwords like 'spontaneous'. The surface spontaneously radiatrs because the Sun added energy and reduces entropy. The atmosphere spontaneously radiates because the surface added energy and reduced entropy.

Sorry guy...not my words...I just go along with the laws of physics...sorry if they throw a monkey wrench in your made up greenhouse hypothesis.

I am not going to go further.

Of course not...you do this every time...talk and talk and talk but when it becomes clear that you aren't going to be able to support your beliefs with anything like the actual laws of physics, you walk away. It is to be expected...a belief is a very hard thing to overcome...especially when you come to hold said belief in spite of reality.

Sorry guy...not my words...I just go along with the laws of physics...

View attachment 262062

Feel free to bring forward any quote from me, or any instance where I have altered or distorted any physical law in an attempt to make a point...

We both know no such quote or example will be forthcoming..

 

[Wuwei]

Never said it was. Ask your OP. He is the one who brought up distant stars, color temperature, collimated light and so much more totally unrelated to greenhouse theories! ALL of this extraneous dialog was generated by several of YOU simply because I gave a very simple definition as asked for by the OP and qualified my background as being in the physics sciences.

I've yet to hear that any of you even have a high school diploma.

That doesn't matter anymore. Sunsetommy finally understood what I was talking about. It's the vibration mode that is important in 15 micron absorption and emission.

But his animation is wrong in one important aspect. The CO2 that is excited by an incoming photon most likely will NOT emit a photon as the animation suggests. A collision with another gas molecule is much more likely to happen. In that way the capture of a photon by CO2 will transfer it's energy to linear kinetic energy of a different molecule and go to it's ground state without emission. The gain in the other molecule of course is random and manifests as local heat.

.

Actually, no. If a CO2 atom is excited by a photon, it has taken some part of that photon and converted it to heat, the source of the excitation. It will then re-radiate that heat in the form of another photon returning to its ground state. Gas molecules OTOH are rather far apart and collisions comparatively less likely.

You are right that a CO2 molecule excited by a 15 micron photon is a part of the internal random thermal energy.

However, the prominent process is not to re-radiate while in that excited state because the relaxation time of the CO2 excited state was measured to be about 26 microSec and the mean collision rate at STP is around 2 nSec (I think. I'm too lazy to look it up again, but you can check that if you want.) That means the probability of collision is extremely high compared to the vibrational relaxation rate.

The upshot is that the probability of the process shown in sunsetommy's animation ranges from one in a few hundred thousand; to one in a trillion; depending on which blog you read. There is a lot more to it than that, if there is any interest.

.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, no. If a CO2 atom is excited by a photon, it has taken some part of that photon and converted it to heat, the source of the excitation. It will then re-radiate that heat in the form of another photon returning to its ground state. Gas molecules OTOH are rather far apart and collisions comparatively less likely.

On that particular point, I believe you are mistaken I defer to Dr. Wiliam Happer. I am sure you are familiar with the man. This from an email exchange regarding the transfer of energy in the atmosphere. Dr. Happer's responses to the questions are in blue.


From: William Happer Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:29 AM
To: David Burton
Dear David,

Some response are entered below in square brackets and upper case. Thanks for your interest!

Will


From:David Burton
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 PM
To: William Happer
Subject: Another dumb question from Dave

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]


You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.


So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]


In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]


Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]


(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]


If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]


Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The entire climate thing is a fraud.

Entire climate thing? Are you thinking the physical basis of the GHE is fraudulent? If so, can you be more specific?

.

sure, 99% of the CO2 absorbed IR is handed off on collisions resulting in a conduction. If 99% hand their energy off, then how does downward IR from CO2 occur?

If 99% hand their energy off, then how does downward IR from CO2 occur?

If 99% hand their energy off, then how does spaceward IR from CO2 occur?

 

[jc456]

The entire climate thing is a fraud.

Entire climate thing? Are you thinking the physical basis of the GHE is fraudulent? If so, can you be more specific?

.

sure, 99% of the CO2 absorbed IR is handed off on collisions resulting in a conduction. If 99% hand their energy off, then how does downward IR from CO2 occur?

If 99% hand their energy off, then how does downward IR from CO2 occur?

If 99% hand their energy off, then how does spaceward IR from CO2 occur?

ask William Happer

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whatever the CO2 molecule is doing with the energy, the fact remains that the energy radiated from the surface of the earth...any belief that radiation from the surface of the earth can result in warming is a de facto belief that a body can be warmed by reabsorbing its own energy

Whatever SSDD. By your bizarroland version of physics, a blanket doesn't keep you warm.

A blanket can't raise your temperature...and it doesn't do what it does by means of anything like a radiative greenhouse effect.

Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

You create buzzwords like 'spontaneous'. The surface spontaneously radiatrs because the Sun added energy and reduces entropy. The atmosphere spontaneously radiates because the surface added energy and reduced entropy.

Sorry guy...not my words...I just go along with the laws of physics...sorry if they throw a monkey wrench in your made up greenhouse hypothesis.

I am not going to go further.

Of course not...you do this every time...talk and talk and talk but when it becomes clear that you aren't going to be able to support your beliefs with anything like the actual laws of physics, you walk away. It is to be expected...a belief is a very hard thing to overcome...especially when you come to hold said belief in spite of reality.

Sorry guy...not my words...I just go along with the laws of physics...

View attachment 262062

Feel free to bring forward any quote from me, or any instance where I have altered or distorted any physical law in an attempt to make a point...

We both know no such quote or example will be forthcoming..

Of course it does...it says that the output of the radiator is dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

 

[jc456]

Whatever the CO2 molecule is doing with the energy, the fact remains that the energy radiated from the surface of the earth...any belief that radiation from the surface of the earth can result in warming is a de facto belief that a body can be warmed by reabsorbing its own energy

Whatever SSDD. By your bizarroland version of physics, a blanket doesn't keep you warm.

A blanket can't raise your temperature...and it doesn't do what it does by means of anything like a radiative greenhouse effect.

Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

You create buzzwords like 'spontaneous'. The surface spontaneously radiatrs because the Sun added energy and reduces entropy. The atmosphere spontaneously radiates because the surface added energy and reduced entropy.

Sorry guy...not my words...I just go along with the laws of physics...sorry if they throw a monkey wrench in your made up greenhouse hypothesis.

I am not going to go further.

Of course not...you do this every time...talk and talk and talk but when it becomes clear that you aren't going to be able to support your beliefs with anything like the actual laws of physics, you walk away. It is to be expected...a belief is a very hard thing to overcome...especially when you come to hold said belief in spite of reality.

Sorry guy...not my words...I just go along with the laws of physics...

View attachment 262062

Feel free to bring forward any quote from me, or any instance where I have altered or distorted any physical law in an attempt to make a point...

We both know no such quote or example will be forthcoming..

Of course it does...it says that the output of the radiator is dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

wash, rinse, repeat, every fking thread from you.