What the science says

[Crick]

That much

And I'd like an explanation of what you think your "emission peak" statement actually means.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That much

And I'd like an explanation of what you think your "emission peak" statement actually means.

LOL... wheres the temperature axis?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is embedded in your last post...

Are you recinding that statement?

No.

I could just as easily infer that your theory supposes that the non-excited gas will pop off a photon to its excited neighbors

Well, yes, that could happen.

The molecules are constantly colliding with each other. We know the average speed from the temperature but we don't know the speed of any individual molecule precisely unless we measure it, which of course would change the speed.

A molecule that absorbs a photon gains POTENTIAL energy (plus the small amount of momentum that is a fundamental of entropy). During the next molecular collision the excited molecule may or may not give up the potential energy, either to another molecule's potential energy; or more likely ,add that energy to the pool of kinetic energy. Adding to kinetic energy is by definition warming the temperature. AKA thermalization of radiation.

The opposite also happens. Closer to the top of the atmosphere, collisions excite the CO2 molecules but because there are fewer collisions it is more likely that the molecules will stay excited long enough to re-emit and that the reemission will escape to space.

Therefore CO2 tends to warm the atmosphere lower down but cool the atmosphere higher up.

Increasing CO2 concentration decreases the height to extinction of certain IR bands radiated by the surface. And raises the height in the upper atmosphere where radiation can escape, which is typically cooler and therefore less radiation.

I am not saying I believe the IPCC consensus position. I am saying that I believe CO2 has a warming influence.

CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere at all. You believe in the magic..you just believe it isn't as strong as the off the deep end wackos believe...but belief in magic is belief in magic...even if it is belief in weak magic.

CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere at all.

Does it absorb IR from the surface? Does it collide with other molecules?

About 1 in a billion CO2 molecules absorbs a bit of IR radiation from the surface and then emits it...along a temperature gradient which is always moving from warm to cool...the other nine hundred ninety nine million nine hundred ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine CO2 molecules pick up a bit of energy via collisions just like O2 and N2 and pass it along via conduction. CO2 acts as a hole in the blanket allowing some small bit of energy to move on out of the atmosphere at a much quicker rate than does convection and conduction.

And what warms the atmosphere is energy...not CO2.

'
absorbs a bit of IR radiation from the surface and then emits it...along a temperature gradient which is always moving from warm to cool...

Why do you feel that?

 

[SSDD]

That much

And I'd like an explanation of what you think your "emission peak" statement actually means.

Where is the temperature axis of your supposed proof?...

Radiating Temperature

(Tr), a physical parameter characterizing the total (for all wavelengths) radiant emittance Be of a radiating body. It is equal to the temperature of a black-body at which the blackbody’s emittance

.

The laws of thermal radiation permit the expression

to be written in the form

, where ∊T is the emissivity of the body, σ the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and T the absolute temperature of the body. If the value of ∊T isknown and the temperature Tr has been measured (with a radiation pyrometer), it is possible to calculate the temperature ofthe body by the relation T = Tr∊T–¼ For thermal radiation of all bodies other than a blackbody, ∊T < 1; therefore, Tr < T. In thecase of luminescence, however, Tr may be greater than T.

So this tells us that the peak radiating temperature of CO2 is -80C....now again....how much warming do you think that causes?

 

[IanC]

SSDD has as much problems collecting inferred knowledge from graphs as Crick does.

Satellites measuring outgoing radiation from the earth 'see' CO2 specific radiation coming from a source that appears to be -80C. So what does that mean?

It means that CO2 specific radiation cannot pass through the atmosphere and escape to space until it reaches a height in the atmosphere where the density of the air is so thin that it is no longer likely to absorb that radiation. How high? The layer that corresponds to -80C. (Yes I know it is a fuzzy boundary)

Until that point any radiation emitted by CO2 is retained by the atmosphere, the Greenhouse Effect.

The so-called Atmospheric Window allows radiation around 10 microns to escape directly to space. This radiation is not part of the Greenhouse Effect. Where do the satellites 'see' this radiation coming from? The layer coming from a temperature of +15C, the surface.

 

[jc456]

SSDD has as much problems collecting inferred knowledge from graphs as Crick does.

Satellites measuring outgoing radiation from the earth 'see' CO2 specific radiation coming from a source that appears to be -80C. So what does that mean?

It means that CO2 specific radiation cannot pass through the atmosphere and escape to space until it reaches a height in the atmosphere where the density of the air is so thin that it is no longer likely to absorb that radiation. How high? The layer that corresponds to -80C. (Yes I know it is a fuzzy boundary)

Until that point any radiation emitted by CO2 is retained by the atmosphere, the Greenhouse Effect.

The so-called Atmospheric Window allows radiation around 10 microns to escape directly to space. This radiation is not part of the Greenhouse Effect. Where do the satellites 'see' this radiation coming from? The layer coming from a temperature of +15C, the surface.

no such thing as a greenhouse gas. Sorry Ian. you can't prove it. I laugh as I see you and others in here now agreeing that the molecules collide. You even agree with it, that means they don't emit when they collide correct?

 

[IanC]

a graph to go with my comment above. the white areas under the red line indicate how much radiation has been absorbed by the atmosphere. the large bite in the middle is from CO2

 

[IanC]

SSDD has as much problems collecting inferred knowledge from graphs as Crick does.

Satellites measuring outgoing radiation from the earth 'see' CO2 specific radiation coming from a source that appears to be -80C. So what does that mean?

It means that CO2 specific radiation cannot pass through the atmosphere and escape to space until it reaches a height in the atmosphere where the density of the air is so thin that it is no longer likely to absorb that radiation. How high? The layer that corresponds to -80C. (Yes I know it is a fuzzy boundary)

Until that point any radiation emitted by CO2 is retained by the atmosphere, the Greenhouse Effect.

The so-called Atmospheric Window allows radiation around 10 microns to escape directly to space. This radiation is not part of the Greenhouse Effect. Where do the satellites 'see' this radiation coming from? The layer coming from a temperature of +15C, the surface.

no such thing as a greenhouse gas. Sorry Ian. you can't prove it. I laugh as I see you and others in here now agreeing that the molecules collide. You even agree with it, that means they don't emit when they collide correct?

God but you're an idiot.

I couldnt be bothered to explain to you again. Co2 molecules that absorb a photon are likely to pass that energy to the energy pool of the atmosphere via collision. CO2 molecules that do emit a photon are likely to have received the energy for the photon from the energy pool of the atmosphere via collisions

 

[jc456]

SSDD has as much problems collecting inferred knowledge from graphs as Crick does.

Satellites measuring outgoing radiation from the earth 'see' CO2 specific radiation coming from a source that appears to be -80C. So what does that mean?

It means that CO2 specific radiation cannot pass through the atmosphere and escape to space until it reaches a height in the atmosphere where the density of the air is so thin that it is no longer likely to absorb that radiation. How high? The layer that corresponds to -80C. (Yes I know it is a fuzzy boundary)

Until that point any radiation emitted by CO2 is retained by the atmosphere, the Greenhouse Effect.

The so-called Atmospheric Window allows radiation around 10 microns to escape directly to space. This radiation is not part of the Greenhouse Effect. Where do the satellites 'see' this radiation coming from? The layer coming from a temperature of +15C, the surface.

no such thing as a greenhouse gas. Sorry Ian. you can't prove it. I laugh as I see you and others in here now agreeing that the molecules collide. You even agree with it, that means they don't emit when they collide correct?

God but you're an idiot.

I couldnt be bothered to explain to you again. Co2 molecules that absorb a photon are likely to pass that energy to the energy pool of the atmosphere via collision. CO2 molecules that do emit a photon are likely to have received the energy for the photon from the energy pool of the atmosphere via collisions

hence no back radiation. thanks!!

 

[IanC]

Yet another fact free, illogical declarative statement from jc. Care to explain the missing section before 'hence'?

Of course not.

 

[jc456]

Yet another fact free, illogical declarative statement from jc. Care to explain the missing section before 'hence'?

Of course not.

well if molecules are colliding, they aren't emitting. I thought you said it properly. shit even thanked yo.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet another fact free, illogical declarative statement from jc. Care to explain the missing section before 'hence'?

Of course not.

well if molecules are colliding, they aren't emitting. I thought you said it properly. shit even thanked yo.

well if molecules are colliding, they aren't emitting.

If they aren't emitting, that IR isn't escaping to space.

What did I say earlier about slowing loss of heat? LOL!

 

[jc456]

Yet another fact free, illogical declarative statement from jc. Care to explain the missing section before 'hence'?

Of course not.

well if molecules are colliding, they aren't emitting. I thought you said it properly. shit even thanked yo.

well if molecules are colliding, they aren't emitting.

If they aren't emitting, that IR isn't escaping to space.

What did I say earlier about slowing loss of heat? LOL!

well it ain't because of back radiation if it isn't emitting.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SSDD has as much problems collecting inferred knowledge from graphs as Crick does.

Satellites measuring outgoing radiation from the earth 'see' CO2 specific radiation coming from a source that appears to be -80C. So what does that mean?

It means that CO2 specific radiation cannot pass through the atmosphere and escape to space until it reaches a height in the atmosphere where the density of the air is so thin that it is no longer likely to absorb that radiation. How high? The layer that corresponds to -80C. (Yes I know it is a fuzzy boundary)

Until that point any radiation emitted by CO2 is retained by the atmosphere, the Greenhouse Effect.

The so-called Atmospheric Window allows radiation around 10 microns to escape directly to space. This radiation is not part of the Greenhouse Effect. Where do the satellites 'see' this radiation coming from? The layer coming from a temperature of +15C, the surface.

And "retained by the atmosphere" you mean that the excited CO2 is hotter than it's non-excited neighbor?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet another fact free, illogical declarative statement from jc. Care to explain the missing section before 'hence'?

Of course not.

well if molecules are colliding, they aren't emitting. I thought you said it properly. shit even thanked yo.

well if molecules are colliding, they aren't emitting.

If they aren't emitting, that IR isn't escaping to space.

What did I say earlier about slowing loss of heat? LOL!

well it ain't because of back radiation if it isn't emitting.

You don't think collisions only reduce the energy in CO2, do you?

 

[jc456]

Yet another fact free, illogical declarative statement from jc. Care to explain the missing section before 'hence'?

Of course not.

well if molecules are colliding, they aren't emitting. I thought you said it properly. shit even thanked yo.

well if molecules are colliding, they aren't emitting.

If they aren't emitting, that IR isn't escaping to space.

What did I say earlier about slowing loss of heat? LOL!

well it ain't because of back radiation if it isn't emitting.

You don't think collisions only reduce the energy in CO2, do you?

why?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD has as much problems collecting inferred knowledge from graphs as Crick does.

Satellites measuring outgoing radiation from the earth 'see' CO2 specific radiation coming from a source that appears to be -80C. So what does that mean?

It means that CO2 specific radiation cannot pass through the atmosphere and escape to space until it reaches a height in the atmosphere where the density of the air is so thin that it is no longer likely to absorb that radiation. How high? The layer that corresponds to -80C. (Yes I know it is a fuzzy boundary)

Until that point any radiation emitted by CO2 is retained by the atmosphere, the Greenhouse Effect.

The so-called Atmospheric Window allows radiation around 10 microns to escape directly to space. This radiation is not part of the Greenhouse Effect. Where do the satellites 'see' this radiation coming from? The layer coming from a temperature of +15C, the surface.

No ian..it just moves on via conduction...radiation is such a small part of moving IR to the upper atmosphere that it is nearly irrelevant.

 

[SSDD]

a graph to go with my comment above. the white areas under the red line indicate how much radiation has been absorbed by the atmosphere. the large bite in the middle is from CO2

Not how much ian...just which frequencies...and again, the IR is absorbed and then emitted on towards a cooler area in the temperature gradient.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD has as much problems collecting inferred knowledge from graphs as Crick does.

Satellites measuring outgoing radiation from the earth 'see' CO2 specific radiation coming from a source that appears to be -80C. So what does that mean?

It means that CO2 specific radiation cannot pass through the atmosphere and escape to space until it reaches a height in the atmosphere where the density of the air is so thin that it is no longer likely to absorb that radiation. How high? The layer that corresponds to -80C. (Yes I know it is a fuzzy boundary)

Until that point any radiation emitted by CO2 is retained by the atmosphere, the Greenhouse Effect.

The so-called Atmospheric Window allows radiation around 10 microns to escape directly to space. This radiation is not part of the Greenhouse Effect. Where do the satellites 'see' this radiation coming from? The layer coming from a temperature of +15C, the surface.

no such thing as a greenhouse gas. Sorry Ian. you can't prove it. I laugh as I see you and others in here now agreeing that the molecules collide. You even agree with it, that means they don't emit when they collide correct?

God but you're an idiot.

I couldnt be bothered to explain to you again. Co2 molecules that absorb a photon are likely to pass that energy to the energy pool of the atmosphere via collision. CO2 molecules that do emit a photon are likely to have received the energy for the photon from the energy pool of the atmosphere via collisions

1 in a billion....and even then, the energy moves on to cooler pastures.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet another fact free, illogical declarative statement from jc. Care to explain the missing section before 'hence'?

Of course not.

well if molecules are colliding, they aren't emitting. I thought you said it properly. shit even thanked yo.

well if molecules are colliding, they aren't emitting.

If they aren't emitting, that IR isn't escaping to space.

What did I say earlier about slowing loss of heat? LOL!

well it ain't because of back radiation if it isn't emitting.

You don't think collisions only reduce the energy in CO2, do you?

why?

Physics!