What the science says

[jc456]

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!

like conduction?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

and again, the IR is absorbed and then emitted on towards a cooler area in the temperature gradient.

Or toward the warmer ground.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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!

like conduction?

Yes, conduction is also physics.

 

[jc456]

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!

like conduction?

Yes, conduction is also physics.

It's also what helps maintain the warm at the surface.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

why?

Physics!

like conduction?

Yes, conduction is also physics.

It's also what helps maintain the warm at the surface.

Great. So what happens when a collision adds energy to CO2?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

why?

Physics!

like conduction?

Yes, conduction is also physics.

It's also what helps maintain the warm at the surface.

Great. So what happens when a collision adds energy to CO2?

Since it can't heat up the CO2 it's re-emitted. There's a 1 in a billion chance that the CO2 absorbs the photon in the first place and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth , so basically vertical little happens

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Physics!

like conduction?

Yes, conduction is also physics.

It's also what helps maintain the warm at the surface.

Great. So what happens when a collision adds energy to CO2?

Since it can't heat up the CO2 it's re-emitted. There's a 1 in a billion chance that the CO2 absorbs the photon in the first place and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth , so basically vertical little happens

and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth ,

Or emitted toward the ground (shhhh.....that's back radiation.....shhhhh)

 

[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.

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

I am pretty sure we have been through this numerous times.

It takes a lot of stored energy to keep an atmosphere aloft in the gravity field and at its temperature. These two things are interconnected. The first is potential energy, and the second is kinetic energy. You do realize that the kinetic energy portion, the speed of the molecules is what defines the temperature? Every collision rearranges the proportion of kinetic to potential energy.

Next, we have to decide whether molecules absorbing photons is potential or kinetic energy. Either an electron is bumped into a higher energy orbital or the bonds between the constituent elements is changed in fashion that is called vibration. Neither of these changes the speed of the molecules, so it obviously is a change of potential energy.

To be more complete, there is also an exchange of momentum between the emitters and absorbers. A tiny fraction which drives the two away from each other, and ensures that entropy ensues.

In a collision the two (or more) molecules crash together and the potential and kinetic energies are briefly combined by deforming the electron shells. When they move apart the combined energy is once again divided up into potential and kinetic energies. The individual molecule may have more or less of each upon leaving. An excited molecule may return to ground state at a different speed, or a ground state molecule may exit in an excited state. There are numerous possibilities. These collisions also cause blackbody radiation to be formed. Higher energy photons from high speed head on collisions, lower energy photons from glancing or low speed collisions.

To reiterate, a CO2 molecule that absorbs a photon simply adds to the total energy of the atmosphere, part of which is in kinetic energy AKA temperature.

This also makes it easier to understand why, at higher altitude where it is less dense hense fewer collisions , that CO2 molecules can hold onto the excited state long enough to emit a photon that won't simply be recaptured.

 

[IanC]

Since it can't heat up the CO2 it's re-emitted. There's a 1 in a billion chance that the CO2 absorbs the photon in the first place and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth , so basically vertical little happens

Surface sourced CO2 specific IR radiation is absorbed to extinction by roughly 10 metres of atmosphere at STP. As density decreases with height that distance gets longer the further up in the atmosphere you get, until you reach a height where CO2 specific radiation is more likely to escape than be reabsorbed. At that height the temperature has cooled dramatically and the amount of radiation produced is much less than at the surface. The atmosphere has gained a net amount of energy that is equal to the amount of surface IR absorbed less the amount of TOA IR released. That energy is used in part to increase kinetic speed of atmospheric molecules, otherwise known as temperature.

This is the basic mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect.

 

[IanC]

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

why?

Physics!

like conduction?

Yes, conduction is also physics.

It's also what helps maintain the warm at the surface.

OMG! What a full blown retard you are.

Conduction maintains the 'warm' at the surface? How does that work exactly? The energy stored in the Earth's core plus the energy produced from radioactive decay produces a trickle equivalent to a rounding error. Are you talking about thermal inertia in the oceans and land losing stored energy from sunlight to the surface at night?

Conduction loses heat to the atmosphere in a similar way to radiation. The amount of power moving is proportional to the temperature difference. What is different though is that conduction is mediated via matter, therefore it is only a net exchange. Unlike radiation which is made up of gross flows in either direction that add up to a net exchange.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

like conduction?

Yes, conduction is also physics.

It's also what helps maintain the warm at the surface.

Great. So what happens when a collision adds energy to CO2?

Since it can't heat up the CO2 it's re-emitted. There's a 1 in a billion chance that the CO2 absorbs the photon in the first place and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth , so basically vertical little happens

and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth ,

Or emitted toward the ground (shhhh.....that's back radiation.....shhhhh)

I take it back, it cannot head back to a warmer area, it ALL radiates away. It's not random at all.

 

[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.

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

I am pretty sure we have been through this numerous times.

It takes a lot of stored energy to keep an atmosphere aloft in the gravity field and at its temperature. These two things are interconnected. The first is potential energy, and the second is kinetic energy. You do realize that the kinetic energy portion, the speed of the molecules is what defines the temperature? Every collision rearranges the proportion of kinetic to potential energy.

Next, we have to decide whether molecules absorbing photons is potential or kinetic energy. Either an electron is bumped into a higher energy orbital or the bonds between the constituent elements is changed in fashion that is called vibration. Neither of these changes the speed of the molecules, so it obviously is a change of potential energy.

To be more complete, there is also an exchange of momentum between the emitters and absorbers. A tiny fraction which drives the two away from each other, and ensures that entropy ensues.

In a collision the two (or more) molecules crash together and the potential and kinetic energies are briefly combined by deforming the electron shells. When they move apart the combined energy is once again divided up into potential and kinetic energies. The individual molecule may have more or less of each upon leaving. An excited molecule may return to ground state at a different speed, or a ground state molecule may exit in an excited state. There are numerous possibilities. These collisions also cause blackbody radiation to be formed. Higher energy photons from high speed head on collisions, lower energy photons from glancing or low speed collisions.

To reiterate, a CO2 molecule that absorbs a photon simply adds to the total energy of the atmosphere, part of which is in kinetic energy AKA temperature.

This also makes it easier to understand why, at higher altitude where it is less dense hense fewer collisions , that CO2 molecules can hold onto the excited state long enough to emit a photon that won't simply be recaptured.

Sorry ian...you give radiation a much better place at the table than it deserves...conduction rules and in the lower atmosphere, radiation barely earns a place on the floor with the dogs..

 

[SSDD]

Since it can't heat up the CO2 it's re-emitted. There's a 1 in a billion chance that the CO2 absorbs the photon in the first place and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth , so basically vertical little happens

Surface sourced CO2 specific IR radiation is absorbed to extinction by roughly 10 metres of atmosphere at STP. As density decreases with height that distance gets longer the further up in the atmosphere you get, until you reach a height where CO2 specific radiation is more likely to escape than be reabsorbed. At that height the temperature has cooled dramatically and the amount of radiation produced is much less than at the surface. The atmosphere has gained a net amount of energy that is equal to the amount of surface IR absorbed less the amount of TOA IR released. That energy is used in part to increase kinetic speed of atmospheric molecules, otherwise known as temperature.

This is the basic mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect.

Agan...a 1 in a billion chance that a CO2 molecule emits a photon...and even less chance that that theoretical particle gets absorbed by another CO2 molecule...and whatever theoretical particles are emitted move on to a cooler part of the atmosphere...not back to the warmer earth. Again, from a photon's point of view, the distance to where it is going is zero, and the time it takes to get there is zero...just the same as for energy moving via conduction along a temperature gradient in a solid material.

 

[Crick]

But we're not nearly as interested in the photon's point of view as we are in ours, where it DOES take time to travel distance. Have you got a mechanism that allows all matter to know the temperature of its surroundings out to the farthest reaches of the universe? Do you have a mechanism for matter, down to a single atom, to control its photon emissions? Do you have a mechanism by which all matter would be able to predict what temperature matter will be in front of photons it emitted a second back (cause, you know, things move)? How about an hour back? A century back? A billion years back?

Your... 'idea' is complete idiotic lunacy

 

[SSDD]

But we're not nearly as interested in the photon's point of view as we are in ours, where it DOES take time to travel distance. Have you got a mechanism that allows all matter to know the temperature of its surroundings out to the farthest reaches of the universe? Do you have a mechanism for matter, down to a single atom, to control its photon emissions? Do you have a mechanism by which all matter would be able to predict what temperature matter will be in front of photons it emitted a second back (cause, you know, things move)? How about an hour back? A century back? A billion years back?

Your... 'idea' is complete idiotic lunacy

Of course you aren't because you reject anything that doesn't support your dogma....add the fact that the whole topic is just to big for someone like you to wrap your mind around and you are left with your fingers stuck firmly in your ears screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs so that you don't have to consider the fact that you have been wrong all along.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that when you are dealing with entities moving at the speed of light, your point of view is the one that is meaningless...they don't operate on your time or distance scale and unless you can wrap your head around how they experience the universe, you simply can't begin to understand what is happening...if you are going to consider what photons do, and how they behave, you must completely toss out your concept of time and distance....and I am afraid that you aren't bright enough to do that crick...you are stuck on stupid.

The mechanism crick, is the same as that for conduction...causing energy to move along a temperature grid in solid objects toward cooler areas....in the case of photons, it can be understood by taking the photon's point of view into consideration.... From its point of view, the time it takes to get anywhere is zero...and the distance to anywhere is zero....therefore, energy movement via radiation is no different than energy movement via conduction...energy moves along a temperature gradient always towards the cooler region...

And since from the photon's point of view time and distance to anywhere are zero, there is no need to predict anything....hold one hand near a heat source for a minute while running cold water over the other hand...now place them together...do you think the energy needs to "predict" where the cooler region is so that it can move on?

Sorry you can't wrap your mind around this....to bad you aren't actually an engineer....maybe this would be easier for you.

 

[Crick]

The effect on time perception while traveling at the speed of light is completely irrelevant to thermodynamics.

God are you stupid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But we're not nearly as interested in the photon's point of view as we are in ours, where it DOES take time to travel distance. Have you got a mechanism that allows all matter to know the temperature of its surroundings out to the farthest reaches of the universe? Do you have a mechanism for matter, down to a single atom, to control its photon emissions? Do you have a mechanism by which all matter would be able to predict what temperature matter will be in front of photons it emitted a second back (cause, you know, things move)? How about an hour back? A century back? A billion years back?

Your... 'idea' is complete idiotic lunacy

The photon does not experience time, so it IS everywhere at once, even at the "farthest reaches"

 

[Billy_Bob]

The effect on time perception while traveling at the speed of light is completely irrelevant to thermodynamics.

God are you stupid.

God are you stupid.

At least you admit you are now. That's progress! Its the first step, now we need to get you passed the denial stage...

 

[Billy_Bob]

But we're not nearly as interested in the photon's point of view as we are in ours, where it DOES take time to travel distance. Have you got a mechanism that allows all matter to know the temperature of its surroundings out to the farthest reaches of the universe? Do you have a mechanism for matter, down to a single atom, to control its photon emissions? Do you have a mechanism by which all matter would be able to predict what temperature matter will be in front of photons it emitted a second back (cause, you know, things move)? How about an hour back? A century back? A billion years back?

Your... 'idea' is complete idiotic lunacy

Of course you aren't because you reject anything that doesn't support your dogma....add the fact that the whole topic is just to big for someone like you to wrap your mind around and you are left with your fingers stuck firmly in your ears screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs so that you don't have to consider the fact that you have been wrong all along.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that when you are dealing with entities moving at the speed of light, your point of view is the one that is meaningless...they don't operate on your time or distance scale and unless you can wrap your head around how they experience the universe, you simply can't begin to understand what is happening...if you are going to consider what photons do, and how they behave, you must completely toss out your concept of time and distance....and I am afraid that you aren't bright enough to do that crick...you are stuck on stupid.

The mechanism crick, is the same as that for conduction...causing energy to move along a temperature grid in solid objects toward cooler areas....in the case of photons, it can be understood by taking the photon's point of view into consideration.... From its point of view, the time it takes to get anywhere is zero...and the distance to anywhere is zero....therefore, energy movement via radiation is no different than energy movement via conduction...energy moves along a temperature gradient always towards the cooler region...

And since from the photon's point of view time and distance to anywhere are zero, there is no need to predict anything....hold one hand near a heat source for a minute while running cold water over the other hand...now place them together...do you think the energy needs to "predict" where the cooler region is so that it can move on?

Sorry you can't wrap your mind around this....to bad you aren't actually an engineer....maybe this would be easier for you.

Trying to explain Quantum Mechanics to Crick is like trying to teach him how to read graphs.. It isn't going to happen. You get an A for the effort.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

Incorrect;

The red line is the "expected radiation" from a black body. The blue infilled area is the "Radiated at TOA" or lost to space region. The white area between the red line and the infilled is the potential energy absorbed by the atmosphere.

Now lets calculate the potential temperature rise. With just this graphs information and discounting convection and reflection the potential rise is just 0.3 deg C/decade given the earths weight of atmosphere. CO2 has little to do with our current temperature rise and when convection and reflection are placed into the equation the potential temp rise is less than 0.1 deg C/decade. In the last 150 years we have had a temp rise of just 0.8 deg C. well within the boundaries of "expected" results.

Please tell me you have not been taking lessons from Crick on graph reading...