Climategate - Round 2. How will the AGW proponents justify this one?

[westwall]

Again I don't have a religion, I'm an atheist. Some might call me an optimistic agnostic, but technically I am an atheist as I have no theology.

Of course you do. Considering the fact that you can't offer up one shred of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the changing climate and the activities of man, it stands to reason that you hold your position as an article of faith. That is a theology.

There's no "one" piece of evidence that establishes an "unequivocal" link with anything.

Only in your fantasy world, not in the real one.

 

[westwall]

No, I don't think so. Not too many on the right are blaming you. But the fact is the definition was accurate, right out of the dictionary, and was the ONLY one appropriate for the subject of global warmng. But I'm sure you can't help building a straw man when you are obviously so unable to defend your position on this subject.

Wow - so you even admit you picked and chose the definition of "religion" that suited you best! Wonderful! And using the same definition - we also have the religion of quantum physics, the religion of gravity, and the religion of evolution.

No dear. If I type really REALLY s - l - o - w - l - y, is it possible to get into a leftist pea brain that I picked the ONLY definition that describes the global warming and/or AGW religion as practiced by those who operate on absolute faith and very little credible evidence?

No Foxy, you can't type s-l-o-w-l-y enough for the likes of a "Defender of the Faith" like toober. His mind was made up at birth (his level of willful ignorance is genetic) so no amount of scientific evidence will divert him from his path. He must be a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow - so you even admit you picked and chose the definition of "religion" that suited you best! Wonderful! And using the same definition - we also have the religion of quantum physics, the religion of gravity, and the religion of evolution.

No dear. If I type really REALLY s - l - o - w - l - y, is it possible to get into a leftist pea brain that I picked the ONLY definition that describes the global warming and/or AGW religion as practiced by those who operate on absolute faith and very little credible evidence?

No Foxy, you can't type s-l-o-w-l-y enough for the likes of a "Defender of the Faith" like toober. His mind was made up at birth (his level of willful ignorance is genetic) so no amount of scientific evidence will divert him from his path. He must be a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Alas I fear you are right, but oh well. At least there are some here who are NOT doctoral candidates who seem quite capable of understanding and that is encouraging.

 

[daveman]

When you have something useful to add, get back to us.

Meaning, of course, that you will only accept pro-AGW opinions.

 

[wirebender]

A few points.

A) The radius of the Earth is 6371 km. Top of the stratosphere is 50 km. ((6371+50)^2 - 6371^2)/6371^2 = 0.0157.... The curvature terms in divergence and curl operators are thus small compared to the other terms - and its a perfectly reasonable approximation then to take the atmosphere in plane parallel coordinates. Its also reasonable to model the solar flux incident as the average over diurnal cycles, sense the time scale of the model is far greater than the length of that cycle.

Perhaps a flat earth model that denies night and day on this planet is perfectly reasonable to you. That alone says a great deal about your mindset.

B) That being said - WELCOME TO 2011. Its not as if scientists hung their hat on a plane parallel model that was computing using resources available prior to 1997.
GCM models run in 3D today. When I think of the astrophysical models the group I work with were running in 1997 and compare them to today's models, I can't help but laugh.

And yet, all climate simulations are still modelling a flat earth with no transition from day to night. Laugh all you like, but the fact remains. I am laughing over the fact that you are unaware of this.

C) AGW isn't rooted in a single paper, definitely not a single paper in 1997. The theory existed LONG before then, Arrhenius first suggested in in 1897.

AGW has never been elevated to the status of theory. It is, and always has been a piss poor hypothesis without a shred of observed, repeatable evidence for support.

We're talking about scattering photons. And no - scattered photons DO NOT "dissipate more rapidly" than free-streaming ones. This is why it takes hundreds of thousands of years for a photon produced at the center of the sun to make it to the edge and escape into space - but only 8 minutes or so for the same photo to traverse many times that distance to get to Earth. You lack even the most basic understand of radiation dynamics.

Comparing the time it takes for a photon to travel from the core of the sun to space and the time it takes a photon to travel from the surface of the earth to space is like comparing apples to asteroids. The photons radiating from the surface of the earth are scattered radiation being diffused by matter. The photons radiating from the core of the sun are in an enviornment involving a balance between the radiation and the local temperature. The time it takes for them to travel from the core to space is a result of the time it takes for the energy to be transferred, not the speed or random movements of the photons.

No it doesn't. Do you even understand the difference between scattered radiation and free streaming radiation?

Yes I do, and yes it does. Sorry you aren't getting this.

You're full of shit. Did you just make that up?

I don't make things up and my statement stands.

 

[wirebender]

LESS NET ENERGY TRAVELS OUTWARD INTO SPACE. I have boldened the word "subtracted" in your quote to illustrate that you clearly already know this.

Two way energy flow with a net energy transfer is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is the basis for AGW alarmism and is a description of a non physical process.

While you are correct that net energy flow can only be in one direction, the momenta of individual photons at a given point in space can have any distribution in direction..

It can be emitted in any direction but it can not move along a vector in which an EM field of greater magnitude has been propagated in the opposite direction any more than a golf ball can move in the opposite direction from which the club has struck it.

Other greenhouse gases can absorb it. Even if it isn't absorbed by anything in the atmosphere after its first scatter, there's nearly a 50% chance it will hit the EARTH and not escape into space.

Really? Which ones might absorb energy emitted in such a narrow band? And there is zero chance it will hit earth as that would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION AT ALL.[/B][/SIZE]
Photons can move in ANY direction. Do you grasp multi-dimensional differential equations? If you do - I can explain the radiative transfer equation - if you don't, go learn it, or shut up about things you don't understand - or both!

Photons can not move against an EM field of greater magnitude propagated on a vector in the opposite direction.

IT GETS ABSORBED BY OTHER GHG'S

Again, which ones absorb that slightly lower frequency?

 

[wirebender]

Its actually quite clear that you are the smartest guy in the world, as you seem to know more than all of the world's physicists do about radiation dynamics - without any training or serious study whatsoever.

Nah. Just more than the physicists who disregard the laws of physics in exchange for grant money to perpetuate the AGW hoax.

Radiation does work when it strikes matter.

Absorption and emission do not constitute work. Have you ever taken a physics course?

Yes it is. All of statistical mechanics deals with net flows.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states explicitly that it is not possible for energy to transfer from cool to warm.

The two equations you have written are exactly the same, just in a different form.

They are not exactly the same. In physics you can't just go about assigning algebraic properties to equations unless you define a physical meaning to the application of the property. No meaning has been assigned to the application of the distributive property to the SB equation therefore it is not allowed. The corrupted SB equation applies the SB law twice. Once from the emitter to the cooler background and once from the cooler background to the warmer emitter. It is written with T=0 and T_b=0 which describes an entirely different physical process than the SB law. It is a clear violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The corrupted version of the SB equation is not supported in physics literature.

Either you made a mistake or you're lack of understanding of basic algebra is worse than I thought.

There is no mistake and the fact remains that you can not assign an algaebric property in physics unless you assign a physical meaning to the property. No such physical meaning has been assigned to the use of the distributive property on the SB equations and as a result, AGW alarmism is based on a falsehood.

 

[konradv]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states explicitly that it is not possible for energy to transfer from cool to warm.

Where in the 2nd law does it say that a photon may not move from a cool area to a warm area? That's what we're talking about, the movement of photons. Heat doesn't become involved until the photon interacts with matter, like EARTH!!!

 

[wirebender]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states explicitly that it is not possible for energy to transfer from cool to warm.

Where in the 2nd law does it say that a photon may not move from a cool area to a warm area? That's what we're talking about, the movement of photons. Heat doesn't become involved until the photon interacts with matter, like EARTH!!!

First konradv, you have to understand what a photon is. Here is a definition from the science dictionary:

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

When we are talking about energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation we are talking about photons konradv. Infrared radiation is electromagnetic radiation and is photons. A photon is the smallest possible bit of IR energy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that it is not possible for that energy (which is photons) to move from cool objects to warm objects without some work having been done to accomplish the transfer. Simple absorption and emission do not constitute work if that absorption and emission are taking place as part of heat coming into or leaving a system.

You have a flawed understanding of what photons are and that has led you to a whole set of flawed conclusions. A great many people have been duped into believing in AGW because they have flawed understandings of the basics and those misunderstandings can be taken advantage of. Then there are those who really don't care whether the science is right or wrong and only view AGW alarmism as a means to a political end.

 

[konradv]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states explicitly that it is not possible for energy to transfer from cool to warm.

Where in the 2nd law does it say that a photon may not move from a cool area to a warm area? That's what we're talking about, the movement of photons. Heat doesn't become involved until the photon interacts with matter, like EARTH!!!

First konradv, you have to understand what a photon is. Here is a definition from the science dictionary:

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

When we are talking about energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation we are talking about photons konradv. Infrared radiation is electromagnetic radiation and is photons. A photon is the smallest possible bit of IR energy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that it is not possible for that energy (which is photons) to move from cool objects to warm objects without some work having been done to accomplish the transfer. Simple absorption and emission do not constitute work if that absorption and emission are taking place as part of heat coming into or leaving a system.

You have a flawed understanding of what photons are and that has led you to a whole set of flawed conclusions. A great many people have been duped into believing in AGW because they have flawed understandings of the basics and those misunderstandings can be taken advantage of. Then there are those who really don't care whether the science is right or wrong and only view AGW alarmism as a means to a political end.

Then explain why I can see the moon during the day, sometimes. If a photon behaves as you say, I shouldn't be able to. You seem to be confusing heat and photons. Photons are not limited as you say, heat IS. Photons AREN'T heat, rather they CAUSE heat when interacting with matter.

 

[wirebender]

Then explain why I can see the moon during the day, sometimes. If a photon behaves as you say, I shouldn't be able to. You seem to be confusing heat and photons. Photons are not limited as you say, heat IS. Photons AREN'T heat, rather they CAUSE heat when interacting with matter.

You have to understand that there is a difference between the spectrum of visible light and the spectrum of IR light. You can see the moon in the visible light spectrum but if you looked towards the moon with an IR camera, you would not see it.

IR is composed of photons. The smallest possible bit (quantum) of IR energy is a photon. It is you konradv, who has the fundamental misunderstanding and till you get the facts straight in your mind to allow you to draw an accurate mental picture of what is happening, you are going to continue to be wrong.

 

[Si modo]

Where in the 2nd law does it say that a photon may not move from a cool area to a warm area? That's what we're talking about, the movement of photons. Heat doesn't become involved until the photon interacts with matter, like EARTH!!!

First konradv, you have to understand what a photon is. Here is a definition from the science dictionary:

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

When we are talking about energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation we are talking about photons konradv. Infrared radiation is electromagnetic radiation and is photons. A photon is the smallest possible bit of IR energy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that it is not possible for that energy (which is photons) to move from cool objects to warm objects without some work having been done to accomplish the transfer. Simple absorption and emission do not constitute work if that absorption and emission are taking place as part of heat coming into or leaving a system.

You have a flawed understanding of what photons are and that has led you to a whole set of flawed conclusions. A great many people have been duped into believing in AGW because they have flawed understandings of the basics and those misunderstandings can be taken advantage of. Then there are those who really don't care whether the science is right or wrong and only view AGW alarmism as a means to a political end.

Then explain why I can see the moon during the day, sometimes. If a photon behaves as you say, I shouldn't be able to. You seem to be confusing heat and photons. Photons are not limited as you say, heat IS. Photons AREN'T heat, rather they CAUSE heat when interacting with matter.

You both are right in some respects and just talking around each other.

All photons are not IR photons, that's why you can see the moon.

Heat at temperatures normal to humans radiates as IR photons.

The radiation absorbed by the surface of the Earth includes a wide range of wavelengths of radiation. The re-emmision of that absorbed radiation happens at longer wavelengths and is often in the longer wavelength range of IR. That's back radiation. And, as it is in the IR range, part of it IS absorbed by CO2. When CO2 absorbs that, the IR photons are converted to molecular vibrations - kinetic energy.

Heat does not move from a colder source to a warmer source.

 

[konradv]

Then explain why I can see the moon during the day, sometimes. If a photon behaves as you say, I shouldn't be able to. You seem to be confusing heat and photons. Photons are not limited as you say, heat IS. Photons AREN'T heat, rather they CAUSE heat when interacting with matter.

You have to understand that there is a difference between the spectrum of visible light and the spectrum of IR light. You can see the moon in the visible light spectrum but if you looked towards the moon with an IR camera, you would not see it.

IR is composed of photons. The smallest possible bit (quantum) of IR energy is a photon. It is you konradv, who has the fundamental misunderstanding and till you get the facts straight in your mind to allow you to draw an accurate mental picture of what is happening, you are going to continue to be wrong.

You haven't proved that if I shot an IR photon from the moon that it wouldn't be seen. What possible interference would there be in its reaching my detector on earth?

 

[konradv]

Heat does not move from a colder source to a warmer source.

I agree, but photons can, regardless of wavelength.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A few points.

A) The radius of the Earth is 6371 km. Top of the stratosphere is 50 km. ((6371+50)^2 - 6371^2)/6371^2 = 0.0157.... The curvature terms in divergence and curl operators are thus small compared to the other terms - and its a perfectly reasonable approximation then to take the atmosphere in plane parallel coordinates. Its also reasonable to model the solar flux incident as the average over diurnal cycles, sense the time scale of the model is far greater than the length of that cycle.

Perhaps a flat earth model that denies night and day on this planet is perfectly reasonable to you. That alone says a great deal about your mindset.

B) That being said - WELCOME TO 2011. Its not as if scientists hung their hat on a plane parallel model that was computing using resources available prior to 1997.
GCM models run in 3D today. When I think of the astrophysical models the group I work with were running in 1997 and compare them to today's models, I can't help but laugh.

And yet, all climate simulations are still modelling a flat earth with no transition from day to night. Laugh all you like, but the fact remains. I am laughing over the fact that you are unaware of this.

LOOKS LIKE A SPHERE TO ME

Modelling the climate | Climateprediction.net

AGW has never been elevated to the status of theory. It is, and always has been a piss poor hypothesis without a shred of observed, repeatable evidence for support.

You wouldn't know what a theory was if it fucked you up the asshole.

 

[westwall]

Where in the 2nd law does it say that a photon may not move from a cool area to a warm area? That's what we're talking about, the movement of photons. Heat doesn't become involved until the photon interacts with matter, like EARTH!!!

First konradv, you have to understand what a photon is. Here is a definition from the science dictionary:

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

When we are talking about energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation we are talking about photons konradv. Infrared radiation is electromagnetic radiation and is photons. A photon is the smallest possible bit of IR energy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that it is not possible for that energy (which is photons) to move from cool objects to warm objects without some work having been done to accomplish the transfer. Simple absorption and emission do not constitute work if that absorption and emission are taking place as part of heat coming into or leaving a system.

You have a flawed understanding of what photons are and that has led you to a whole set of flawed conclusions. A great many people have been duped into believing in AGW because they have flawed understandings of the basics and those misunderstandings can be taken advantage of. Then there are those who really don't care whether the science is right or wrong and only view AGW alarmism as a means to a political end.

Then explain why I can see the moon during the day, sometimes. If a photon behaves as you say, I shouldn't be able to. You seem to be confusing heat and photons. Photons are not limited as you say, heat IS. Photons AREN'T heat, rather they CAUSE heat when interacting with matter.

Where do the photons originate konny? Here's a hint. It's a big orange ball in the sky. Yes the Sun, that's the ticket! The moon is not producing anything. The photons created by the Sun (a lot of work going on their wouldn't you say?) BOUNCE off the Moon and continue on to intercept the Earth. They have the same energy state as the photons directly impacting the Earth.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

First konradv, you have to understand what a photon is. Here is a definition from the science dictionary:

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

When we are talking about energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation we are talking about photons konradv. Infrared radiation is electromagnetic radiation and is photons. A photon is the smallest possible bit of IR energy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that it is not possible for that energy (which is photons) to move from cool objects to warm objects without some work having been done to accomplish the transfer. Simple absorption and emission do not constitute work if that absorption and emission are taking place as part of heat coming into or leaving a system.

You have a flawed understanding of what photons are and that has led you to a whole set of flawed conclusions. A great many people have been duped into believing in AGW because they have flawed understandings of the basics and those misunderstandings can be taken advantage of. Then there are those who really don't care whether the science is right or wrong and only view AGW alarmism as a means to a political end.

Then explain why I can see the moon during the day, sometimes. If a photon behaves as you say, I shouldn't be able to. You seem to be confusing heat and photons. Photons are not limited as you say, heat IS. Photons AREN'T heat, rather they CAUSE heat when interacting with matter.

Where do the photons originate konny? Here's a hint. It's a big orange ball in the sky. Yes the Sun, that's the ticket! The moon is not producing anything. The photons created by the Sun (a lot of work going on their wouldn't you say?) BOUNCE off the Moon and continue on to intercept the Earth. They have the same energy state as the photons directly impacting the Earth.

Actually, some of the photons that hit the moon are absorbed by the moon and emitted later as blackbody radiation.

 

[IanC]

Greenhouse gases do indeed cause the Earth's atmosphere to trap more energy, elsewise we'd all be frozen right now.

So called greenhouse gasses don't trap anything. Again, if you model the earth as a sphere that is radiated across 180 degrees of its surface by the sun and dark across 180 degrees of its surface, there is no need for a greenhouse effect to explain the temperature of the earth. In fact, the models show a slightly warmer earth than exists which is then cooled by the radiative and scattering properties of CO2.

A greenhouse effect is necessary to explain the earth's temperature only if you model the earth as trenberth et al have in a way that doesn't even begin to explain reality. Tell me, how do you suppose you can wrap a -20 degree atmosphere around a -18 degree earth and suddenly raise the temperature of the earth by 33 degrees to 15 degrees C?

They raise the equilibrium temperature of the Earth by making it harder for energy that enters the atmosphere to be re-radiated, requiring a higher temperature for the power flows in and out to balance one another.

No they don't. IR radiates from the earth, through the atmosphere and out into space at, or very near the speed of light. So called greenhouse gasses don't slow down anything.

Its just like a blanket. If you throw a blanket over yourself, you won't get warmer and warmer without end - eventually an equilibrium is reached - but its obvious the blanket is trapping energy elsewise they'd be useless for warming you up.

The old blanket saw. Once again, you demonstrate that you don't grasp the concepts of radiation, the Stefan-Boltzman law, or the laws of physics.

Black body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human body emission

As all matter, the human body radiates some of a person's energy away as infrared light.

The net power radiated is the difference between the power emitted and the power absorbed:

Applying the Stefan–Boltzmann law,

"The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m², and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.Skin temperature is about 33 deg C, but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 deg C when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about Pnet = 100 W."

So putting a colder blanket (20 deg C) on a warm Body (33 deg C) REDUCES the Body surface temp to 28 deg C precisely as the second law of thermodynamics predicts. Heat flows from the warmer body to the cooler blanket.

Since we know that throwing a cooler blanket over a warmer body causes the surface temperature of the warmer body to actually drop, the idea of comparing the atmosphere to a blanket is just silly. The average temperature of the atmosphere is -20C. Wrap a -20 degree blanket around a -18C earth and just as the temperature of the body dropped when from 33C to 28C, the temperature of the earth will drop, not increase by 33C to 15C.

Tell me, which law of physics do you believe predicts and supports such a temperature change?

I see wirebender is still spewing his usual crap. heat loss from a human body is a mixture of convection, conduction and radiation. the internal organs must be kept at 37C for proper functioning. most people would be uncomfortably cold if they were naked in a 20C environment, even moreso if it was draughty (convection). if it is true that the equilibrium temperature was 33C for the skin them the body would need to produce the 100w in the form of heat to radiate away. you would need to burn food by moving (or shivering) to avoid hypothermia, and your body would constrict the amount of blood going to your skin which would reduce the skin's temperature. in reality, the temperature of your body has already stepped down from 37C to 33C, unless it goes into a heat loss reduction mode where the skin temp is even lower.

by wearing clothes we, in effect, lower our outside temperature by adding more insulation to the subcutaneous fat, skin and hair that already slows heat loss. while the actual skin may (or may not) become cooler, it is no longer the exit point of heat to the environment. the outside of your clothes is even less than the supposed skin temp of 28C, perhaps closer to 24C. now the difference in temperatures between the environment and the body's exit temp is vastly reduced, from ~13C to ~4C. the power output is dramatically reduced, meaning that your body doesnt have to burn as much fuel to maintain the 37C internal temperature.

wirebender has been very hypocritical here by using an example that confounds the issues by ignoring the convection, conduction, insulation and body functioning to point out one counterintuative factoid (if it is true) that has little meaning in the overall scheme of things. the skin is no longer the external source of heat loss when you wear clothes or wrap yourself in a blanket. as usual he has spun a whole theory out of a minor detail that he does not fully understand. does anyone really believe he takes off his clothes to warm up? hahahahaha

 

[IanC]

What you're clearly unaware of is that when the CO2 molecule emits a photon its does it nearly ISOTROPICALLY. It may go out into space, or it may instead head back to the Earth's surface, getting reabsorbed there.

What you are unaware of is that when two EM fields are in opposition, they must be subtracted. The stronger field determines the direction of propagation and no energy travels against the direction propagated by the field of greater magnitude. Do you believe you can have electricity travelling in two directions along one wire?

The spectrum that the CO2 re-emits will depend on the temperature of the Co2 gas - PLANCK'S LAW. Most of the re-emitted radiation will be in the IR band.

Of course it will be in the IR band because it is emitted as IR. CO2, however, only absorbs IR in a very narrow range and the IR emitted by a CO2 molecule is at a slightly lower frequency than it was when it was absorbed. As a result, another CO2 molecule can not absorb it which puts an effective end to your "walkabout" analogy of IR leaving the earth's atmosphere.



So you have no actual objection to the paper.



Again, no actual objection or counter to his findings. Essentially what he says is that any absorption by CO2 is completely overwhelmed by absorption by water vapor and as a result, can produce no real effect in the atmosphere; except for its cooling effect.



How convenient for you. Now you can continue to believe in your flat earth models with a clear conscience.

1) Even if the re-emitted photon is not absorbed by any molecule in the atmosphere - it has about a 50% probability of hitting the Earth's surface instead of shooting out into space.

It has a zero probability of hitting the earth surface because of the requirement to subtract EM field vectors. A massles photon moves in the direction of the greater EM field. It can not move against the direction of propagation of the earth's EM field.

2) Your assertion that the photon's re-emitted by Co2 cannot be absorbed by Co2 is wrong. The re-emitted photon frequency can be at ANY frequency.

It isn't my assertion. It is the assertion of the Department of Energy. Again, I quote them:

CLIP: "What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind."

The re emitted photon can't be the same frequency as it was when it was absorbed and because CO2 only absorbs in narrow bands, any change of frequency would make it invisible to other CO2 molecules.[/QUOTE]

are you back to that bullshit again wirebender? there is some momentum transfered when a photon is absorbed but the energy put into the electron can only be re-emitted at specific wavelengths which are exactly the same wavelengths that are preferentially absorbed. I thought you had gotten over your misunderstanding that molecules and atoms cant absorb what they emit. how do you think lasers work? or spectroscopy? kinetic energy and shell deformation by collision are a different matter. (thanks to polar bear for his bumper car analogy)

 

[IanC]

IR radiates away from the surface of the earth to space at, or near the speed of light. CO2 does not slow down the escaping IR by even 1 mile per hour. It is still travelling at or near the speed of light when it reaches cold space.

are you playing with semantics again? it is true that you cant slow down the speed of light except by changing the medium it is moving through but are you stating that absorption and emission are instantaneous? and that changing the direction of the photon makes no difference because the photon always moves at the speed of light? what about the horizontal and vertical components of its direction of its flight path after one or more interactions? anything less than straight out with no interactions is slowing down the escape of energy.

the absorption length (1/e diminishment) is about 25-30 metres. pretty much all of the 15 micron IR has been scattered by the time it gets to one kilometre. therefor it has been slowed down appreciably