how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[itfitzme]

Here's the simple fact that those who feel entitled to, and would prefer, an alternate universe must run from. When a photon of light strikes a carbon dioxide molecule it is subject to certain very well known probabilities. There are odds that it will pass through unimpeded, that it will be absorbed, or that it will be reflected from wence it came. It can be shown theoretically and empiracly what those odds are for any wavelength of light.

Everything else is irrelavant.

They might as well switch now from the denial of AGW science to something else like denying gravity or time.

They've become the laughing stock of not only the country but the world.

LOL, the theory is that GH gases absorb and re-emit IR energy. If it's "reflecting" now it's whole other situation isn't it..

Dude seriously, this fake scientist is no better than the last several we have had here. You just altered the theory you spent pages defending...

LOL, reflection IS absorption and re-radiation. As is scattering.

Laser emmision is even more awesome. The atoms absorb at one wavelength then as an electromagnetic energy passes by, it stimulates the atom to emit radiation it the same direction as the passing energy.

 

[PMZ]

It's optics 101 that all materials can only reflect, absorb, or transmit EM radiation. The prortions of the three possibilities vary with wavelength.

If they absorb, the energy raises their temperature, causing them to become a radiation source.

 

[gslack]

Here's the simple fact that those who feel entitled to, and would prefer, an alternate universe must run from. When a photon of light strikes a carbon dioxide molecule it is subject to certain very well known probabilities. There are odds that it will pass through unimpeded, that it will be absorbed, or that it will be reflected from wence it came. It can be shown theoretically and empiracly what those odds are for any wavelength of light.

Everything else is irrelavant.

They might as well switch now from the denial of AGW science to something else like denying gravity or time.

They've become the laughing stock of not only the country but the world.

LOL, the theory is that GH gases absorb and re-emit IR energy. If it's "reflecting" now it's whole other situation isn't it..

Dude seriously, this fake scientist is no better than the last several we have had here. You just altered the theory you spent pages defending...

LOL, reflection IS absorption and re-radiation. As is scattering.

Laser emmision is even more awesome. The atoms absorb at one wavelength then as an electromagnetic energy passes by, it stimulates the atom to emit radiation it the same direction as the passing energy.

Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)


A claim can be made for how much IR is absorbed vs how much is absorbed, and a fair statement would be that some is reflected back towards earth. But that would be minuscule to the reflective abilities of a cloud. GH gases can't be a good absorber and good reflector simultaneously. Just as nothing can be both a good emitter and absorber simultaneously.

IGCSE - Thermal Physics Revision - Radiation

Absorbers, Emitters & Reflectors
Some materials are good at absorbing and emitting thermal radiation while others are good at reflecting radiation. Examples of good absorbers and emitters are matt black materials. White and silvery surfaces are bad absorbers because they reflect away most of thermal radiation. However, bad absorbers are good reflectors and likewise good absorbers are poor reflectors of thermal radiation.

In summary:

Matt Black Materials = good absorbers/emitters + poor reflectors
White/Silvery Materials = poor absorbers/emitters + good reflectors

The Vacuum Flask

A Vacuum flask has many features to reduce not only thermal radiation but also conduction and convection. These features include:

1. An insulated stopper which reduces conduction and convection.

2. A container with two walls with a vacuum gap to stop conduction and convection.

3. Walls that have silvery surfaces to reduce thermal radiation.

These features enable the flask to keep drinks warm or cold for a long time.

Again, it can reflect some and absorb some, but it cannot be completely efficient at either one at the same time.

The MET office likes to misuse the terms so they don't have to actually prove anything.

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory

Solar rays hit the earth and heat up the surface (as shown on the left). The earth’s surface emits infrared radiation back in to space thereby cooling the planet (depicted by two of the red arrows in the right hand picture). Greenhouse gases in the troposphere trap some of the infrared rays reflecting heat back down to the surface. The AGW theory suggests that increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, caused by humans, is raising global temperatures.

It's a fine example of just how un-scientific the methods used to further this ridiculous theory.

Frankly You can buy their story or buy Kirchoff's law... I take the law...

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

n thermodynamics, Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation refers to wavelength-specific radiative emission and absorption by a material body in thermodynamic equilibrium, including radiative exchange equilibrium.
A body at temperature T radiates electromagnetic energy. A perfect black body in thermodynamic equilibrium absorbs all light that strikes it, and radiates energy according to a unique law of radiative emissive power for temperature T, universal for all perfect black bodies. Kirchhoff's law states that:
For a body of any arbitrary material, emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature, the perfect black-body emissive power.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Here, the dimensionless coefficient of absorption (or the absorptivity) is the fraction of incident light (power) that is absorbed by the body when it is radiating and absorbing in thermodynamic equilibrium. In slightly different terms, the emissive power of an arbitrary opaque body of fixed size and shape at a definite temperature can be described by a dimensionless ratio, sometimes called the emissivity, the ratio of the emissive power of the body to the emissive power of a black body of the same size and shape at the same fixed temperature. With this definition, a corollary of Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity. In some cases, emissive power and absorptivity may be defined to depend on angle, as described below.
Kirchhoff's Law has another corollary: the emissivity cannot exceed one (because the absorptivity cannot, by conservation of energy), so it is not possible to thermally radiate more energy than a black body, at equilibrium. In negative luminescence the angle and wavelength integrated absorption exceeds the material's emission, however, such systems are powered by an external source and are therefore not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Before Kirchhoff's law was recognized, it had been experimentally established that a good absorber is a good emitter, and a poor absorber is a poor emitter. Naturally, a good reflector must be a poor absorber. This is why, for example, lightweight emergency thermal blankets are based on reflective metallic coatings: they lose little heat by radiation.

 

[gslack]

It's optics 101 that all materials can only reflect, absorb, or transmit EM radiation. The prortions of the three possibilities vary with wavelength.

If they absorb, the energy raises their temperature, causing them to become a radiation source.

Oh hush now socko, anyone who took "optics 101" would know that reflection and absorption are opposites... Please...

 

[IanC]

water micro droplets, found in clouds, are good reflectors of IR radiation. water vapour is a good absorber of IR. phase makes a difference.

 

[gslack]

water micro droplets, found in clouds, are good reflectors of IR radiation. water vapour is a good absorber of IR. phase makes a difference.

But neither is both simultaneously a good reflector and good absorber of EM of the same wavelength. Which is the point I made.

 

[flacaltenn]

LOL, the theory is that GH gases absorb and re-emit IR energy. If it's "reflecting" now it's whole other situation isn't it..

Dude seriously, this fake scientist is no better than the last several we have had here. You just altered the theory you spent pages defending...

LOL, reflection IS absorption and re-radiation. As is scattering.

Laser emmision is even more awesome. The atoms absorb at one wavelength then as an electromagnetic energy passes by, it stimulates the atom to emit radiation it the same direction as the passing energy.

Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)


A claim can be made for how much IR is absorbed vs how much is absorbed, and a fair statement would be that some is reflected back towards earth. But that would be minuscule to the reflective abilities of a cloud. GH gases can't be a good absorber and good reflector simultaneously. Just as nothing can be both a good emitter and absorber simultaneously.

IGCSE - Thermal Physics Revision - Radiation



Again, it can reflect some and absorb some, but it cannot be completely efficient at either one at the same time.

The MET office likes to misuse the terms so they don't have to actually prove anything.

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory

Solar rays hit the earth and heat up the surface (as shown on the left). The earth’s surface emits infrared radiation back in to space thereby cooling the planet (depicted by two of the red arrows in the right hand picture). Greenhouse gases in the troposphere trap some of the infrared rays reflecting heat back down to the surface. The AGW theory suggests that increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, caused by humans, is raising global temperatures.

It's a fine example of just how un-scientific the methods used to further this ridiculous theory.

Frankly You can buy their story or buy Kirchoff's law... I take the law...

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

n thermodynamics, Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation refers to wavelength-specific radiative emission and absorption by a material body in thermodynamic equilibrium, including radiative exchange equilibrium.
A body at temperature T radiates electromagnetic energy. A perfect black body in thermodynamic equilibrium absorbs all light that strikes it, and radiates energy according to a unique law of radiative emissive power for temperature T, universal for all perfect black bodies. Kirchhoff's law states that:
For a body of any arbitrary material, emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature, the perfect black-body emissive power.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Here, the dimensionless coefficient of absorption (or the absorptivity) is the fraction of incident light (power) that is absorbed by the body when it is radiating and absorbing in thermodynamic equilibrium. In slightly different terms, the emissive power of an arbitrary opaque body of fixed size and shape at a definite temperature can be described by a dimensionless ratio, sometimes called the emissivity, the ratio of the emissive power of the body to the emissive power of a black body of the same size and shape at the same fixed temperature. With this definition, a corollary of Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity. In some cases, emissive power and absorptivity may be defined to depend on angle, as described below.
Kirchhoff's Law has another corollary: the emissivity cannot exceed one (because the absorptivity cannot, by conservation of energy), so it is not possible to thermally radiate more energy than a black body, at equilibrium. In negative luminescence the angle and wavelength integrated absorption exceeds the material's emission, however, such systems are powered by an external source and are therefore not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Before Kirchhoff's law was recognized, it had been experimentally established that a good absorber is a good emitter, and a poor absorber is a poor emitter. Naturally, a good reflector must be a poor absorber. This is why, for example, lightweight emergency thermal blankets are based on reflective metallic coatings: they lose little heat by radiation.

You worked pretty hard there.. Hope it stimulates some neurons somewhere..

But I think the hard-core denialists are focused on the "other" excitation source. Not the sun. GHouse theory works 24 hrs a day and has little to do with DIRECT solar irradiation.. CO2 is a poor absorber of sunlight because it's so narrow band. Water vapor (clouds) are much better absorbers on INCOMING sunlight.

It's the heat coming from the earth as a thermal tank -- going UP --- that the denialists have problems with. Because they quote thermodynamics in error -- not realizing that the EARTH emits a spectrum of IR where MORE of the energy is shifted into the absorption bands of CO2 and the other GHGases.. That's why clouds keep the surface warm at night (except in the desert where there is little water vapor to act as the PRINCIPLE GHGas).

No thermal conduction or convection required.. Mostly done by EM radiation....

Bottom line --- Go find the few studies that studied the GreenHouse at NIGHT, in the DESERT, controlled for water vapor that tried to find the warming due to the rest of the GHGases.. Not many exist --- because LARGELY they don't confirm that CO2 is a huge factor... And the hysteria industry is NOT gonna publish findings that contradict the Warmer Bible..

 

[PMZ]

It's optics 101 that all materials can only reflect, absorb, or transmit EM radiation. The prortions of the three possibilities vary with wavelength.

If they absorb, the energy raises their temperature, causing them to become a radiation source.

Oh hush now socko, anyone who took "optics 101" would know that reflection and absorption are opposites... Please...

Only for black bodies. Real materials transmit, or absorb, or reflect in different proportions all incoming radiation, depending on wavelength. What they transmit or reflect leaves them unchanged. What they absorb changes their energy state. If that energy state is > absolute zero, then they are inclined to radiate their own energy.

Now make up another story to try and deny simple physics.

 

[PMZ]

LOL, reflection IS absorption and re-radiation. As is scattering.

Laser emmision is even more awesome. The atoms absorb at one wavelength then as an electromagnetic energy passes by, it stimulates the atom to emit radiation it the same direction as the passing energy.

Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)


A claim can be made for how much IR is absorbed vs how much is absorbed, and a fair statement would be that some is reflected back towards earth. But that would be minuscule to the reflective abilities of a cloud. GH gases can't be a good absorber and good reflector simultaneously. Just as nothing can be both a good emitter and absorber simultaneously.

IGCSE - Thermal Physics Revision - Radiation



Again, it can reflect some and absorb some, but it cannot be completely efficient at either one at the same time.

The MET office likes to misuse the terms so they don't have to actually prove anything.

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory



It's a fine example of just how un-scientific the methods used to further this ridiculous theory.

Frankly You can buy their story or buy Kirchoff's law... I take the law...

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

n thermodynamics, Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation refers to wavelength-specific radiative emission and absorption by a material body in thermodynamic equilibrium, including radiative exchange equilibrium.
A body at temperature T radiates electromagnetic energy. A perfect black body in thermodynamic equilibrium absorbs all light that strikes it, and radiates energy according to a unique law of radiative emissive power for temperature T, universal for all perfect black bodies. Kirchhoff's law states that:
For a body of any arbitrary material, emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature, the perfect black-body emissive power.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Here, the dimensionless coefficient of absorption (or the absorptivity) is the fraction of incident light (power) that is absorbed by the body when it is radiating and absorbing in thermodynamic equilibrium. In slightly different terms, the emissive power of an arbitrary opaque body of fixed size and shape at a definite temperature can be described by a dimensionless ratio, sometimes called the emissivity, the ratio of the emissive power of the body to the emissive power of a black body of the same size and shape at the same fixed temperature. With this definition, a corollary of Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity. In some cases, emissive power and absorptivity may be defined to depend on angle, as described below.
Kirchhoff's Law has another corollary: the emissivity cannot exceed one (because the absorptivity cannot, by conservation of energy), so it is not possible to thermally radiate more energy than a black body, at equilibrium. In negative luminescence the angle and wavelength integrated absorption exceeds the material's emission, however, such systems are powered by an external source and are therefore not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Before Kirchhoff's law was recognized, it had been experimentally established that a good absorber is a good emitter, and a poor absorber is a poor emitter. Naturally, a good reflector must be a poor absorber. This is why, for example, lightweight emergency thermal blankets are based on reflective metallic coatings: they lose little heat by radiation.

You worked pretty hard there.. Hope it stimulates some neurons somewhere..

But I think the hard-core denialists are focused on the "other" excitation source. Not the sun. GHouse theory works 24 hrs a day and has little to do with DIRECT solar irradiation.. CO2 is a poor absorber of sunlight because it's so narrow band. Water vapor (clouds) are much better absorbers on INCOMING sunlight.

It's the heat coming from the earth as a thermal tank -- going UP --- that the denialists have problems with. Because they quote thermodynamics in error -- not realizing that the EARTH emits a spectrum of IR where MORE of the energy is shifted into the absorption bands of CO2 and the other GHGases.. That's why clouds keep the surface warm at night (except in the desert where there is little water vapor to act as the PRINCIPLE GHGas).

No thermal conduction or convection required.. Mostly done by EM radiation....

Bottom line --- Go find the few studies that studied the GreenHouse at NIGHT, in the DESERT, controlled for water vapor that tried to find the warming due to the rest of the GHGases.. Not many exist --- because LARGELY they don't confirm that CO2 is a huge factor... And the hysteria industry is NOT gonna publish findings that contradict the Warmer Bible..

Red herring non science. Published by big oil just like the scandal sheets in the grocery store line. Let's publish this today. It sounds like it could be the truth and could obscure the obvious for another month or so. That's a few more billion in profits for us, though a few billion more in extreme weather recovery for everybody.

Every additional molecule of carbon dioxide that we return to the atmosphere from wence it came millions of years ago acts like every other carbon dioxide molecule when struck by EM radiation in the lab or in our atmosphere. It mostly transmits short wavelength radiation and mostly reflects long wave radiation. Always. No exceptions.

On earth, the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere the less long wave goes into space. It remains here warming the planet.

Truth is so simple, lies so complicated.

 

[itfitzme]

LOL, the theory is that GH gases absorb and re-emit IR energy. If it's "reflecting" now it's whole other situation isn't it..

Dude seriously, this fake scientist is no better than the last several we have had here. You just altered the theory you spent pages defending...

LOL, reflection IS absorption and re-radiation. *As is scattering. *

Laser emmision is even more awesome. The atoms absorb at one wavelength then as an electromagnetic energy passes by, it stimulates the atom to emit radiation it the same direction as the passing energy.

Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)


A claim can be made for how much IR is absorbed vs how much is absorbed, and a fair statement would be that some is reflected back towards earth. But that would be minuscule to the reflective abilities of a cloud. GH gases can't be a good absorber and good reflector simultaneously. Just as nothing can be both a good emitter and absorber simultaneously.*

IGCSE - Thermal Physics Revision - Radiation



Again, it can reflect some and absorb some, but it cannot be completely efficient at either one at the same time.*

The MET office likes to misuse the terms so they don't have to actually prove anything.*

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory

Solar rays hit the earth and heat up the surface (as shown on the left). *The earth’s surface emits infrared radiation back in to space thereby cooling the planet (depicted by two of the red arrows in the right hand picture). *Greenhouse gases in the troposphere trap some of the infrared rays reflecting heat back down to the surface. *The AGW theory suggests that increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, caused by humans, is raising global temperatures.

It's a fine example of just how un-scientific the methods used to further this ridiculous theory.*

Frankly You can buy their story or buy Kirchoff's law... I take the law...

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

n thermodynamics, Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation refers to wavelength-specific radiative emission and absorption by a material body in thermodynamic equilibrium, including radiative exchange equilibrium.
A body at temperature T radiates electromagnetic energy. A perfect black body in thermodynamic equilibrium absorbs all light that strikes it, and radiates energy according to a unique law of radiative emissive power for temperature T, universal for all perfect black bodies. Kirchhoff's law states that:
For a body of any arbitrary material, emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature, the perfect black-body emissive power.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Here, the dimensionless coefficient of absorption (or the absorptivity) is the fraction of incident light (power) that is absorbed by the body when it is radiating and absorbing in thermodynamic equilibrium. In slightly different terms, the emissive power of an arbitrary opaque body of fixed size and shape at a definite temperature can be described by a dimensionless ratio, sometimes called the emissivity, the ratio of the emissive power of the body to the emissive power of a black body of the same size and shape at the same fixed temperature. With this definition, a corollary of Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity. In some cases, emissive power and absorptivity may be defined to depend on angle, as described below.
Kirchhoff's Law has another corollary: the emissivity cannot exceed one (because the absorptivity cannot, by conservation of energy), so it is not possible to thermally radiate more energy than a black body, at equilibrium. In negative luminescence the angle and wavelength integrated absorption exceeds the material's emission, however, such systems are powered by an external source and are therefore not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Before Kirchhoff's law was recognized, it had been experimentally established that a good absorber is a good emitter, and a poor absorber is a poor emitter. Naturally, a good reflector must be a poor absorber. This is why, for example, lightweight emergency thermal blankets are based on reflective metallic coatings: they lose little heat by radiation.

That's a lot of material to completely miss a point. Your confusing usage and context with meaning.

 

[itfitzme]

"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs.."

From the perspective of effect, absorbtion and re-emission is reflection and scattering. The only difference is the direction.

Do explain, at a wave/elementary-particle/atomic/molecular level, the process by which a solid, liquid, and gas absorb, emit, reflect and scatter EM radiation.

An incoming photon impacts molecule. Then what?

Here is the one I have always quandried, transparency of glass. Does the light pass through without ever interacting with the atoms or is it absorbed and reemited by each atom in a straight line, through the material?

 

[flacaltenn]

Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)


A claim can be made for how much IR is absorbed vs how much is absorbed, and a fair statement would be that some is reflected back towards earth. But that would be minuscule to the reflective abilities of a cloud. GH gases can't be a good absorber and good reflector simultaneously. Just as nothing can be both a good emitter and absorber simultaneously.

IGCSE - Thermal Physics Revision - Radiation



Again, it can reflect some and absorb some, but it cannot be completely efficient at either one at the same time.

The MET office likes to misuse the terms so they don't have to actually prove anything.

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory



It's a fine example of just how un-scientific the methods used to further this ridiculous theory.

Frankly You can buy their story or buy Kirchoff's law... I take the law...

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You worked pretty hard there.. Hope it stimulates some neurons somewhere..

But I think the hard-core denialists are focused on the "other" excitation source. Not the sun. GHouse theory works 24 hrs a day and has little to do with DIRECT solar irradiation.. CO2 is a poor absorber of sunlight because it's so narrow band. Water vapor (clouds) are much better absorbers on INCOMING sunlight.

It's the heat coming from the earth as a thermal tank -- going UP --- that the denialists have problems with. Because they quote thermodynamics in error -- not realizing that the EARTH emits a spectrum of IR where MORE of the energy is shifted into the absorption bands of CO2 and the other GHGases.. That's why clouds keep the surface warm at night (except in the desert where there is little water vapor to act as the PRINCIPLE GHGas).

No thermal conduction or convection required.. Mostly done by EM radiation....

Bottom line --- Go find the few studies that studied the GreenHouse at NIGHT, in the DESERT, controlled for water vapor that tried to find the warming due to the rest of the GHGases.. Not many exist --- because LARGELY they don't confirm that CO2 is a huge factor... And the hysteria industry is NOT gonna publish findings that contradict the Warmer Bible..

Red herring non science. Published by big oil just like the scandal sheets in the grocery store line. Let's publish this today. It sounds like it could be the truth and could obscure the obvious for another month or so. That's a few more billion in profits for us, though a few billion more in extreme weather recovery for everybody.

Every additional molecule of carbon dioxide that we return to the atmosphere from wence it came millions of years ago acts like every other carbon dioxide molecule when struck by EM radiation in the lab or in our atmosphere. It mostly transmits short wavelength radiation and mostly reflects long wave radiation. Always. No exceptions.

On earth, the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere the less long wave goes into space. It remains here warming the planet.

Truth is so simple, lies so complicated.

Your opinion on this matter seems based more on politcal alliances then science.. Especially since you took an opportunity to PREACH on my response.. But didn't comment at ALL about the science..

Shouldn't the conclusive measurements for CO2 heat retention be taken AT NIGHT, in the desert and controlled for water vapor??? YOU HAVE A ******* PROBLEM with this? What is your objection. Or would you rather continue hurling insults, platitudes, and uninformed bull?

 

[flacaltenn]

"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs.."

From the perspective of effect, absorbtion and re-emission is reflection and scattering. The only difference is the direction.

Do explain, at a wave/elementary-particle/atomic/molecular level, the process by which a solid, liquid, and gas absorb, emit, reflect and scatter EM radiation.

An incoming photon impacts molecule. Then what?

Here is the one I have always quandried, transparency of glass. Does the light pass through without ever interacting with the atoms or is it absorbed and reemited by each atom in a straight line, through the material?

Lemme help you --- you're drowning here. Here's a marshmallow....

Reflection AINT the same as absorption and re-emission because it's LIKELY that the properties of the material will cause it to shed emitted EM at a DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES and power levels than the excitation. Depending on the thermal absorption characteristic of the material. ((A black body DOES have the same absorption/emission props, but REFLECTS everything else as GSlack said. ))

So it's NOT the same. Not even close.. DSlack was very patient trying to get you to swim to shore...

On your 2nd quest.. Clear glass does pass photons thru unaffected in the VISIBLE band with like maybe 4% absorbed. (especially if the surface is Anti-Reflection (AR) coated. Much like a good pair of glasses or an expensive display. ) But can't pass photons in the long wave IR or below.. See attached chart..

If this was NOT true, you'd see a shift to the RED on everything coming out the exit of the glass,, (as I said above) because absorption/re-radiating IR, generally shifts the frequencies DOWN from the visible or solar spectrum spectra that went in..

 

[itfitzme]

"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs.."

From the perspective of effect, absorbtion and re-emission is reflection and scattering. *The only difference is the direction.

Do explain, at a wave/elementary-particle/atomic/molecular level, the process by which a solid, liquid, and gas absorb, emit, reflect and scatter EM radiation. *

An incoming photon impacts molecule. *Then what?

Here is the one I have always quandried, transparency of glass. *Does the light pass through without ever interacting with the atoms or is it absorbed and reemited by each atom in a straight line, through the material?

Lemme help you --- you're drowning here. Here's a marshmallow.... *

Reflection AINT the same as absorption and re-emission because it's LIKELY that the properties of the material will cause it to shed emitted EM at a DIFFERENT FREQUENCY and POWER LEVEL. Depending on the thermal absorption characteristic of the material.*

So it's NOT the same. Not even close.. DSlack was very patient trying to get you to swim to shore... \

In other words, you don't know. *All you have is "So it's NOT the same" and this adamence about it.

Your arguing over a distinction, reflection v absorbtion-reemission with no fundamental description of any distinction.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs.."

From the perspective of effect, absorbtion and re-emission is reflection and scattering. *The only difference is the direction.

Do explain, at a wave/elementary-particle/atomic/molecular level, the process by which a solid, liquid, and gas absorb, emit, reflect and scatter EM radiation. *

An incoming photon impacts molecule. *Then what?

Here is the one I have always quandried, transparency of glass. *Does the light pass through without ever interacting with the atoms or is it absorbed and reemited by each atom in a straight line, through the material?

Lemme help you --- you're drowning here. Here's a marshmallow.... *

Reflection AINT the same as absorption and re-emission because it's LIKELY that the properties of the material will cause it to shed emitted EM at a DIFFERENT FREQUENCY and POWER LEVEL. Depending on the thermal absorption characteristic of the material.*

So it's NOT the same. Not even close.. DSlack was very patient trying to get you to swim to shore... \

In other words, you don't know. *All you have is "So it's NOT the same" and this adamence about it.

Your arguing over a distinction, reflection v absorbtion-reemission with no fundamental description of any distinction.

I gave you an answer that should have been complete to a High School kid.. Along with a graph and I worked hard at it.. You should too... Try re-reading what I wrote and try to recall something about how when things absorb -- they get hot. They will re-radiate, but NOT at the same FREQUENCIES that they were hit with as in sunlight warming an object or material.

 

[itfitzme]

"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs.."

From the perspective of effect, absorbtion and re-emission is reflection and scattering. *The only difference is the direction.

Do explain, at a wave/elementary-particle/atomic/molecular level, the process by which a solid, liquid, and gas absorb, emit, reflect and scatter EM radiation. *

An incoming photon impacts molecule. *Then what?

Here is the one I have always quandried, transparency of glass. *Does the light pass through without ever interacting with the atoms or is it absorbed and reemited by each atom in a straight line, through the material?

Lemme help you --- you're drowning here. Here's a marshmallow.... *

Reflection AINT the same as absorption and re-emission because it's LIKELY that the properties of the material will cause it to shed emitted EM at a DIFFERENT FREQUENCY and POWER LEVEL. Depending on the thermal absorption characteristic of the material.*

So it's NOT the same. Not even close.. DSlack was very patient trying to get you to swim to shore...*

On your 2nd quest.. Clear glass does pass photons thru unaffected in the VISIBLE band with like maybe 4% absorbed. (especially if the surface is Anti-Reflection (AR) coated. Much like a good pair of glasses or an expensive display. ) But can't pass photons in the long wave IR or below.. See attached chart.. *

If this was NOT true, you'd see a shift to the RED on everything coming out the exit of the glass,, (as I said above) because absorption/re-radiating IR, *generally shifts the frequencies DOWN from the visible or solar spectrum spectra that went in..

Here, I'll throw you a marshmallow. *Reflection is a macroscopic term referring the measured effect after light has impinged on the material. *Absorbtion/re-emmision is a microscopic term referring to the process that occurs when the light impacts the material.

Light cannot reflect off of a material without interacting with it. If the light returns at an angle between -90 and 90 degrees of normal to the surface, it is called reflection. That is a measure of the light after ths interaction.

What occurs at a molecular and attomic level as the light impinges on the material is, well... depends on the material and wavelenght of the light. There really are two categories; difraction and absorbtion/re-emmission. Diffraction, like the slit experement, is a property of the space between the material. Absorbtion/re-emmission is a property of the material and the energy levels of the electrons.

Frankly, no one, that knows their stuff, really gives a crap if someone refers to it as "reflection" or "absorbsion/re-emmision".

Here, let me help you. So a photo is traveling through space and reaches a molecule. It is dead center of the nucleus and at 0 degrees of normal. What happens? It say, "oh shit, I ain't touching that thing?, does an about face, and heads bacl from whence it came, reflected without interaction? Or does it interact with the molecule?

 

[itfitzme]

"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs.."

From the perspective of effect, absorbtion and re-emission is reflection and scattering. *The only difference is the direction.

Do explain, at a wave/elementary-particle/atomic/molecular level, the process by which a solid, liquid, and gas absorb, emit, reflect and scatter EM radiation. *

An incoming photon impacts molecule. *Then what?

Here is the one I have always quandried, transparency of glass. *Does the light pass through without ever interacting with the atoms or is it absorbed and reemited by each atom in a straight line, through the material?

Lemme help you --- you're drowning here. Here's a marshmallow.... *

Reflection AINT the same as absorption and re-emission because it's LIKELY that the properties of the material will cause it to shed emitted EM at a DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES and power levels than the excitation. Depending on the thermal absorption characteristic of the material. ((A black body DOES have the same absorption/emission props, but REFLECTS everything else as GSlack said. ))

So it's NOT the same. Not even close.. DSlack was very patient trying to get you to swim to shore...*

On your 2nd quest.. Clear glass does pass photons thru unaffected in the VISIBLE band with like maybe 4% absorbed. (especially if the surface is Anti-Reflection (AR) coated. Much like a good pair of glasses or an expensive display. ) But can't pass photons in the long wave IR or below.. See attached chart.. *

If this was NOT true, you'd see a shift to the RED on everything coming out the exit of the glass,, (as I said above) because absorption/re-radiating IR, *generally shifts the frequencies DOWN from the visible or solar spectrum spectra that went in..

Lemme help you --- you're drowning here. Here's a marshmallow.... *

Reflection AINT the same as absorption and re-emission because it's LIKELY that the properties of the material will cause it to shed emitted EM at a DIFFERENT FREQUENCY and POWER LEVEL. Depending on the thermal absorption characteristic of the material.*

So it's NOT the same. Not even close.. DSlack was very patient trying to get you to swim to shore... \

In other words, you don't know. *All you have is "So it's NOT the same" and this adamence about it.

Your arguing over a distinction, reflection v absorbtion-reemission with no fundamental description of any distinction.

I gave you an answer that should have been complete to a High School kid.. Along with a graph and * * *I worked hard at it.. You should too... Try re-reading what I wrote and try to recall something about how when things absorb -- they get hot. They will re-radiate, but NOT at the same FREQUENCIES that they were hit with as in sunlight warming an object or material.

Your trying to hard. *It isn't that complicated. *The light either interacts with the material or it doesn't. When light is reflected, it either interact or not. *If you have discovered some process by which light is reflected without interacting with the material, you should write a paper and send it in.

If your describing a process by which interaction occurs without involving the electrons in orbit, thus calling it "not absorbtion", then it's a fairly simple description based on other properties.

It's really simple. The photon interacts with what properties of the material to result in reflection, that don't involve the change in energy level of the orbiting electrons?

You can describe in a few sentences,

 

[flacaltenn]

THat's not even the question you asked.. Is this a complete waste of time..

You question WAS _-------------

Here is the one I have always quandried, transparency of glass. *Does the light pass through without ever interacting with the atoms or is it absorbed and reemited by each atom in a straight line, through the material?

Show me in there where "reflection" was even mentioned? Don't you bounce off and reflect when you try to walk thru a closed door? Did you get absorbed and re-emitted?? (The brain damage is obvious)

 

[itfitzme]

THat's not even the question you asked.. Is this a complete waste of time..

You question WAS _-------------

Here is the one I have always quandried, transparency of glass. *Does the light pass through without ever interacting with the atoms or is it absorbed and reemited by each atom in a straight line, through the material?

Show me in there where "reflection" was even mentioned? Don't you bounce off and reflect when you try to walk thru a closed door? Did you get absorbed and re-emitted?? (The brain damage is obvious)

The question is how light, an electromagnetic wavicle, interacts with amorphous glass as it is transmitted through the material. *There are three option; it passes through the material without interaction, is it absorbed and re-emitted in a straight line, or it follows through the material in a waveguide fashion.

Here is a really good answer:

"Yes, the current, real, 'correct answer' to this question is indeed very complicated. It is mixed up with Quantum Mechanics which is complicated for .. really for everyone! I will try to, as you say, "dumb it down", but many people may not like my way of doing it.

Most people still think of light and the way it moves in 'classic' terms. But this way of understanding it was really disproved by the 1920's with the advent of Quantum Mechanics. It is astonishing that this old way of seeing energy is still what is taught in schools and universities today!

You know that light travels in little packets, like tiny tiny balls of energy called photons. When these bits of energy hit any material thing ... any atom or molecule, the photon ceases to exist and the energy gets added to the energy of the atom or molecule. You could say that the atom dances faster.

When light strikes glass, the energy is absorbed by the first glass molecules it meets. You could think of it as someone catching a ball, and being excited that they have caught it. Then they pass the ball on to the next molecule - to the next 'person' in the glass, and on to the next. When they are passing it, the energy becomes a photon (a ball), and when it is caught, it is again an excited atom.

This goes on until the photon leaves the glass, then it travels as a photon again. Of course, while it was going from atom to atom, it was not always a photon, and so, even if it does not stay still for long, it is not always moving. So the average speed in the glass will be slower than when it is not in the glass.

This is a VERY simplified way of understanding this."

 

[itfitzme]

THat's not even the question you asked.. Is this a complete waste of time..

You question WAS _-------------

Here is the one I have always quandried, transparency of glass. *Does the light pass through without ever interacting with the atoms or is it absorbed and reemited by each atom in a straight line, through the material?

Show me in there where "reflection" was even mentioned? Don't you bounce off and reflect when you try to walk thru a closed door? Did you get absorbed and re-emitted?? (The brain damage is obvious)

A meaningless comparison because the wavelenght of a person is extremely small compared to their size.

The repulsive force is electrostatic. It has no bearing on the question of the interaction between a photon and an atom/molecule.