LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[jc456]

If the CO2 loses most of it's energy by colliding with O2 or N2, that means the air must heat up. Right? You better tell Billy that.

No one ever said that air couldn't warm via conduction...It is IR that can't warm the air. And no matter how you spin and interpret, you simply can't make a radiative greenhouse effect out of conduction.

In post 257 you said,

the time between molecular collisions is so much shorter than the time it takes a molecule to absorb radiation and then emit it that most molecules capable of absorbing IR lose it to oxygen or nitrogen molecules via collision before they have time to radiate it on to space.​

You directly say most green house molecules loose their absorbed IR energy to O2 or N2 via collision. The gain of energy by O2 and N2. is called thermal energy because it is random. So the atmosphere is warmed by CO2 which gains energy by IR. Therefore the premise of this thread is wrong according to you.

It doesn't matter what form the energy was when it was absorbed...when it is lost via collision, it is not IR...Twist and gyrate all you like...but it is conduction that moves the vast bulk of energy through the atmosphere...and it is via water vapor...not CO2...CO2 is barely a trace gas and is completely overwhelmed by water vapor.

Dude, they’re so confused, they think conducting is IR. Too funny!!!

 

[Crick]

Dude, you;re so stupid, you think you've made a viable argument

 

[jc456]

Dude, you;re so stupid, you think you've made a viable argument

Says the guy that thinks a molecule holds Infrared

 

[Wuwei]

It doesn't matter what form the energy was when it was absorbed...when it is lost via collision, it is not IR.

That is exactly right. The absorbed energy is internal and no longer IR. When it is lost by collision the internal energy is transfered to kinetic energy of the molecule it hit. Since that is random the original IR heats the atmosphere via those collisions. That disproves the title of this thread. Don't tell Billy that you abandoned him.

 

[jc456]

It doesn't matter what form the energy was when it was absorbed...when it is lost via collision, it is not IR.

That is exactly right. The absorbed energy is internal and no longer IR. When it is lost by collision the internal energy is transfered to kinetic energy of the molecule it hit. Since that is random the original IR heats the atmosphere via those collisions. That disproves the title of this thread. Don't tell Billy that you abandoned him.

Where’s the hot spot then?

 

[Billy_Bob]

"The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere is laughable"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaa god what a fucking MORON

Typical cherry picking bullshit from a congenital liar...What's the matter skidmark...can't bring yourself to quote the entire sentence?...or are your reading skills so poor that you can't even identify where a sentence starts and where it ends? Here let me help you out...

What I said was:

"Energy movement through the troposphere is so completely dominated by conduction and convection that the very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere is laughable."

Now do describe, in reasonable, scientifically valid terms how a greenhouse effect might override the energy movement in the troposphere which is so completely dominated by conduction and convection...This should be interesting...and base your answer on empirical evidence...not models which completely discount the major means of energy movement through the troposphere.

I predict you won't even come close to justifying a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere because there isn't a whit of empirical evidence to support it.

I cant imagine why water vapor would be the dominant factor? The facts tell us why it is...

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Greenhouse Effect doesn't have to "override" anything. It is not fighting with conduction or convection. Planet-wide, the only changes taking place with conduction and convection are those due to the increased temperature of the planet. CO2 is slowing the release of LWIR to space and thus causing the planet to warm. Humans are the source of the increased CO2 and that of several other GHGs. You are an idiot, a liar and a troll.

You are soo fooled its flat out amazing..

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 absorbs frequencies that are not absorbed by water. It is not an either or situation Shit for Brains.

Oh look.. Shit for brains posts up a graph he hasn't a clue about...

Tell me Crick, what percentage of upwelling radiation can CO2 potentially react to? Now tell me what that represents in energy defined as W/m^2?

And the bonus question: Both CO2 and Water vapor react in the 12-16um band, where they overlap. Given the 1,000,000,000 to 1 molecular ratio of water vapor over CO2 what is the percentage of Photons that will interact with another CO2 molecule before being carried away by water vapor?

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 absorbs frequencies that are not absorbed by water. It is not an either or situation Shit for Brains.

Stop using graphs you have not the slightest clue what they represent you lying POS! Your deception bull shit is exposed. So now CO2 is absorbed full spectrum now? Is that your schtick?

 

[Crick]

Is that what you think that graph shows?

 

[SSDD]

It doesn't matter what form the energy was when it was absorbed...when it is lost via collision, it is not IR.

That is exactly right. The absorbed energy is internal and no longer IR. When it is lost by collision the internal energy is transfered to kinetic energy of the molecule it hit. Since that is random the original IR heats the atmosphere via those collisions. That disproves the title of this thread. Don't tell Billy that you abandoned him.

Since you want to follow the energy back to where it came from..why cherry pick and stop at a point where it was IR...why not follow it back to its original source and simply admit that it is the sun that warms the atmosphere...and CO2 is irrelevant?

 

[Crick]

Because CO2 IS relevant and the core of this debate.

 

[SSDD]

Because CO2 is not irrelevant and is the core of this debate.

Got any empirical evidence that supports your claim that CO2 is relevant? Any at all? A bit of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere would be nice....got any?

Didn't think so. Maybe you could get the infrared heating industry to reneg on their million plus hours of experiment, development, testing, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems that proves pretty conclusively that IR can not, and does not warm the air.

 

[deanrd]

Right wingers and science. So hilarious.

Remember, these are the people who think Michael Behe is a great scientist.

These are people who think dumping garbage into a closed system will never fill with garbage.

People who think vaccines cause autism.

The same people who are convinced that the Grand Canyon is evidence of Noah's Flood.

I would be careful believing the right wing on anything. Look who their leader is.

But I would be especially skeptical of anything they insisted they have proven using scientific techniques.

Hilarious!

 

[SSDD]

Right wingers and science. So hilarious.

Remember, these are the people who think Michael Behe is a great scientist.

These are people who think dumping garbage into a closed system will never fill with garbage.

People who think vaccines cause autism.

The same people who are convinced that the Grand Canyon is evidence of Noah's Flood.

I would be careful believing the right wing on anything. Look who their leader is.

But I would be especially skeptical of anything they insisted they have proven using scientific techniques.

Hilarious!

Oh look...another alarmist who has no informed opinion of his own...but is perfectly willing to spew the opinion given to him by someone with a political agenda...and like all before him, is completely unable to provide a single shred of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

 

[SSDD]

God are you stupid. And a liar. And a troll.

Troll: a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content.

By definition, it is you who is the troll. You make claims.. I ask for evidence to support the claims...you can't provide it so you take on the roll of troll.

 

[SSDD]

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAaaaaa, jesus, what a fooking MORON

For the rest of you: go to www.ipcc.ch, find "The Physical Science Basis" and give it a look.

No answer to the challenge to provide observed, measured data to support the claim...just name calling and a suggestion to visit a web address along with the hope that they will find something that fools them as easily as it fooled you?

 

[cnm]

Didn't think so. Maybe you could get the infrared heating industry to reneg on their million plus hours of experiment, development, testing, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems that proves pretty conclusively that IR can not, and does not warm the air.

But it warms the greenhouse gas components of the air, Shirley? I mean that's the whole theory, isn't it?

 

[deanrd]

Right wingers and science. So hilarious.

Remember, these are the people who think Michael Behe is a great scientist.

These are people who think dumping garbage into a closed system will never fill with garbage.

People who think vaccines cause autism.

The same people who are convinced that the Grand Canyon is evidence of Noah's Flood.

I would be careful believing the right wing on anything. Look who their leader is.

But I would be especially skeptical of anything they insisted they have proven using scientific techniques.

Hilarious!

Oh look...another alarmist who has no informed opinion of his own...but is perfectly willing to spew the opinion given to him by someone with a political agenda...and like all before him, is completely unable to provide a single shred of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Yea, because everyone knows respected scientists have enormous political agendas. They want their children to live.

 

[SSDD]

Didn't think so. Maybe you could get the infrared heating industry to reneg on their million plus hours of experiment, development, testing, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems that proves pretty conclusively that IR can not, and does not warm the air.

But it warms the greenhouse gas components of the air, Shirley? I mean that's the whole theory, isn't it?

No...alas it doesn't.