LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[cnm]

What, you've falsified the greenhouse gas theory?

 

[SSDD]

What, you've falsified the greenhouse gas theory?

It was never a theory...only a hypothesis and a piss poor one at that..

 

[cnm]

Call it the greenhouse effect then. But you've falsified it?

 

[SSDD]

But you've falsified it?

Nah...the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize falsified it...every failed prediction it made falsified it...tell me, in real science, how many failed predictions does a hypothesis get to make before it is scrapped and the work begins on a new hypothesis?

Now, in real pseudoscience, how many failed predictions does a hypothesis get to make before it is scrapped?

 

[cnm]

I guess NASA has it all wrong then.

Atmospheric gases only absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in longer wavelengths (12–15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the "window" through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space. (Illustration NASA, Robert Rohde)[19]
Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

 

[cnm]

Nah...the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize falsified it...every failed prediction it made falsified it...tell me, in real science, how many failed predictions does a hypothesis get to make before it is scrapped and the work begins on a new hypothesis?

So, you're saying the data from NASA is false and energy is not absorbed by any atmospheric gas?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

That is the hypothesis, but it has been proven wrong...

 

[Billy_Bob]

I guess NASA has it all wrong then.

Atmospheric gases only absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in longer wavelengths (12–15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the "window" through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space. (Illustration NASA, Robert Rohde)[19]
Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

Even NASA's own chart shows that watervapor can and does react to LWIR in those regions...You and crick must have taken the very same graph reading class..

In the upwelling spectrum, which is what AGW represents and on which the theroy is derived, they overlap...

 

[Billy_Bob]

What, you've falsified the greenhouse gas theory?

Why are you assigning the term Theory to a hypothesis that is unproven?

 

[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.

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?

That's a totally irrelevant distraction. The current relevancy is the fact that CO2 can absorb certain LW IR and gain internal energy which can be passed to the atmosphere by collision. You said that yourself. Now you seem to be trying to back-pedal or digress.

 

[Wuwei]

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?

CNM: Don't take SSDD seriously. He thinks quantum mechanics is fairy dust. He has a distorted view of thermodynamics. He thinks some photons perceive heat and avoid that direction. He doesn't understand spontaneous processes. He thinks the cosmic background radiation cannot hit earth, and many other idiotic things. Your perception of greenhouse gases far exceeds his.

 

[SSDD]

I guess NASA has it all wrong then.

Atmospheric gases only absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in longer wavelengths (12–15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the "window" through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space. (Illustration NASA, Robert Rohde)[19]
Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

Again.... in real science, how many failed predictions does a hypothesis get to make before it is scrapped and the work begins on a new hypothesis?

Now, in real pseudoscience, how many failed predictions does a hypothesis get to make before it is scrapped?


And I can only guess that you think that graph some how demonstrates that the AGW hypothesis is correct....does it mean that you think absorption and emission equals warming? Got any observed, measured evidence to support that belief? Didn't think so.

 

[SSDD]

Nah...the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize falsified it...every failed prediction it made falsified it...tell me, in real science, how many failed predictions does a hypothesis get to make before it is scrapped and the work begins on a new hypothesis?

So, you're saying the data from NASA is false and energy is not absorbed by any atmospheric gas?

Of course so called greenhouse gasses absorb energy..with the exception of water vapor, the so called greenhouse gasses then emit that energy, or lose it via collision with another molecule...loss of the energy via collision happening better than 90% of the time...it is called conduction and is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...

Absorption and emission do not equal warming...the assumption that it does is a major flaw in the hypothesis and the very reason the tropospheric hot spot never showed up.

 

[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?

That's a totally irrelevant distraction. The current relevancy is the fact that CO2 can absorb certain LW IR and gain internal energy which can be passed to the atmosphere by collision. You said that yourself. Now you seem to be trying to back-pedal or digress.

Of course it isn't...you want to say that the energy that CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses lose to collision is due to IR...that is simply cherry picking a step other than the actual energy transfer from the so called greenhouse gas to the non greenhouse gas...If you want to follow the energy back, why stop there for any other reason than to support a failing narrative...if you are going to follow the energy back, you are obligated to follow it all the way back...

 

[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?

CNM: Don't take SSDD seriously. He thinks quantum mechanics is fairy dust. He has a distorted view of thermodynamics. He thinks some photons perceive heat and avoid that direction. He doesn't understand spontaneous processes. He thinks the cosmic background radiation cannot hit earth, and many other idiotic things. Your perception of greenhouse gases far exceeds his.

Listing off all the subjects in which I have handed you your ass and you have utterly failed to provide any empirical evidence to support your beliefs? Odd tactic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

That's a totally irrelevant distraction. The current relevancy is the fact that CO2 can absorb certain LW IR and gain internal energy which can be passed to the atmosphere by collision. You said that yourself. Now you seem to be trying to back-pedal or digress.

Of course it isn't...you want to say that the energy that CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses lose to collision is due to IR...that is simply cherry picking a step other than the actual energy transfer from the so called greenhouse gas to the non greenhouse gas...If you want to follow the energy back, why stop there for any other reason than to support a failing narrative...if you are going to follow the energy back, you are obligated to follow it all the way back...

you want to say that the energy that CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses lose to collision is due to IR.

The energy loss is due to the collision. Energy doesn't give a fuck how it got to the GHG in the first place.

You never said why matter on the Sun is allowed to hit the hotter corona?
Chicken much?

 

[SSDD]

You never said why matter on the Sun is allowed to hit the hotter corona?
Chicken much?

Of course I did...over and over...do a search for the term Alfven Waves and you will see that I provided the information no less than nine times that it was the latest theory on what was providing the work necessary to move the energy from the cooler surface to the warmer corona.

How simple must you be to have missed it all those times....or how much of a liar must you be to claim that I haven't provided the information when I have...all those times...

So which is it? Are you simple, or are you a liar?

In case you are just simple...here are the posts where I provided the information over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...……..and over.

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
No Evidence
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
No Evidence
The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.
No Evidence
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
No Evidence
No Evidence

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You never said why matter on the Sun is allowed to hit the hotter corona?
Chicken much?

Of course I did...over and over...do a search for the term Alfven Waves and you will see that I provided the information no less than nine times that it was the latest theory on what was providing the work necessary to move the energy from the cooler surface to the warmer corona.

How simple must you be to have missed it all those times....or how much of a liar must you be to claim that I haven't provided the information when I have...all those times...

So which is it? Are you simple, or are you a liar?

In case you are just simple...here are the posts where I provided the information over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...……..and over.

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
No Evidence
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
No Evidence
The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.
No Evidence
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
No Evidence
No Evidence

Of course I did...over and over...do a search for the term Alfven Waves

Nope.
I'm talking about photons from cooler matter on the surface.
You feel it isn't "allowed" somehow to hit the corona.
If clearly does.

So explain why your error isn't an error.

 

[SSDD]

You never said why matter on the Sun is allowed to hit the hotter corona?
Chicken much?

Of course I did...over and over...do a search for the term Alfven Waves and you will see that I provided the information no less than nine times that it was the latest theory on what was providing the work necessary to move the energy from the cooler surface to the warmer corona.

How simple must you be to have missed it all those times....or how much of a liar must you be to claim that I haven't provided the information when I have...all those times...

So which is it? Are you simple, or are you a liar?

In case you are just simple...here are the posts where I provided the information over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...……..and over.

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
No Evidence
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
No Evidence
The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.
No Evidence
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
No Evidence
No Evidence

Of course I did...over and over...do a search for the term Alfven Waves

Nope.
I'm talking about photons from cooler matter on the surface.
You feel it isn't "allowed" somehow to hit the corona.
If clearly does.

So explain why your error isn't an error.

You aren't playing obtuse are you? You really are just that daft....aren't you. Read the posts...it is all there...explanations about moving energy from cool to warm by applying work...its all there...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You never said why matter on the Sun is allowed to hit the hotter corona?
Chicken much?

Of course I did...over and over...do a search for the term Alfven Waves and you will see that I provided the information no less than nine times that it was the latest theory on what was providing the work necessary to move the energy from the cooler surface to the warmer corona.

How simple must you be to have missed it all those times....or how much of a liar must you be to claim that I haven't provided the information when I have...all those times...

So which is it? Are you simple, or are you a liar?

In case you are just simple...here are the posts where I provided the information over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...……..and over.

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
No Evidence
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
No Evidence
The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.
No Evidence
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
No Evidence
No Evidence

Of course I did...over and over...do a search for the term Alfven Waves

Nope.
I'm talking about photons from cooler matter on the surface.
You feel it isn't "allowed" somehow to hit the corona.
If clearly does.

So explain why your error isn't an error.

You aren't playing obtuse are you? You really are just that daft....aren't you. Read the posts...it is all there...explanations about moving energy from cool to warm by applying work...its all there...

Don't care why the corona is hotter.
Your faulty claim is matter isn't "allowed" to emit toward warmer matter.
The Sun clearly does.
Don't be a pussy, explain how it is allowed.