LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[cnm]

And I can only guess that you think that graph some how demonstrates that the AGW hypothesis is correct

Well I think it demonstrates atmospheric gases can be warmed, which you deny in the face of data from NASA. There is no profit in discussing any hypothesis with anyone holding such a position.

 

[cnm]

This is fun.

[...] 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.

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...
[,,,]

 

[cnm]

CNM: Don't take SSDD seriously.

But he is amusing light entertainment for a short while, don't you think?

 

[Wuwei]

CNM: Don't take SSDD seriously.

But he is amusing light entertainment for a short while, don't you think?

That's right. It isn't science he is interested in. It's the game. He keeps shooting himself in the foot. As you can see, it makes him rather ill-tempered.

 

[Wuwei]

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..

Sure follow other narratives, but I was focused on one important energy exchange mechanism out of many others: The surface of the earth is largely warmed by short wave energy from the sun. The earth's heat emits broad band long wave radiation. Some of those wavelengths are captured by CO2 and increase the internal energy of those molecules. The internal energy of CO2 is predominantly transfered to O2 and N2 through collisions. Those collisions increase the temperature of the atmosphere. It's as simple as that. Now what do you think I cherry picked?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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..

Sure follow other narratives, but I was focused on one important energy exchange mechanism out of many others: The surface of the earth is largely warmed by short wave energy from the sun. The earth's heat emits broad band long wave radiation. Some of those wavelengths are captured by CO2 and increase the internal energy of those molecules. The internal energy of CO2 is predominantly transfered to O2 and N2 through collisions. Those collisions increase the temperature of the atmosphere. It's as simple as that. Now what do you think I cherry picked?

You don't use enough epicycles.

Einstein was wrong because SSDD, by himself, understands the 2nd Law.

 

[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...

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.

No...my claim is the second law of thermodynamics which says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...sorry that you really don't understand this...the word spontaneous is very important to the idea...till you grasp that, you simply aren't going to have any idea of what I am talking about...maybe you can find an adult to help you understand what spontaneous means and how it applies to the issue...

 

[SSDD]

And I can only guess that you think that graph some how demonstrates that the AGW hypothesis is correct

Well I think it demonstrates atmospheric gases can be warmed, which you deny in the face of data from NASA. There is no profit in discussing any hypothesis with anyone holding such a position.

You "think" it does? When you "think", or believe a thing, with no observed, measured evidence to support that belief, you are expressing faith...faith is different from hard science.

 

[SSDD]

CNM: Don't take SSDD seriously.

But he is amusing light entertainment for a short while, don't you think?

Funny..I was just thinking the same about you...and it is you who has no observed, measured evidence to support what you believe...and you don't even realize that you are arguing from a position of faith that you believe is science...that is part of what makes you so entertaining....And you seem so sure of yourself, even when you use terms like "you think" with no actual evidence to support what you think...

It is all so wonderfully entertaining to watch...it is like a sitcom...bumblers, bumbling about going on and on about what they know, when they can't produce the first piece of observed, measured data to support it....

And I enjoy predicting which topics you will instinctively avoid, like vampires and sunlight...I keep asking you, in real science, how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is scrapped and work begins on a new, more workable hypothesis.....You keep dodging that question...Are you consciously dodging, or is it a subconscious thing with you?

My bet is that it is subconscious...you are so sure of your faith, that you seem the sort who couldn't bear to leave any question unanswered in a manner that supports your faith...that question though, doesn't have an answer that supports your faith...so you don't answer...and I believe that you don't even realize that you aren't answering even though it is a very important question to this issue...why pursue a hypothesis that has had not one, but multiple predictive failures?

So again...in real science, how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get?

How many predictive failures are allowed in pseudoscience?

Now I have to wonder if you are even able to see these words on paper...is your subconscious even allowing you to read them?

 

[SSDD]

Sure follow other narratives, but I was focused on one important energy exchange mechanism out of many others: The surface of the earth is largely warmed by short wave energy from the sun. The earth's heat emits broad band long wave radiation. Some of those wavelengths are captured by CO2 and increase the internal energy of those molecules. The internal energy of CO2 is predominantly transfered to O2 and N2 through collisions. Those collisions increase the temperature of the atmosphere. It's as simple as that. Now what do you think I cherry picked?

Interesting that you can see the problem with your belief, but you can't accept it...climate models assume that radiation is the primary means of movement of energy through the troposphere...they discount conduction entirely and yet, that is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...that is why they fail...they are modeling a radiative greenhouse effect that doesn't exist because conduction is the main mode of energy movement through the troposphere...

 

[jc456]

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!

and then there's you. thanks for the laugh.

 

[jc456]

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!

so post up a link to observed empirical evidence from one of your scientists. just one. I'll wait.

 

[jc456]

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.

well then, you have a simple task, just post up a link to one of their observation of the actual empirical evidence.

 

[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.

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.

he did make that statement, and it is a correct one. what do you think happens after the collisions?

 

[jc456]

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.

you think the energy violates the second law. hmmmmm why?

 

[jc456]

This is fun.

[...] 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.

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...
[,,,]

It is. because you will never post up one observation of that which you parrot. Hey Polly!!!

 

[jc456]

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..

Sure follow other narratives, but I was focused on one important energy exchange mechanism out of many others: The surface of the earth is largely warmed by short wave energy from the sun. The earth's heat emits broad band long wave radiation. Some of those wavelengths are captured by CO2 and increase the internal energy of those molecules. The internal energy of CO2 is predominantly transfered to O2 and N2 through collisions. Those collisions increase the temperature of the atmosphere. It's as simple as that. Now what do you think I cherry picked?

Toddsterpatriot at least this guy knows short wave energy from the sun warms the surface. I will give him that koodo. he then falls into some other traps of the leftist warmers afterwards. but, he at least understands what actually warms the surface. you, not so much so.

 

[Wuwei]

Interesting that you can see the problem with your belief, but you can't accept it...climate models assume that radiation is the primary means of movement of energy through the troposphere...they discount conduction entirely and yet, that is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...that is why they fail...they are modeling a radiative greenhouse effect that doesn't exist because conduction is the main mode of energy movement through the troposphere...

It isn't belief that radiation affects the atmospheric energy flow it's simple logic. If you have objections, tell me which step you think is wrong.

You will have to explain exactly what you think concerning conduction through the troposphere. It is well known that conduction is very poor through gases. That's why we use things like blankets and sweaters when we are cold.

 

[jc456]

Interesting that you can see the problem with your belief, but you can't accept it...climate models assume that radiation is the primary means of movement of energy through the troposphere...they discount conduction entirely and yet, that is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...that is why they fail...they are modeling a radiative greenhouse effect that doesn't exist because conduction is the main mode of energy movement through the troposphere...

It isn't belief that radiation affects the atmospheric energy flow it's simple logic. If you have objections, tell me which step you think is wrong.

You will have to explain exactly what you think concerning conduction through the troposphere. It is well known that conduction is very poor through gases. That's why we use things like blankets and sweaters when we are cold.

hly fk. did you just state that IR is what warms a person under a blanket? really?

 

[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.

No...my claim is the second law of thermodynamics which says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...sorry that you really don't understand this...the word spontaneous is very important to the idea...till you grasp that, you simply aren't going to have any idea of what I am talking about...maybe you can find an adult to help you understand what spontaneous means and how it applies to the issue...

No...my claim is the second law of thermodynamics which says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm..

Cool story.
Still waiting for your explanation for why energy is "allowed" to travel from cooler Sun's surface to hotter Sun's corona.

Don't be such a pussy, answer the question.
Maybe you should email Dr. Raeder?