LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[jc456]

Think about by you, Wuwei and Billy Bob over the last several days. The surface of the Earth, warmed primarily by visible light, radiates IR upward. Within a "handful of meters", it is all absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The CO2 then loses that absorbed energy through collisions. Those collisions would be with "the air", which is then warmed.

Your assertion makes no sense. As I stated to you earlier, you have been saying in effect that "CO2 cannot warm the air because it is so rapidly warming the air."

yes exactly, CO2 does not warm the air. Still waiting on observed data to change my mind anyway.

 

[Crick]

You and your sources have repeatedly stated that CO2 loses absorbed energy via collisions. What do you think it is having collisions with?

 

[jc456]

You and your sources have repeatedly stated that CO2 loses absorbed energy via collisions. What do you think it is having collisions with?

If my memory serves me correctly, in the posts of the past, it has been mentioned that CO2 collides with N2 molecules.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You and your sources have repeatedly stated that CO2 loses absorbed energy via collisions. What do you think it is having collisions with?

If my memory serves me correctly, in the posts of the past, it has been mentioned that CO2 collides with N2 molecules.

If my memory serves me correctly, in the posts of the past, it has been mentioned that CO2 collides with N2 molecules.

When an excited CO2 molecule hits an N2 molecule, the N2 gets the energy and is heated.

 

[SSDD]

Think about by you, Wuwei and Billy Bob over the last several days. The surface of the Earth, warmed primarily by visible light, radiates IR upward. Within a "handful of meters", it is all absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The CO2 then loses that absorbed energy through collisions. Those collisions would be with "the air", which is then warmed.

Your assertion makes no sense. As I stated to you earlier, you have been saying in effect that "CO2 cannot warm the air because it is so rapidly warming the air."

Makes no sense to you because you’re an idiot. The warming is due to conduction not radiation. Therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere it is conduction that warms the air.

 

[SSDD]

Moron...the 2nd result is 6 meters...I merely forgot to change the figure for area in the equation generator. P is calculated for 6 square meters. What do you think is rediculous about that result?

That is the equation for the 1 m^2 speck emitting radiation

That is your equation for the 6 m^2 box radiating

First you have a typo and are missing a leading zero. Second, you forgot to multiply your second equation by the area of 6 m^2. If you did your answer would be

6 x 0.00571 W/m^2 = .03082 W/m^2

That is what is ridiculous. You are misusing your favorite equation.



.

You are correct...I miscalculated...so now you have proven both my point...and that the hair ball doesn’t have a clue...congratulations...you finally got something right...and showed energy moving in one direction from the warmer container to the speck of cooler matter...

If I had known that a simple math error would have been sufficient to drive you to demonstrate the one way energy movement that equation describes, I would have done it months ago

 

[SSDD]

You and your sources have repeatedly stated that CO2 loses absorbed energy via collisions. What do you think it is having collisions with?

If my memory serves me correctly, in the posts of the past, it has been mentioned that CO2 collides with N2 molecules.

And O2 molecules and H2O molecules..and any other molecule and particle in the air...it is called conduction and is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere. A radiative greenhouse affect cannot exist in a troposphere so completely dominated by conduction.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Think about by you, Wuwei and Billy Bob over the last several days. The surface of the Earth, warmed primarily by visible light, radiates IR upward. Within a "handful of meters", it is all absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The CO2 then loses that absorbed energy through collisions. Those collisions would be with "the air", which is then warmed.

Your assertion makes no sense. As I stated to you earlier, you have been saying in effect that "CO2 cannot warm the air because it is so rapidly warming the air."

Makes no sense to you because you’re an idiot. The warming is due to conduction not radiation. Therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere it is conduction that warms the air.

The warming is due to conduction not radiation.

The IR warmed GHGs conduct that warmth to the rest of the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

Think about by you, Wuwei and Billy Bob over the last several days. The surface of the Earth, warmed primarily by visible light, radiates IR upward. Within a "handful of meters", it is all absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The CO2 then loses that absorbed energy through collisions. Those collisions would be with "the air", which is then warmed.

Your assertion makes no sense. As I stated to you earlier, you have been saying in effect that "CO2 cannot warm the air because it is so rapidly warming the air."

Makes no sense to you because you’re an idiot. The warming is due to conduction not radiation. Therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere it is conduction that warms the air.

The warming is due to conduction not radiation.

The IR warmed GHGs conduct that warmth to the rest of the atmosphere.

IR never warms anything but water vapor...CO2 can absorb IR...but while the energy is within the CO2 molecule, it is just energy...not IR...if it emits the energy, it emits it in the form of IR...if it loses the energy via collision, then it loses the energy via conduction...The energy it loses via collision is not IR...and it really doesn't matter how it came to have the energy in the first place...hell, it may have gained the energy via a collision with another molecule rather than by absorbing IR...considering the mean time between collisions, it is probably more likely that a CO2 molecule in possession of a bit of energy got it via collision than via absorbing IR.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Think about by you, Wuwei and Billy Bob over the last several days. The surface of the Earth, warmed primarily by visible light, radiates IR upward. Within a "handful of meters", it is all absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The CO2 then loses that absorbed energy through collisions. Those collisions would be with "the air", which is then warmed.

Your assertion makes no sense. As I stated to you earlier, you have been saying in effect that "CO2 cannot warm the air because it is so rapidly warming the air."

Makes no sense to you because you’re an idiot. The warming is due to conduction not radiation. Therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere it is conduction that warms the air.

The warming is due to conduction not radiation.

The IR warmed GHGs conduct that warmth to the rest of the atmosphere.

IR never warms anything but water vapor...CO2 can absorb IR...but while the energy is within the CO2 molecule, it is just energy...not IR...if it emits the energy, it emits it in the form of IR...if it loses the energy via collision, then it loses the energy via conduction...The energy it loses via collision is not IR...and it really doesn't matter how it came to have the energy in the first place...hell, it may have gained the energy via a collision with another molecule rather than by absorbing IR...considering the mean time between collisions, it is probably more likely that a CO2 molecule in possession of a bit of energy got it via collision than via absorbing IR.

CO2 can absorb IR...but while the energy is within the CO2 molecule, it is just energy...not IR...

H2O can absorb IR...but while the energy is within the H2O molecule, it is just energy...not IR...

IR never warms anything but water vapor...

CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmed? Link?

CO2 can absorb IR...but while the energy is within the CO2 molecule, it is just energy...not IR..

Correct, radiation absorbed by matter is no longer radiation.
Who claimed otherwise? Where?

if it emits the energy, it emits it in the form of IR.

Yes. IR which moves in all directions, even back toward the surface.

if it loses the energy via collision, then it loses the energy via conduction...

Yes. Matter warmed by IR can transfer that warmth via collision.

The energy it loses via collision is not IR..

Of course not. Energy lost/gained via collision is kinetic, not IR.
Who claimed otherwise? Where?

and it really doesn't matter how it came to have the energy in the first place...hell, it may have gained the energy via a collision with another molecule rather than by absorbing IR...

Yes. Who claimed otherwise? Where?

 

[SSDD]

CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmed? Link?

Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F, as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision that is.

Yes. IR which moves in all directions, even back toward the surface.

No..it only moves towards cooler areas...refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmed? Link?

Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F, as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision that is.

Yes. IR which moves in all directions, even back toward the surface.

No..it only moves towards cooler areas...refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F,

Why are you talking about equilibrium? The moment a photon hits and is absorbed by CO2, the CO2 is warmer.

as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature.

AFAIK, all matter emits trying to reach 0K.
You have anything that shows CO2 only tries to get to -80F and then, for some reason, stops emitting?

No..it only moves towards cooler areas.

Link showing photons are restricted as you claim?

refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

How does a photon know if it was created by work which would allow it to travel toward warmer matter?

 

[Crick]

Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F, as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision that is.

What do you mean by "the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F"? CO2's triple point is -56.57C. It's critical point is 31.03C. Neither is a point that CO2 is "trying to reach".

 

[Wuwei]

You are correct...I miscalculated...so now you have proven both my point...and that the hair ball doesn’t have a clue...congratulations...you finally got something right...and showed energy moving in one direction from the warmer container to the speck of cooler matter.

It is more than just a miscalculation. It is another total failure of yours.

According to your interpretation of the SB formula, if the surround was not just 6m² , but was a huge box of 1000 m² your formula would give a whopping
1000 x 0.00571 W/m² = 5.71 W/m² out of a mere temperature difference of 0.001C.

Why does your formula heat a speck of matter ever more strongly as the size of the enclosing box gets larger? Maybe you should trash your understanding of the SB law and go along with the textbooks on the subject. Eh?

.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F, as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision that is.

What do you mean by "the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F"? CO2's triple point is -56.57C. It's critical point is 31.03C. Neither is a point that CO2 is "trying to reach".

SSDD, you have gone down to the deep end of loony.

 

[IanC]

If you were going to use SSDDs S-B equation for the Earth's surface radiating into the atmosphere, what value would you put in for emissivity? How would it affect P?

Do you use surface emissivity which is nearly a perfect blackbody at infrared frequencies? Or do you use the atmospheric emissivity that is high or low depending on the exact wavelength ?

How do we count the radiation lost to space that simply transits the atmosphere without reacting with it?

 

[mamooth]

What sort of sane S-B formula uses the SB constant twice?

One being clear about what's physically happening. No need to discuss that further, as your well-documented cult retardation there is only interesting in an abnormal-psychology kind of way.

Clearly you don't have a clue...

I asked for you to set up the different equations for each of the between the hotter background and cooler background cases. You didn't even try. And why didn't you try? Because you couldn't. You clearly have no idea of how your kook theory is supposed to work in practice.

Care to give it another shot? Don't put in the numbers, just show the formulas in each case, and explain what each term means in a physical way.

 

[SSDD]

It is more than just a miscalculation. It is another total failure of yours.

According to your interpretation of the SB formula, if the surround was not just 6m² , but was a huge box of 1000 m² your formula would give a whopping
1000 x 0.00571 W/m² = 5.71 W/m² out of a mere temperature difference of 0.001C.

Newsflash...I didn't derive that equation...it is the physical law. And I guess you didn't know that the total amount radiated is calculated based on the area of the radiator...Change the area, change the amount of radiation. Are you saying that the equation is wrong? Got any evidence to support that claim.

You know, there are SB calculators online in which you can plug those numbers and get the same answer...again...are you saying the SB equation is incorrect and therefore the SB law is wrong?

Why does your formula heat a speck of matter ever more strongly as the size of the enclosing box gets larger? Maybe you should trash your understanding of the SB law and go along with the textbooks on the subject. Eh?

See that capital A in the equation...increase that number and you increase P. Since the enclosing box is the radiator, it is what is emitting...Do you really not know this? Again...you think the SB equation is wrong? You think the SB law is incorrect? Because the number derived is based on the SB equation.

 

[SSDD]

If you were going to use SSDDs S-B equation for the Earth's surface radiating into the atmosphere, what value would you put in for emissivity? How would it affect P?

Do you use surface emissivity which is nearly a perfect blackbody at infrared frequencies? Or do you use the atmospheric emissivity that is high or low depending on the exact wavelength ?

How do we count the radiation lost to space that simply transits the atmosphere without reacting with it?

You can't apply the SB equation to a gas ian...yet another reason climate models are failures.

 

[SSDD]

One being clear about what's physically happening. No need to discuss that further, as your well-documented cult retardation there is only interesting in an abnormal-psychology kind of way.

Sorry hairball...any equation in which you must use the SB constant twice would allow you to set T to a temperature lower than that of Tc...that violates the SB law...sorry

I asked for you to set up the different equations for each of the between the hotter background and cooler background cases. You didn't even try. And why didn't you try? Because you couldn't. You clearly have no idea of how your kook theory is supposed to work in practice.

]

Of course you did...if you knew the first thing about the SB law, you would have phrased the question differently...the SB law assumes that T is always warmer than Tc...(the c is for cold) The background must be cooler than the radiator...when you made the box warmer than the speck of material housed inside, you made the box the radiator...emitting energy to the cooler speck..

As I pointed out, we had to make the surroundings a box because if it were just warm air which has no area, the SB equation would not be applicable..

Care to give it another shot? Don't put in the numbers, just show the formulas in each case, and explain what each term means in a physical way.

Other than a typo, what I did was correct...feel free to plug the numbers into the equation yourself... bottom of the page. By the way...your equation is for an object emitting into a vacuum...not an object in the presence of other matter..

Stefan-Boltzmann Law