LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[Crick]

So a CO2 molecule at 0C won't emit toward the ground at 20C unless work is done?

well 99.9% collide, but the .1% would radiate to space.

You're not answering his question JC. Will at 0C CO2 molecule emit photons towards a 20C surface? Yes or No?

 

[IanC]

So a CO2 molecule at 0C won't emit toward the ground at 20C unless work is done?

well 99.9% collide, but the .1% would radiate to space.

You're not answering his question JC. Will at 0C CO2 molecule emit photons towards a 20C surface? Yes or No?

Stop bullying our mentally challenged SSDD sycophant. You know he doesn't actually understand any of this.

 

[jc456]

So a CO2 molecule at 0C won't emit toward the ground at 20C unless work is done?

well 99.9% collide, but the .1% would radiate to space.

You're not answering his question JC. Will at 0C CO2 molecule emit photons towards a 20C surface? Yes or No?

nothing radiates to the warmer surface.

 

[IanC]

Every gas molecule that has the necessary internal conditions will emit a photon in a random direction. Whether it is travelling in the direction of space or the surface is just a matter of chance.

 

[SSDD]

Man, are you stretching.

Wuwei has posted multiple derivations of heat transfer work that indicate two way flow and the second law satisfied by net energy transfer. You have shown us ZILCH.

Sorry...he has posted no such thing...what he has posted was bullshit but by your own admission...it is good enough to fool you.

 

[SSDD]

So a CO2 molecule at 0C won't emit toward the ground at 20C unless work is done?

well 99.9% collide, but the .1% would radiate to space.

You're not answering his question JC. Will at 0C CO2 molecule emit photons towards a 20C surface? Yes or No?

No...energy only moves from warm to cool...but a molecule has no temperature..is there any trick you won't pull in an attempt to fool someone?

 

[jc456]

So a CO2 molecule at 0C won't emit toward the ground at 20C unless work is done?

well 99.9% collide, but the .1% would radiate to space.

You're not answering his question JC. Will at 0C CO2 molecule emit photons towards a 20C surface? Yes or No?

No...energy only moves from warm to cool...but a molecule has no temperature..is there any trick you won't pull in an attempt to fool someone?

He isn’t fooling me. He still hasn’t answered your initial questions. Deflection is all he’s posted

 

[Billy_Bob]

Tell me Ian, if almost all absorbed LWIR is relieved by collision then there is no LWIR to be emitted fromCO2... how is your GHG atmosphere going to work now?

Why are you so stupid? Why don't you understand any basic Physics? Are you asking me to explain it yet again? Two dozen times wasn't enough, why would one more iteration finally educate you?

It seems to be news to you that surface radiation energy is absorbed by CO2 and almost immediately transformed into a different form of energy that is stored in the atmosphere. I don't care that you ignored it dozens of times when I told you in the past. How has this new information changed your thinking today?

Where does this stored energy go? CO2 is already getting rid of as much energy as it can, high up where it is cold. Likewise with the other GHGs. So where does this captured surface radiation energy go? Does it just keep collecting in the atmosphere, causing higher and higher temperatures? Or does most of it return to the surface?

LOL...

How are you stopping LWIR which is OUTBOUND? You have no hot spot so it is not collecting there.. the earth is well within natural variability so its not there.. And the oceans show no net warming so its not there.... Where is your energy hiding?

 

[IanC]

How are you stopping LWIR which is OUTBOUND? You have no hot spot so it is not collecting there.. the earth is well within natural variability so its not there.. And the oceans show no net warming so its not there.... Where is your energy hiding?

You are a moron. Define your questions so that they can be understood without making assumptions to fill in your gaps.

What LWIR ?

What does the hot spot have to do with this? It is a function of H2O phase change and its reduced presence is an indicator that the 3x feedback is in error, not the instigating 1C/2xCO2.

What dataset are you using to show zero warming of the oceans? That runs counter to what I have seen.

I reiterate- you are an idiot who simply spews whatever idea comes into your head, no matter how ridiculous it is.

As an actual skeptic with a nuanced and supportable viewpoint on climate science, it makes me nauseous that I am lumped into the same nominal group as crazy ignoramuses like you. You do more damage than good.

 

[jc456]

How are you stopping LWIR which is OUTBOUND? You have no hot spot so it is not collecting there.. the earth is well within natural variability so its not there.. And the oceans show no net warming so its not there.... Where is your energy hiding?

You are a moron. Define your questions so that they can be understood without making assumptions to fill in your gaps.

What LWIR ?

What does the hot spot have to do with this? It is a function of H2O phase change and its reduced presence is an indicator that the 3x feedback is in error, not the instigating 1C/2xCO2.

What dataset are you using to show zero warming of the oceans? That runs counter to what I have seen.

I reiterate- you are an idiot who simply spews whatever idea comes into your head, no matter how ridiculous it is.

As an actual skeptic with a nuanced and supportable viewpoint on climate science, it makes me nauseous that I am lumped into the same nominal group as crazy ignoramuses like you. You do more damage than good.

No back radiation . I’m correct. You can’t prove otherwise

 

[Billy_Bob]

How are you stopping LWIR which is OUTBOUND? You have no hot spot so it is not collecting there.. the earth is well within natural variability so its not there.. And the oceans show no net warming so its not there.... Where is your energy hiding?

You are a moron. Define your questions so that they can be understood without making assumptions to fill in your gaps.

What LWIR ?

What does the hot spot have to do with this? It is a function of H2O phase change and its reduced presence is an indicator that the 3x feedback is in error, not the instigating 1C/2xCO2.

What dataset are you using to show zero warming of the oceans? That runs counter to what I have seen.

I reiterate- you are an idiot who simply spews whatever idea comes into your head, no matter how ridiculous it is.

As an actual skeptic with a nuanced and supportable viewpoint on climate science, it makes me nauseous that I am lumped into the same nominal group as crazy ignoramuses like you. You do more damage than good.

LOL..

YOUR premise is that black body radiation from the earth is getting trapped somewhere in the system making the planet warm. Point to it Ian.. Where is it?

 

[Wuwei]

Man, are you stretching.

Wuwei has posted multiple derivations of heat transfer work that indicate two way flow and the second law satisfied by net energy transfer. You have shown us ZILCH.

Sorry...he has posted no such thing...what he has posted was bullshit but by your own admission...it is good enough to fool you.

Nope. You are the one who posts bullshit and you know it.

 

[IanC]

How are you stopping LWIR which is OUTBOUND? You have no hot spot so it is not collecting there.. the earth is well within natural variability so its not there.. And the oceans show no net warming so its not there.... Where is your energy hiding?

You are a moron. Define your questions so that they can be understood without making assumptions to fill in your gaps.

What LWIR ?

What does the hot spot have to do with this? It is a function of H2O phase change and its reduced presence is an indicator that the 3x feedback is in error, not the instigating 1C/2xCO2.

What dataset are you using to show zero warming of the oceans? That runs counter to what I have seen.

I reiterate- you are an idiot who simply spews whatever idea comes into your head, no matter how ridiculous it is.

As an actual skeptic with a nuanced and supportable viewpoint on climate science, it makes me nauseous that I am lumped into the same nominal group as crazy ignoramuses like you. You do more damage than good.

LOL..

YOUR premise is that black body radiation from the earth is getting trapped somewhere in the system making the planet warm. Point to it Ian.. Where is it?

I have explained in detail many times in the past.

Do you agree that an atmosphere that had no GHGs would still warm the surface?

If your answer is yes then I can describe how the addition of greenhouse gases will enhance that effect.

If we are still in agreement after that, then I can describe the mechanism by which adding more of the same GHGs probably adds more warming.

So the first step is for you to write a short synopsis of how an atmosphere warms the surface, ie how energy is stored and released.

 

[jc456]

How are you stopping LWIR which is OUTBOUND? You have no hot spot so it is not collecting there.. the earth is well within natural variability so its not there.. And the oceans show no net warming so its not there.... Where is your energy hiding?

You are a moron. Define your questions so that they can be understood without making assumptions to fill in your gaps.

What LWIR ?

What does the hot spot have to do with this? It is a function of H2O phase change and its reduced presence is an indicator that the 3x feedback is in error, not the instigating 1C/2xCO2.

What dataset are you using to show zero warming of the oceans? That runs counter to what I have seen.

I reiterate- you are an idiot who simply spews whatever idea comes into your head, no matter how ridiculous it is.

As an actual skeptic with a nuanced and supportable viewpoint on climate science, it makes me nauseous that I am lumped into the same nominal group as crazy ignoramuses like you. You do more damage than good.

LOL..

YOUR premise is that black body radiation from the earth is getting trapped somewhere in the system making the planet warm. Point to it Ian.. Where is it?

I have explained in detail many times in the past.

Do you agree that an atmosphere that had no GHGs would still warm the surface?

If your answer is yes then I can describe how the addition of greenhouse gases will enhance that effect.

If we are still in agreement after that, then I can describe the mechanism by which adding more of the same GHGs probably adds more warming.

So the first step is for you to write a short synopsis of how an atmosphere warms the surface, ie how energy is stored and released.

Do you understand conduction convection?

 

[Billy_Bob]

probably adds

LOL

For which you have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OR PROOF!

 

[IanC]

Do you understand conduction convection?

Hahahahaha.

What three things are necessary for convection to take place?

 

[IanC]

probably adds

LOL

For which you have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OR PROOF!

Not willing to discuss the undeniable warming effect of an atmosphere, or the obvious effect of adding GHGs to the atmosphere?

Instead you want to argue about the feeble difference caused by adding more of a GHG that is already 'saturated'?

 

[Billy_Bob]

probably adds

LOL

For which you have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OR PROOF!

Not willing to discuss the undeniable warming effect of an atmosphere, or the obvious effect of adding GHGs to the atmosphere?

Instead you want to argue about the feeble difference caused by adding more of a GHG that is already 'saturated'?

SO now you agree that CO2 is saturated and has no more power in our atmosphere at current levels?

 

[IanC]

YOUR premise is that black body radiation from the earth is getting trapped somewhere in the system making the planet warm. Point to it Ian.. Where is it?

For a change you are actually close to getting it.

Reducing the ability to shed energy will raise temperature just as surely as raising the power source.

The energy to warm the atmosphere and surface is simply borrowed from the amount that would have escaped to space if the insulation was not retarding it.

 

[IanC]

probably adds

LOL

For which you have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OR PROOF!

Not willing to discuss the undeniable warming effect of an atmosphere, or the obvious effect of adding GHGs to the atmosphere?

Instead you want to argue about the feeble difference caused by adding more of a GHG that is already 'saturated'?

SO now you agree that CO2 is saturated and has no more power in our atmosphere at current levels?

No.

Increasing CO2 is a warming influence. Whether warming actually happens depends on the total of all the individual influences.