LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I guess you fail to understand why LOG functions exist..

Why are you interested in logarithms in base 10 rather than natural logarithms? Why do you capitalize it as LOG?

Probably because he fails to understand why LOG functions exist.

I understand it quite well... What you alarmists fail to understand in a LOG function there is always a corresponding trade off.. In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time. As you add more and more of a substance that can not warm to the atmosphere it will displace items that can warm allowing faster cooling.

You folks are having a hard time with first year physics concepts...

You folks are having a hard time with first year physics concepts.

That reminds me.....were magnetic photons a lie or just stupidity?

 

[jc456]

Do you understand conduction convection?

Hahahahaha.

What three things are necessary for convection to take place?

the sun, the surface and the atmosphere.

Wrong. Try again.

No sun no lwir

You're getting colder. Try again.

so you think there is LWIR without sunlight? oh, ok.

 

[jc456]

I guess you fail to understand why LOG functions exist..

Why are you interested in logarithms in base 10 rather than natural logarithms? Why do you capitalize it as LOG?

Probably because he fails to understand why LOG functions exist.

I understand it quite well... What you alarmists fail to understand in a LOG function there is always a corresponding trade off.. In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time. As you add more and more of a substance that can not warm to the atmosphere it will displace items that can warm allowing faster cooling.

You folks are having a hard time with first year physics concepts...

You folks are having a hard time with first year physics concepts.

That reminds me.....were magnetic photons a lie or just stupidity?

that reminds me, you still haven't proven back radiation. why?

 

[IanC]

Partially replacing the 20C background with 0C ice cubes would make the coffee cool faster.

But you said that adding anything that can radiate would make it cool slower? I'm confused by your double talk.. So are the less energetic photons cooling the hotter coffee?

You were confused for a long time before I came along and started to give you simple explanations.

All things radiate according to their temperature and emissivity. That radiation would result in maximum cooling if the object was in deep space receiving no outside radiation in return.

Here on earth, an object is always receiving radiation energy from the environment. A little from cold things, a lot from warm things.

Here is the simple point that you guys seem incapable of understanding. The object always radiates the same amount of energy! Only the rate of cooling is affected by the incoming radiation from the environment.

A cup of coffee cools fastest in a freezer, a little less quickly in a fridge, slower still sitting on the counter, and very little cooling would happen if it was sitting under a heat lamp.

But at all times, regardless of the outside conditions, the object radiates according to its temperature and emissivity.

 

[jc456]

Partially replacing the 20C background with 0C ice cubes would make the coffee cool faster.

But you said that adding anything that can radiate would make it cool slower? I'm confused by your double talk.. So are the less energetic photons cooling the hotter coffee?

You were confused for a long time before I came along and started to give you simple explanations.

All things radiate according to their temperature and emissivity. That radiation would result in maximum cooling if the object was in deep space receiving no outside radiation in return.

Here on earth, an object is always receiving radiation energy from the environment. A little from cold things, a lot from warm things.

Here is the simple point that you guys seem incapable of understanding. The object always radiates the same amount of energy! Only the rate of cooling is affected by the incoming radiation from the environment.

A cup of coffee cools fastest in a freezer, a little less quickly in a fridge, slower still sitting on the counter, and very little cooling would happen if it was sitting under a heat lamp.

But at all times, regardless of the outside conditions, the object radiates according to its temperature and emissivity.

but ice over coffee doesn't slow it's rate of cooling. You, and I'm confident here, stated that cold will slow the rate of warming. Yes or no?

 

[IanC]

Hahahahaha.

What three things are necessary for convection to take place?

the sun, the surface and the atmosphere.

Wrong. Try again.

No sun no lwir

You're getting colder. Try again.

so you think there is LWIR without sunlight? oh, ok.

You specifically asked me about conduction and convection. I then asked you to state the three main conditions necessary for convection. You failed miserably and are now mewling about long wave infrared radiation.

A car engine sheds internally produced heat by pumping water through the engine and out to the radiator.

Can you identify the main parts of that system? Can you then identify the analogs in our environment ?

Edit- I am trying to get you to think. It is the only way to learn anything. Just hearing an answer or explanation does nothing until it makes sense.

 

[Wuwei]

In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time.

Residency time for 15 micron CO2 vibration 6 microSec
Mean time between collisions of air molecules 0.2 nsec

That means, on the average, every CO2 molecule is hit 30,000 times by an air molecule during it's residency time. With that onslaught of collisions don't you think almost all of the vibration energy would be transfered to the colliding molecule? Re-radiation would be very rare (probability = 1 / 30,000).

 

[IanC]

but ice over coffee doesn't slow it's rate of cooling. You, and I'm confident here, stated that cold will slow the rate of warming. Yes or no?

What part of this reply are you having problems with?


Here is the simple point that you guys seem incapable of understanding. The object always radiates the same amount of energy! Only the rate of cooling is affected by the incoming radiation from the environment.

A cup of coffee cools fastest in a freezer, a little less quickly in a fridge, slower still sitting on the counter, and very little cooling would happen if it was sitting under a heat lamp.

 

[SSDD]

In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time.

Residency time for 15 micron CO2 vibration 6 microSec
Mean time between collisions of air molecules 0.2 nsec

That means, on the average, every CO2 molecule is hit 30,000 times by an air molecule during it's residency time. With that onslaught of collisions don't you think almost all of the vibration energy would be transfered to the colliding molecule? Re-radiation would be very rare (probability = 1 / 30,000).

The point is that the radiative greenhouse effect upon which both the greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis are not possible because conduction and convection are the primary means of energy movement though the troposphere...the only hypothesis that will work is one in which conduction is the key player...like the gravito thermal effect.. Say, for instance, the molar version of the ideal gas law...which predicts the temperature without need for ad hoc fudge factors and accurately predicts the temperatures everywhere there is an atmosphere of at least 10kPa

 

[IanC]

In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time.

Residency time for 15 micron CO2 vibration 6 microSec
Mean time between collisions of air molecules 0.2 nsec

That means, on the average, every CO2 molecule is hit 30,000 times by an air molecule during it's residency time. With that onslaught of collisions don't you think almost all of the vibration energy would be transfered to the colliding molecule? Re-radiation would be very rare (probability = 1 / 30,000).

The point is that the radiative greenhouse effect upon which both the greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis are not possible because conduction and convection are the primary means of energy movement though the troposphere...the only hypothesis that will work is one in which conduction is the key player...like the gravito thermal effect.. Say, for instance, the molar version of the ideal gas law...which predicts the temperature without need for ad hoc fudge factors and accurately predicts the temperatures everywhere there is an atmosphere of at least 10kPa

You keep making a fuss over convection and conduction while totally ignoring the elephant in the room. Energy only leaves the Earth system by radiation.

 

[jc456]

but ice over coffee doesn't slow it's rate of cooling. You, and I'm confident here, stated that cold will slow the rate of warming. Yes or no?

What part of this reply are you having problems with?


Here is the simple point that you guys seem incapable of understanding. The object always radiates the same amount of energy! Only the rate of cooling is affected by the incoming radiation from the environment.

A cup of coffee cools fastest in a freezer, a little less quickly in a fridge, slower still sitting on the counter, and very little cooling would happen if it was sitting under a heat lamp.

so you agree that cold does not slow down the rate of cooling on a hot object. therefore, the surface cooling isn't affected by the cooler atmosphere. Ok, I agree with you. And the more CO2 in the atmosphere does nothing to the rate of cooling. wow, that's a mile marker today.

 

[jc456]

In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time.

Residency time for 15 micron CO2 vibration 6 microSec
Mean time between collisions of air molecules 0.2 nsec

That means, on the average, every CO2 molecule is hit 30,000 times by an air molecule during it's residency time. With that onslaught of collisions don't you think almost all of the vibration energy would be transfered to the colliding molecule? Re-radiation would be very rare (probability = 1 / 30,000).

The point is that the radiative greenhouse effect upon which both the greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis are not possible because conduction and convection are the primary means of energy movement though the troposphere...the only hypothesis that will work is one in which conduction is the key player...like the gravito thermal effect.. Say, for instance, the molar version of the ideal gas law...which predicts the temperature without need for ad hoc fudge factors and accurately predicts the temperatures everywhere there is an atmosphere of at least 10kPa

You keep making a fuss over convection and conduction while totally ignoring the elephant in the room. Energy only leaves the Earth system by radiation.

he never said it didn't. wow.

 

[SSDD]

In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time.

Residency time for 15 micron CO2 vibration 6 microSec
Mean time between collisions of air molecules 0.2 nsec

That means, on the average, every CO2 molecule is hit 30,000 times by an air molecule during it's residency time. With that onslaught of collisions don't you think almost all of the vibration energy would be transfered to the colliding molecule? Re-radiation would be very rare (probability = 1 / 30,000).

The point is that the radiative greenhouse effect upon which both the greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis are not possible because conduction and convection are the primary means of energy movement though the troposphere...the only hypothesis that will work is one in which conduction is the key player...like the gravito thermal effect.. Say, for instance, the molar version of the ideal gas law...which predicts the temperature without need for ad hoc fudge factors and accurately predicts the temperatures everywhere there is an atmosphere of at least 10kPa

You keep making a fuss over convection and conduction while totally ignoring the elephant in the room. Energy only leaves the Earth system by radiation.

You are the one ignoring the elephant...the greenhouse effect..and the enhanced greenhouse effect which is supposed to represent man made global warming are tropospheric phenomena...the fact that energy leaves the atmosphere via radiation happens in the stratosphere where the greenhouse effect is irrelevant...

Here...have a look at this...yet more predictive failures of both the greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682618305030

Again..in real science, how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is scrapped and work begins on a new hypothesis which doesn't produce predictive failures?

In pseudoscience, failures are fine so long as the funding keeps coming in...you have fallen for pseudoscience...

 

[Billy_Bob]

A cup of coffee cools fastest in a freezer, a little less quickly in a fridge, slower still sitting on the counter, and very little cooling would happen if it was sitting under a heat lamp.

I thought your colder atmosphere warmed things?

 

[Billy_Bob]

In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time.

Residency time for 15 micron CO2 vibration 6 microSec
Mean time between collisions of air molecules 0.2 nsec

That means, on the average, every CO2 molecule is hit 30,000 times by an air molecule during it's residency time. With that onslaught of collisions don't you think almost all of the vibration energy would be transfered to the colliding molecule? Re-radiation would be very rare (probability = 1 / 30,000).

Thank you for making my point for me...

"That means, on the average, every CO2 molecule is hit 30,000 times by an air molecule during it's residency time."

This means that the energy absorbed by CO2 near surface is spent in collision with other molecules, water vapor being the primary one. Only 3/1,000,000,000 of the photons are re-radiated and less than half of that is RE-RADIATED TOWARDS THE EARTH. This makes CO2 an insignificant player in the near earth atmosphere as conduction and convection have a 1,000,000,000/3 ratio of energy transfer..

This is why back-radiation is almost wholly a fantasy..

 

[jc456]

In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time.

Residency time for 15 micron CO2 vibration 6 microSec
Mean time between collisions of air molecules 0.2 nsec

That means, on the average, every CO2 molecule is hit 30,000 times by an air molecule during it's residency time. With that onslaught of collisions don't you think almost all of the vibration energy would be transfered to the colliding molecule? Re-radiation would be very rare (probability = 1 / 30,000).

Thank you for making my point for me...

"That means, on the average, every CO2 molecule is hit 30,000 times by an air molecule during it's residency time."

This means that the energy absorbed by CO2 near surface is spent in collision with other molecules, water vapor being the primary one. Only 1/1,000,000,000 of the photons are re-radiated and less than half of that is RE-RADIATED TOWARDS THE EARTH. This makes CO2 an insignificant player in the near earth atmosphere as conduction and convection have a 1,000,000,000/1 ratio of energy transfer..

I agree with this accept that nothing is re-radiated back toward the surface. It is radiated toward the colder vacuum of space.

 

[Billy_Bob]

In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time.

Residency time for 15 micron CO2 vibration 6 microSec
Mean time between collisions of air molecules 0.2 nsec

That means, on the average, every CO2 molecule is hit 30,000 times by an air molecule during it's residency time. With that onslaught of collisions don't you think almost all of the vibration energy would be transfered to the colliding molecule? Re-radiation would be very rare (probability = 1 / 30,000).

Thank you for making my point for me...

"That means, on the average, every CO2 molecule is hit 30,000 times by an air molecule during it's residency time."

This means that the energy absorbed by CO2 near surface is spent in collision with other molecules, water vapor being the primary one. Only 1/1,000,000,000 of the photons are re-radiated and less than half of that is RE-RADIATED TOWARDS THE EARTH. This makes CO2 an insignificant player in the near earth atmosphere as conduction and convection have a 1,000,000,000/1 ratio of energy transfer..

I agree with this accept that nothing is re-radiated back toward the surface. It is radiated toward the colder vacuum of space.

QM theroy states "all mater radiates, at its black body temperature, in all directions, above absolute zero kelvin."

While this is a mathematical construct and not proven, its the theroy, which does not interfere with the second law of energy movement. The reason it doesn't is how a more organized/energetic body reacts to less organized/lower energy photon.

When a lower energy photon (matter) hits a warmer body it must warm the photon matter. In doing so it consumes energy cooling the bigger mass. This is one of the hotly debated actions of a photon, is it energy or mass.. It acts like mass cooling the larger object according to empirical experiment..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the case of CO2, It can not warm from LWIR and can only re-radiate the energy it absorbs. IT has very low energy residency time.

Residency time for 15 micron CO2 vibration 6 microSec
Mean time between collisions of air molecules 0.2 nsec

That means, on the average, every CO2 molecule is hit 30,000 times by an air molecule during it's residency time. With that onslaught of collisions don't you think almost all of the vibration energy would be transfered to the colliding molecule? Re-radiation would be very rare (probability = 1 / 30,000).

Thank you for making my point for me...

"That means, on the average, every CO2 molecule is hit 30,000 times by an air molecule during it's residency time."

This means that the energy absorbed by CO2 near surface is spent in collision with other molecules, water vapor being the primary one. Only 1/1,000,000,000 of the photons are re-radiated and less than half of that is RE-RADIATED TOWARDS THE EARTH. This makes CO2 an insignificant player in the near earth atmosphere as conduction and convection have a 1,000,000,000/1 ratio of energy transfer..

I agree with this accept that nothing is re-radiated back toward the surface. It is radiated toward the colder vacuum of space.

QM theroy states "all mater radiates, at its black body temperature, in all directions, above absolute zero kelvin."

While this is a mathematical construct and not proven, its the theroy, which does not interfere with the second law of energy movement. The reason it doesn't is how a more organized/energetic body reacts to less organized/lower energy photon.

When a lower energy photon (matter) hits a warmer body it must warm the photon matter. In doing so it consumes energy cooling the bigger mass. This is one of the hotly debated actions of a photon, is it energy or mass.. It acts like mass cooling the larger object according to empirical experiment..

When a lower energy photon (matter) hits a warmer body it must warm the photon matter. In doing so it consumes energy cooling the bigger mass.

I didn't think I'd see anything dumber than your "magnetic photon" claim, but you've out done yourself!

 

[Wuwei]

The point is that the radiative greenhouse effect upon which both the greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis are not possible because conduction and convection are the primary means of energy movement though the troposphere...the only hypothesis that will work is one in which conduction is the key player...like the gravito thermal effect.. Say, for instance, the molar version of the ideal gas law...which predicts the temperature without need for ad hoc fudge factors and accurately predicts the temperatures everywhere there is an atmosphere of at least 10kPa

The mean free path of surface IR is 2 or 3 meters at the absorption frequencies of GHGs. Absorption is almost complete around a few dozen meters That energy is transfered by molecular collision to the air. That heats the air near the surface. Conduction and mostly convection carry the heat to higher altitudes and follow the lapse rate.

There is more to it than just the molar version of the IGL. Otherwise the earth atmosphere would have the same surface temperature whether it has the same orbit of Mercury or Pluto.

.

 

[SSDD]

The mean free path of surface IR is 2 or 3 meters at the absorption frequencies of GHGs. Absorption is almost complete around a few dozen meters That energy is transfered by molecular collision to the air. That heats the air near the surface. Conduction and mostly convection carry the heat to higher altitudes and follow the lapse rate.

There is more to it than just the molar version of the IGL. Otherwise the earth atmosphere would have the same surface temperature whether it has the same orbit of Mercury or Pluto.

.

The "mean free path" is meaningless....The energy absorbed by CO2 is lost in centimeters from the surface if not millimeters...if not fractions of millimeters...and conducted and convected on to the top of the troposphere...radiation is an insignificant meaningless afterthought in the transport of energy through the troposphere...there is no radiative greenhouse effect..and no AGW....the climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less...

But do feel free to provide some observed, measured evidence to support your inevitable claims.