LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[Wuwei]

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.

I already looked up the mean free path and kept notes:
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
mean free-path length is quite short (and at 15 microns, is very close to 3 meters)....

CO2 heats the atmosphere…a counter view
The mean free path of a surface 15 micron IR photon is less than 2 metres, the extinction height is roughly 10 metres.

Other references:
typically within a few meters, the mean free path at atmospheric
concentrations

very short (a few metres at sea level)

I would call that a radiative greenhouse effect.

and conducted and convected on to the top of the troposphere.

Conduction is very small - fractions of a milliWatt. I would think convection is much stronger.

Temperature flow via conduction
Thermal conductivity in air 26 mW / m K
Lapse rate 9.8 C/km. = .0098 C/m Temperature drop per meter
Thermal Conductivity = 26 mW x 0.0098 K = 0.255 mW per meter

It doesn't matter what carries the surface heat to the TOA. The lapse rate does not depend on anything but gravity and specific heat.

Lapse rate = gravitational acceleration / specific heat

.

 

[SSDD]

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.

I already looked up the mean free path and kept notes:
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
mean free-path length is quite short (and at 15 microns, is very close to 3 meters)....

CO2 heats the atmosphere…a counter view
The mean free path of a surface 15 micron IR photon is less than 2 metres, the extinction height is roughly 10 metres.

Other references:
typically within a few meters, the mean free path at atmospheric
concentrations

very short (a few metres at sea level)

I would call that a radiative greenhouse effect.

and conducted and convected on to the top of the troposphere.

Conduction is very small - fractions of a milliWatt. I would think convection is much stronger.

Temperature flow via conduction
Thermal conductivity in air 26 mW / m K
Lapse rate 9.8 C/km. = .0098 C/m Temperature drop per meter
Thermal Conductivity = 26 mW x 0.0098 K = 0.255 mW per meter

It doesn't matter what carries the surface heat to the TOA. The lapse rate does not depend on anything but gravity and specific heat.

Lapse rate = gravitational acceleration / specific heat

.

LWIR does not...and can not warm the atmosphere....there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Those who believe that there is are dupes...

 

[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..

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!

SO you have proof that the debate about a photon being matter or energy was complete? lINK

 

[SSDD]

SO you have proof that the debate about a photon being matter or energy was complete? lINK

Ian figured he had learned everything there was to know decades ago so he saw no need to keep abreast of what is going on in the world...He hasn't learned anything new since.... Clearly, the topic of whether or not photons are matter has never even been a blip on his radar.. The blinders he wears must make Elton John's most "fashionable" sunglasses look minuscule in comparison.

 

[Wuwei]

LWIR does not...and can not warm the atmosphere....there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Those who believe that there is are dupes...

There is nothing in the molar form of the IGL that uses solar input energy. Using the molar form of the IGL do you think the earth surface temperature would be the same whether it has the orbit of Mercury or Pluto? If not, how does solar energy fit into the IGL?

.

 

[SSDD]

LWIR does not...and can not warm the atmosphere....there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Those who believe that there is are dupes...

There is nothing in the molar form of the IGL that uses solar input energy. Using the molar form of the IGL do you think the earth surface temperature would be the same whether it has the orbit of Mercury or Pluto? If not, how does solar energy fit into the IGL?

.

This discussion has taken place at least a couple of times...feel free to refer to either of those if you must relive your defeats over and over.

 

[Wuwei]

LWIR does not...and can not warm the atmosphere....there is no radiative greenhouse effect...Those who believe that there is are dupes...

There is nothing in the molar form of the IGL that uses solar input energy. Using the molar form of the IGL do you think the earth surface temperature would be the same whether it has the orbit of Mercury or Pluto? If not, how does solar energy fit into the IGL?
.

This discussion has taken place at least a couple of times...feel free to refer to either of those if you must relive your defeats over and over.

Nope you could never answer that question. Someone else asked you that too. So you ran and hid as you are doing now. Block your eyes. Run and hide.

 

[SSDD]

[

Nope you could never answer that question. Someone else asked you that too. So you ran and hid as you are doing now. Block your eyes. Run and hide.

It was answered repeatedly....sorry you aren't bright enough to remember...it is baked in since the atmospheric parameters would vary should the solar insolation change...as is clearly evident by the fact that it works everywhere...not just here as with the greenhouse effect, and requires no ad hoc fudge factor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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!

SO you have proof that the debate about a photon being matter or energy was complete? lINK

If you have any links that back up your claim that photons are magnetic or that photons are matter, post 'em.
If you have any that back up your claim that low energy photons cool matter because the "photon matter needs to be warmed up, which consumes energy" show me.

Because your claims are starting to make SSDDs idiocy seem logical, by comparison.

 

[Crick]

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

Abstract:

Through the application of astrophysical formulas, the mean free path length of a Quantum/wave stream leaving the surface of the Earth to the outer space before it has collided with a molecule of carbon dioxide and its total emissivity are calculated. The output of this algorithm indicates a value of about 33 meters. Also calculated is the time taken by a Quantum/wave to exit the atmosphere after it has collided with a molecule of carbon dioxide — which is ~4 milliseconds (ms).

Mean Free Path Length of Photons in the Earth's Atmosphere

 

[Crick]

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..

Photons exhibit wave/particle duality because despite have a measurable wave nature, either their position or their momentum may be calculated. They have no mass. They are not matter. Period.

 

[IanC]

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

Abstract:

Through the application of astrophysical formulas, the mean free path length of a Quantum/wave stream leaving the surface of the Earth to the outer space before it has collided with a molecule of carbon dioxide and its total emissivity are calculated. The output of this algorithm indicates a value of about 33 meters. Also calculated is the time taken by a Quantum/wave to exit the atmosphere after it has collided with a molecule of carbon dioxide — which is ~4 milliseconds (ms).

Mean Free Path Length of Photons in the Earth's Atmosphere

What an odd choice for a warmer to link to.

 

[IanC]

Because your claims are starting to make SSDDs idiocy seem logical, by comparison

I agree that BillyBoob has gone off the deep end.

 

[Wuwei]

It was answered repeatedly....sorry you aren't bright enough to remember...it is baked in since the atmospheric parameters would vary should the solar insolation change...as is clearly evident by the fact that it works everywhere...not just here as with the greenhouse effect, and requires no ad hoc fudge factor.

Ah yes, now I remember. The new physics term "baked in". If you can't explain it simply call it "baked in". I also remember that the author had an article that only said atmospheric gases in planets follow the IGL. But he didn't compute anything of merit about planetary atmospherics. I also remember that you didn't understand analytic geometry.

 

[IanC]

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

Abstract:

Through the application of astrophysical formulas, the mean free path length of a Quantum/wave stream leaving the surface of the Earth to the outer space before it has collided with a molecule of carbon dioxide and its total emissivity are calculated. The output of this algorithm indicates a value of about 33 meters. Also calculated is the time taken by a Quantum/wave to exit the atmosphere after it has collided with a molecule of carbon dioxide — which is ~4 milliseconds (ms).

Mean Free Path Length of Photons in the Earth's Atmosphere

Here is the conclusion to the paper that Crick posted-

Conclusions
The results obtained by experimentation coincide with the results obtained by applying astrophysics formulas. Therefore, both methodologies are reliable to calculate the total emissivity/absorptivity of any gas of any planetary atmosphere.
At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 s, i.e. 2.45 cs (centiseconds). By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 s) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 s), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws.
The water vapor is five times more efficient on intercepting quantum/waves than the carbon dioxide. Therefore, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works like a coolant of the atmospheric water vapor.
By considering also that the carbon dioxide has by far a lower total emissivity than the water vapor I conclude that the carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth.
The low thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide makes of it to be an inefficient substance to adjust its temperature to the temperature of its surroundings. Consequently, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules of the air.

I don't think that was the point Crick was trying to make. It reminds me of every time SSDD has put up a link.

Nahle is deceptive rather than just outright wrong.

 

[SSDD]

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

Abstract:

Through the application of astrophysical formulas, the mean free path length of a Quantum/wave stream leaving the surface of the Earth to the outer space before it has collided with a molecule of carbon dioxide and its total emissivity are calculated. The output of this algorithm indicates a value of about 33 meters. Also calculated is the time taken by a Quantum/wave to exit the atmosphere after it has collided with a molecule of carbon dioxide — which is ~4 milliseconds (ms).

Mean Free Path Length of Photons in the Earth's Atmosphere

Here is the conclusion to the paper that Crick posted-

Conclusions
The results obtained by experimentation coincide with the results obtained by applying astrophysics formulas. Therefore, both methodologies are reliable to calculate the total emissivity/absorptivity of any gas of any planetary atmosphere.
At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 s, i.e. 2.45 cs (centiseconds). By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 s) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 s), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws.
The water vapor is five times more efficient on intercepting quantum/waves than the carbon dioxide. Therefore, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works like a coolant of the atmospheric water vapor.
By considering also that the carbon dioxide has by far a lower total emissivity than the water vapor I conclude that the carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth.
The low thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide makes of it to be an inefficient substance to adjust its temperature to the temperature of its surroundings. Consequently, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules of the air.

I don't think that was the point Crick was trying to make. It reminds me of every time SSDD has put up a link.

Nahle is deceptive rather than just outright wrong.

The fact is that CO2 is the most widely used industrial coolant in the world...it doesn't warm the atmosphere...it doesn't cause warming..

 

[SSDD]

It was answered repeatedly....sorry you aren't bright enough to remember...it is baked in since the atmospheric parameters would vary should the solar insolation change...as is clearly evident by the fact that it works everywhere...not just here as with the greenhouse effect, and requires no ad hoc fudge factor.

Ah yes, now I remember. The new physics term "baked in". If you can't explain it simply call it "baked in". I also remember that the author had an article that only said atmospheric gases in planets follow the IGL. But he didn't compute anything of merit about planetary atmospherics. I also remember that you didn't understand analytic geometry.

As usual...your memory is either terribly flawed, or you interpreted it so grossly that you can't remember what was posted...he provided the work for all his claims... this is another tedious thing about you...constantly correcting your flawed memory and your incessant interpretation of everything in an effort to either make it agree with you, or discredit it.

 

[IanC]

The fact is that CO2 is the most widely used industrial coolant in the world...it doesn't warm the atmosphere...it doesn't cause warming..

After all these years I am still surprised when you put unrelated ideas together and call it proof.

CO2 does not change phase at terrestrial temperatures and pressures. What mechanism are you alluding to?

 

[SSDD]

The fact is that CO2 is the most widely used industrial coolant in the world...it doesn't warm the atmosphere...it doesn't cause warming..

After all these years I am still surprised when you put unrelated ideas together and call it proof.

CO2 does not change phase at terrestrial temperatures and pressures. What mechanism are you alluding to?

The ideas are not unrelated...the disconnect exists between your ears. Tell me ian, why is CO2 the most widely used industrial coolant?

 

[Crick]

Cryogenic cooling with CO2 utilizes a special case of phase change. Because of its chemical properties, it has no liquid state below 75 psi. It is said to have a triple point instead, where it can simultaneously exist in all three states, liquid, gas and solid. Most elements or chemical compounds have a triple point at some combination of pressure and temperature ( for example water has a triple point at .088 atmospheres and 0.01 Degrees C.) For CO2 the triple point happens in the range releasing to atmosphere CO2 of normal tank temperatures and pressures. What this means for cooling purposes is that when liquid CO2 is precisely introduced to the system and the pressure is dropped dramatically such as at the nozzle of a spray gun or cooling injector tube on a temperature chamber or thermal platform (coldplate), the liquid quickly turns to dry ice snow, solid state CO2. As the dry ice warms up, the resulting phase change is the direct change from solid to gas, called sublimation. There is a great release of the latent heat as the CO2sublimates.

How Cooling With CO2 works - TotalTemp Technologies


CO2 is economically advantageous for applications above -50C. Below that, other gases are more widely used. In the range of domestic refrigerators and freezers, of course, freon is the refrigerant of choice.