Math and Science of Warming

[jc456]

well I thought that 99% of CO2 absorption is handed off through collisions and is converted to conduction and convection?

well I thought

You're lying.

was the thought wrong?

Hey, BTW, if 99% is lost through collision, how does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward the surface?

If you thought, "IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere if the energy is then transferred via collision", yes, you were wrong.

how does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward the surface?

How does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward space?

How does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward space

2nd law

IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere
sure it warms, through conduction.

The 2nd Law causes CO2 to radiate toward space?
Or does the 2nd Law cause the gasses warmed by conduction to radiate?

IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere?

sure it warms, through conduction.

Excellent. Don't tell SSDD you caught his error.​

Excellent. Don't tell SSDD you caught his error.

he has told you that already. you missed it obviously. but go figure.

Or does the 2nd Law cause the gasses warmed by conduction to radiate
anywhere there is heat is the 2nd law. but conduction and convection molecules above the surface are held in the atmosphere by pressure and gravity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

well I thought

You're lying.

was the thought wrong?

Hey, BTW, if 99% is lost through collision, how does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward the surface?

If you thought, "IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere if the energy is then transferred via collision", yes, you were wrong.

how does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward the surface?

How does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward space?

How does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward space

2nd law

IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere
sure it warms, through conduction.

The 2nd Law causes CO2 to radiate toward space?
Or does the 2nd Law cause the gasses warmed by conduction to radiate?

IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere?

sure it warms, through conduction.

Excellent. Don't tell SSDD you caught his error.​

Excellent. Don't tell SSDD you caught his error.

he has told you that already. you missed it obviously. but go figure.

Or does the 2nd Law cause the gasses warmed by conduction to radiate
anywhere there is heat is the 2nd law. but conduction and convection molecules above the surface are held in the atmosphere by pressure and gravity.

he has told you that already.

He admitted his error? Where?

but conduction and convection molecules above the surface are held in the atmosphere by pressure and gravity.

What is a conduction molecule?
What is a convection molecule?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm not understanding your statement. Are you saying because "The conservation of energy must apply" that there would be no difference in temperature between an atmosphere that's 80% N, 19.98% O and .2% CO2 and one that 100% CO2?

At the current percent all the radiant energy from the earth surface is absorbed in a few dozen meters. If the percent of CO2 increases to 100% it will be absorbed at a much shorter distance. The final temperature of the surface is determined by the heat loss at the top of the atmosphere.

.

So the temperature at the surface would be LOWER in a 100% CO2 environment?

So the temperature at the surface would be LOWER in a 100% CO2 environment?

Like on Venus?

Venus is hot due to atmospheric pressure, but you knew that right?

Venus in Neptune's orbit would be hotter or colder than it is now?

Likely cooler and again, nothing to do with the chemical composition of its atmosphere. Venus on the Event Horizon of a Black Hole would be hotter as well and just as pointless an exercise as moving out to Neptune's orbit or due to the chemical composition of its atmosphere

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

At the current percent all the radiant energy from the earth surface is absorbed in a few dozen meters. If the percent of CO2 increases to 100% it will be absorbed at a much shorter distance. The final temperature of the surface is determined by the heat loss at the top of the atmosphere.

.

So the temperature at the surface would be LOWER in a 100% CO2 environment?

So the temperature at the surface would be LOWER in a 100% CO2 environment?

Like on Venus?

Venus is hot due to atmospheric pressure, but you knew that right?

Venus in Neptune's orbit would be hotter or colder than it is now?

Likely cooler and again, nothing to do with the chemical composition of its atmosphere. Venus on the Event Horizon of a Black Hole would be hotter as well and just as pointless an exercise as moving out to Neptune's orbit or due to the chemical composition of its atmosphere

Likely cooler

Cooler? Isn't the pressure unchanged?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So the temperature at the surface would be LOWER in a 100% CO2 environment?

So the temperature at the surface would be LOWER in a 100% CO2 environment?

Like on Venus?

Venus is hot due to atmospheric pressure, but you knew that right?

Venus in Neptune's orbit would be hotter or colder than it is now?

Likely cooler and again, nothing to do with the chemical composition of its atmosphere. Venus on the Event Horizon of a Black Hole would be hotter as well and just as pointless an exercise as moving out to Neptune's orbit or due to the chemical composition of its atmosphere

Likely cooler

Cooler? Isn't the pressure unchanged?

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right? So if we move Venus to the Oort Cloud, ever with it's CO2 atmosphere, it would cool, right?

To be consistent with magical Back radiation of CO2, I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So the temperature at the surface would be LOWER in a 100% CO2 environment?

Like on Venus?

Venus is hot due to atmospheric pressure, but you knew that right?

Venus in Neptune's orbit would be hotter or colder than it is now?

Likely cooler and again, nothing to do with the chemical composition of its atmosphere. Venus on the Event Horizon of a Black Hole would be hotter as well and just as pointless an exercise as moving out to Neptune's orbit or due to the chemical composition of its atmosphere

Likely cooler

Cooler? Isn't the pressure unchanged?

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right? So if we move Venus to the Oort Cloud, ever with it's CO2 atmosphere, it would cool, right?

To be consistent with magical Back radiation of CO2, I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right?

No, CO2 at 740K radiates the same in Venus' orbit as in Neptune's orbit.

I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

Did you get this silly idea from SSDD or did you come up with it on your own?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Venus is hot due to atmospheric pressure, but you knew that right?

Venus in Neptune's orbit would be hotter or colder than it is now?

Likely cooler and again, nothing to do with the chemical composition of its atmosphere. Venus on the Event Horizon of a Black Hole would be hotter as well and just as pointless an exercise as moving out to Neptune's orbit or due to the chemical composition of its atmosphere

Likely cooler

Cooler? Isn't the pressure unchanged?

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right? So if we move Venus to the Oort Cloud, ever with it's CO2 atmosphere, it would cool, right?

To be consistent with magical Back radiation of CO2, I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right?

No, CO2 at 740K radiates the same in Venus' orbit as in Neptune's orbit.

I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

Did you get this silly idea from SSDD or did you come up with it on your own?

That's from listening to you. As long as Venus keeps it back radiation, it matters not where in Space you place it. Temperature stays the same. If we add more CO2 even at a light year from the nearest star, it would get even warmer, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Venus in Neptune's orbit would be hotter or colder than it is now?

Likely cooler and again, nothing to do with the chemical composition of its atmosphere. Venus on the Event Horizon of a Black Hole would be hotter as well and just as pointless an exercise as moving out to Neptune's orbit or due to the chemical composition of its atmosphere

Likely cooler

Cooler? Isn't the pressure unchanged?

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right? So if we move Venus to the Oort Cloud, ever with it's CO2 atmosphere, it would cool, right?

To be consistent with magical Back radiation of CO2, I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right?

No, CO2 at 740K radiates the same in Venus' orbit as in Neptune's orbit.

I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

Did you get this silly idea from SSDD or did you come up with it on your own?

That's from listening to you. As long as Venus keeps it back radiation, it matters not where in Space you place it. Temperature stays the same. If we add more CO2 even at a light year from the nearest star, it would get even warmer, right?

That's from listening to you.

I never agreed with SSDD's moronic pressure claim. You're confused.

As long as Venus keeps it back radiation,

What the hell does that mean?

If we add more CO2 even at a light year from the nearest star, it would get even warmer, right?

Now you're dumbing yourself down to jc levels.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Likely cooler and again, nothing to do with the chemical composition of its atmosphere. Venus on the Event Horizon of a Black Hole would be hotter as well and just as pointless an exercise as moving out to Neptune's orbit or due to the chemical composition of its atmosphere

Likely cooler

Cooler? Isn't the pressure unchanged?

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right? So if we move Venus to the Oort Cloud, ever with it's CO2 atmosphere, it would cool, right?

To be consistent with magical Back radiation of CO2, I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right?

No, CO2 at 740K radiates the same in Venus' orbit as in Neptune's orbit.

I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

Did you get this silly idea from SSDD or did you come up with it on your own?

That's from listening to you. As long as Venus keeps it back radiation, it matters not where in Space you place it. Temperature stays the same. If we add more CO2 even at a light year from the nearest star, it would get even warmer, right?

That's from listening to you.

I never agreed with SSDD's moronic pressure claim. You're confused.

As long as Venus keeps it back radiation,

What the hell does that mean?

If we add more CO2 even at a light year from the nearest star, it would get even warmer, right?

Now you're dumbing yourself down to jc levels.

The one and only point is that it's beyond disingenuous to mention Venus when discussing Earth based CO2 "Global Warming" as if it's CO2 that causes the 900F temperature on the surface of Venus

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Likely cooler

Cooler? Isn't the pressure unchanged?

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right? So if we move Venus to the Oort Cloud, ever with it's CO2 atmosphere, it would cool, right?

To be consistent with magical Back radiation of CO2, I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right?

No, CO2 at 740K radiates the same in Venus' orbit as in Neptune's orbit.

I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

Did you get this silly idea from SSDD or did you come up with it on your own?

That's from listening to you. As long as Venus keeps it back radiation, it matters not where in Space you place it. Temperature stays the same. If we add more CO2 even at a light year from the nearest star, it would get even warmer, right?

That's from listening to you.

I never agreed with SSDD's moronic pressure claim. You're confused.

As long as Venus keeps it back radiation,

What the hell does that mean?

If we add more CO2 even at a light year from the nearest star, it would get even warmer, right?

Now you're dumbing yourself down to jc levels.

The one and only point is that it's beyond disingenuous to mention Venus when discussing Earth based CO2 "Global Warming" as if it's CO2 that causes the 900F temperature on the surface of Venus

The one and only point is that it's beyond disingenuous to mention Venus

You mentioned 100% CO2. Venus is pretty darn close to 100%.
And to claim it's hot because of pressure and would be just as hot a light year from the nearest star is just SSDD level moronic. SSDD has been practicing his idiocy his entire life. If an amateur like you tries to match him, you'll just injure yourself. As a friend, I beg you, don't try.

as if it's CO2 that causes the 900F temperature on the surface of Venus

What do you think causes the temperature?

 

[jc456]

was the thought wrong?

Hey, BTW, if 99% is lost through collision, how does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward the surface?

If you thought, "IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere if the energy is then transferred via collision", yes, you were wrong.

how does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward the surface?

How does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward space?

How does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward space

2nd law

IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere
sure it warms, through conduction.

The 2nd Law causes CO2 to radiate toward space?
Or does the 2nd Law cause the gasses warmed by conduction to radiate?

IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere?

sure it warms, through conduction.

Excellent. Don't tell SSDD you caught his error.​

Excellent. Don't tell SSDD you caught his error.

he has told you that already. you missed it obviously. but go figure.

Or does the 2nd Law cause the gasses warmed by conduction to radiate
anywhere there is heat is the 2nd law. but conduction and convection molecules above the surface are held in the atmosphere by pressure and gravity.

he has told you that already.

He admitted his error? Where?

but conduction and convection molecules above the surface are held in the atmosphere by pressure and gravity.

What is a conduction molecule?
What is a convection molecule?

I should have said the molecules handed off at conduction and convected above the surface are held in the atmosphere by pressure and gravity.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So the temperature at the surface would be LOWER in a 100% CO2 environment?

Sorry Frank. This sort of comment is where I have to leave you to your own musings. I don't know if you are playing dumb or what, but Todd is right about you and JC at this point.

You gave no numerical answer, only a concept. Maybe give us a non-imaginary number

 

[jc456]

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right? So if we move Venus to the Oort Cloud, ever with it's CO2 atmosphere, it would cool, right?

To be consistent with magical Back radiation of CO2, I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right?

No, CO2 at 740K radiates the same in Venus' orbit as in Neptune's orbit.

I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

Did you get this silly idea from SSDD or did you come up with it on your own?

That's from listening to you. As long as Venus keeps it back radiation, it matters not where in Space you place it. Temperature stays the same. If we add more CO2 even at a light year from the nearest star, it would get even warmer, right?

That's from listening to you.

I never agreed with SSDD's moronic pressure claim. You're confused.

As long as Venus keeps it back radiation,

What the hell does that mean?

If we add more CO2 even at a light year from the nearest star, it would get even warmer, right?

Now you're dumbing yourself down to jc levels.

The one and only point is that it's beyond disingenuous to mention Venus when discussing Earth based CO2 "Global Warming" as if it's CO2 that causes the 900F temperature on the surface of Venus

The one and only point is that it's beyond disingenuous to mention Venus

You mentioned 100% CO2. Venus is pretty darn close to 100%.
And to claim it's hot because of pressure and would be just as hot a light year from the nearest star is just SSDD level moronic. SSDD has been practicing his idiocy his entire life. If an amateur like you tries to match him, you'll just injure yourself. As a friend, I beg you, don't try.

as if it's CO2 that causes the 900F temperature on the surface of Venus

What do you think causes the temperature?

What do you think causes the temperature?

pressure

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right? So if we move Venus to the Oort Cloud, ever with it's CO2 atmosphere, it would cool, right?

To be consistent with magical Back radiation of CO2, I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right?

No, CO2 at 740K radiates the same in Venus' orbit as in Neptune's orbit.

I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

Did you get this silly idea from SSDD or did you come up with it on your own?

That's from listening to you. As long as Venus keeps it back radiation, it matters not where in Space you place it. Temperature stays the same. If we add more CO2 even at a light year from the nearest star, it would get even warmer, right?

That's from listening to you.

I never agreed with SSDD's moronic pressure claim. You're confused.

As long as Venus keeps it back radiation,

What the hell does that mean?

If we add more CO2 even at a light year from the nearest star, it would get even warmer, right?

Now you're dumbing yourself down to jc levels.

The one and only point is that it's beyond disingenuous to mention Venus when discussing Earth based CO2 "Global Warming" as if it's CO2 that causes the 900F temperature on the surface of Venus

The one and only point is that it's beyond disingenuous to mention Venus

You mentioned 100% CO2. Venus is pretty darn close to 100%.
And to claim it's hot because of pressure and would be just as hot a light year from the nearest star is just SSDD level moronic. SSDD has been practicing his idiocy his entire life. If an amateur like you tries to match him, you'll just injure yourself. As a friend, I beg you, don't try.

as if it's CO2 that causes the 900F temperature on the surface of Venus

What do you think causes the temperature?

You raised an interesting point. The surface of Venus is 900F, if Earths atmosphere was 100% CO2 instead of N and O, how many hundreds of degrees would be Earths surface, 500F, 600F?

 

[SSDD]

well I thought that 99% of CO2 absorption is handed off through collisions

Exactly. A collision transfers the CO2 absorbed energy to kinetic energy of air molecules. Those collisions increase the average kinetic energy of air molecules. A measure of the average kinetic energy is called temperature. When the kinetic energy increases, the temperature increases. It's as simple as that.

That does not describe a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science and explains why the models are abject failures...

 

[SSDD]

well I thought that 99% of CO2 absorption is handed off through collisions

Exactly. A collision transfers the CO2 absorbed energy to kinetic energy of air molecules. Those collisions increase the average kinetic energy of air molecules. A measure of the average kinetic energy is called temperature. When the kinetic energy increases, the temperature increases. It's as simple as that.

well that isn't IR and wouldn't radiate back to the surface!

Guess now they will have to start claiming back convection and back conduction...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you thought, "IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere if the energy is then transferred via collision", yes, you were wrong.

how does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward the surface?

How does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward space?

How does the IR from the CO2 get radiated toward space

2nd law

IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere
sure it warms, through conduction.

The 2nd Law causes CO2 to radiate toward space?
Or does the 2nd Law cause the gasses warmed by conduction to radiate?

IR absorbed by CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere?

sure it warms, through conduction.

Excellent. Don't tell SSDD you caught his error.​

Excellent. Don't tell SSDD you caught his error.

he has told you that already. you missed it obviously. but go figure.

Or does the 2nd Law cause the gasses warmed by conduction to radiate
anywhere there is heat is the 2nd law. but conduction and convection molecules above the surface are held in the atmosphere by pressure and gravity.

he has told you that already.

He admitted his error? Where?

but conduction and convection molecules above the surface are held in the atmosphere by pressure and gravity.

What is a conduction molecule?
What is a convection molecule?

I should have said the molecules handed off at conduction and convected above the surface are held in the atmosphere by pressure and gravity.

Are you just discovering that gravity keeps the air from flying into space?
Now, back to your claim that the 2nd Law causes gasses to radiate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right?

No, CO2 at 740K radiates the same in Venus' orbit as in Neptune's orbit.

I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

Did you get this silly idea from SSDD or did you come up with it on your own?

That's from listening to you. As long as Venus keeps it back radiation, it matters not where in Space you place it. Temperature stays the same. If we add more CO2 even at a light year from the nearest star, it would get even warmer, right?

That's from listening to you.

I never agreed with SSDD's moronic pressure claim. You're confused.

As long as Venus keeps it back radiation,

What the hell does that mean?

If we add more CO2 even at a light year from the nearest star, it would get even warmer, right?

Now you're dumbing yourself down to jc levels.

The one and only point is that it's beyond disingenuous to mention Venus when discussing Earth based CO2 "Global Warming" as if it's CO2 that causes the 900F temperature on the surface of Venus

The one and only point is that it's beyond disingenuous to mention Venus

You mentioned 100% CO2. Venus is pretty darn close to 100%.
And to claim it's hot because of pressure and would be just as hot a light year from the nearest star is just SSDD level moronic. SSDD has been practicing his idiocy his entire life. If an amateur like you tries to match him, you'll just injure yourself. As a friend, I beg you, don't try.

as if it's CO2 that causes the 900F temperature on the surface of Venus

What do you think causes the temperature?

What do you think causes the temperature?

pressure

How?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The further from the Sun, the more CO2 loses its magical ability to back radiate, right?

No, CO2 at 740K radiates the same in Venus' orbit as in Neptune's orbit.

I should have said that Venus would have the same temperature no matter where is space we place it

Did you get this silly idea from SSDD or did you come up with it on your own?

That's from listening to you. As long as Venus keeps it back radiation, it matters not where in Space you place it. Temperature stays the same. If we add more CO2 even at a light year from the nearest star, it would get even warmer, right?

That's from listening to you.

I never agreed with SSDD's moronic pressure claim. You're confused.

As long as Venus keeps it back radiation,

What the hell does that mean?

If we add more CO2 even at a light year from the nearest star, it would get even warmer, right?

Now you're dumbing yourself down to jc levels.

The one and only point is that it's beyond disingenuous to mention Venus when discussing Earth based CO2 "Global Warming" as if it's CO2 that causes the 900F temperature on the surface of Venus

The one and only point is that it's beyond disingenuous to mention Venus

You mentioned 100% CO2. Venus is pretty darn close to 100%.
And to claim it's hot because of pressure and would be just as hot a light year from the nearest star is just SSDD level moronic. SSDD has been practicing his idiocy his entire life. If an amateur like you tries to match him, you'll just injure yourself. As a friend, I beg you, don't try.

as if it's CO2 that causes the 900F temperature on the surface of Venus

What do you think causes the temperature?

You raised an interesting point. The surface of Venus is 900F, if Earths atmosphere was 100% CO2 instead of N and O, how many hundreds of degrees would be Earths surface, 500F, 600F?

Warmer. Not sure how much warmer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

well I thought that 99% of CO2 absorption is handed off through collisions

Exactly. A collision transfers the CO2 absorbed energy to kinetic energy of air molecules. Those collisions increase the average kinetic energy of air molecules. A measure of the average kinetic energy is called temperature. When the kinetic energy increases, the temperature increases. It's as simple as that.

That does not describe a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science and explains why the models are abject failures...

That does not describe a radiative greenhouse

So it describes a different kind of greenhouse? Now what?