More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[Billy_Bob]

The climate conference this year will be the same as every year.......long on rhetoric and skimpy on results. Its like a bunch of omnipotent hobbyists getting together to sip on red wine and shoot the breeze for a few days!!

And then we have three governors (Cali, Oregon, Washington) who violated the US Constitution and signed onto the Paris accord in violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers and committed Treason against a sitting US president.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"So the idea of CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere is all wrong. Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer, but it simply bounces around until it escapes into space without causing any warming."

From a QM point of view, CAGW is a farce from the word GO...... The engineer who wrote this piece also identifies the region of our atmosphere that should be warming, 90kl up. From that point it is impossible for LWIR to affect the surface.

His closing made me laugh hard;

"And if you disagree with the science above, please explain which sentences you disagree with and exactly how, at the Quantum Physics level, photons from a CO2 molecule at -80C can warm anything."

How can something radiating at -80C warm anything... Priceless...

Radiative Heat Transfer by CO2 or “what’s the quality of your radiation?”

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"So the idea of CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere is all wrong. Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer, but it simply bounces around until it escapes into space without causing any warming."

From a QM point of view, CAGW is a farce from the word GO...... The engineer who wrote this piece also identifies the region of our atmosphere that should be warming, 90kl up. From that point it is impossible for LWIR to affect the surface.

His closing made me laugh hard;

"And if you disagree with the science above, please explain which sentences you disagree with and exactly how, at the Quantum Physics level, photons from a CO2 molecule at -80C can warm anything."

How can something radiating at -80C warm anything... Priceless...

Radiative Heat Transfer by CO2 or “what’s the quality of your radiation?”

Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer, but it simply bounces around until it escapes into space without causing any warming."

Ummmmmmm.....if the energy is retained longer, it causes warming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"So the idea of CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere is all wrong. Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer, but it simply bounces around until it escapes into space without causing any warming."

From a QM point of view, CAGW is a farce from the word GO...... The engineer who wrote this piece also identifies the region of our atmosphere that should be warming, 90kl up. From that point it is impossible for LWIR to affect the surface.

His closing made me laugh hard;

"And if you disagree with the science above, please explain which sentences you disagree with and exactly how, at the Quantum Physics level, photons from a CO2 molecule at -80C can warm anything."

How can something radiating at -80C warm anything... Priceless...

Radiative Heat Transfer by CO2 or “what’s the quality of your radiation?”

Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer, but it simply bounces around until it escapes into space without causing any warming."

Ummmmmmm.....if the energy is retained longer, it causes warming.

Not necessarily... That energy has to effect molecules in order to release the kinetic energy. As it does not reside in the CO2 molecule in any meaningful way it does not warm.

Think of it like down-welling radiation. Most of it can pass through the atmosphere and not warm it. Is it there? Yes it is, but it can not affect it. The molecule must be ale to be affected for it to interact. IF it can not interact it can not warm. Just like space, the energy is there but it can not affect it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"So the idea of CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere is all wrong. Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer, but it simply bounces around until it escapes into space without causing any warming."

From a QM point of view, CAGW is a farce from the word GO...... The engineer who wrote this piece also identifies the region of our atmosphere that should be warming, 90kl up. From that point it is impossible for LWIR to affect the surface.

His closing made me laugh hard;

"And if you disagree with the science above, please explain which sentences you disagree with and exactly how, at the Quantum Physics level, photons from a CO2 molecule at -80C can warm anything."

How can something radiating at -80C warm anything... Priceless...

Radiative Heat Transfer by CO2 or “what’s the quality of your radiation?”

Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer, but it simply bounces around until it escapes into space without causing any warming."

Ummmmmmm.....if the energy is retained longer, it causes warming.

Not necessarily... That energy has to effect molecules in order to release the kinetic energy. As it does not reside in the CO2 molecule in any meaningful way it does not warm.

Think of it like down-welling radiation. Most of it can pass through the atmosphere and not warm it. Is it there? Yes it is, but it can not affect it. The molecule must be ale to be affected for it to interact. IF it can not interact it can not warm. Just like space, the energy is there but it can not affect it.

Not necessarily... That energy has to effect molecules in order to release the kinetic energy. As it does not reside in the CO2 molecule in any meaningful way it does not warm.

And when the retained energy is transferred from the CO2 to another molecule in the atmosphere, it causes warming.

Think of it like down-welling radiation. Most of it can pass through the atmosphere and not warm it.

Because the atmosphere is mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation but less transparent to outgoing IR.

The molecule must be ale to be affected for it to interact.

Because CO2 absorbs IR, it is affected, it retains energy in the atmosphere longer, it causes warming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"So the idea of CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere is all wrong. Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer, but it simply bounces around until it escapes into space without causing any warming."

From a QM point of view, CAGW is a farce from the word GO...... The engineer who wrote this piece also identifies the region of our atmosphere that should be warming, 90kl up. From that point it is impossible for LWIR to affect the surface.

His closing made me laugh hard;

"And if you disagree with the science above, please explain which sentences you disagree with and exactly how, at the Quantum Physics level, photons from a CO2 molecule at -80C can warm anything."

How can something radiating at -80C warm anything... Priceless...

Radiative Heat Transfer by CO2 or “what’s the quality of your radiation?”

Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer, but it simply bounces around until it escapes into space without causing any warming."

Ummmmmmm.....if the energy is retained longer, it causes warming.

Not necessarily... That energy has to effect molecules in order to release the kinetic energy. As it does not reside in the CO2 molecule in any meaningful way it does not warm.

Think of it like down-welling radiation. Most of it can pass through the atmosphere and not warm it. Is it there? Yes it is, but it can not affect it. The molecule must be ale to be affected for it to interact. IF it can not interact it can not warm. Just like space, the energy is there but it can not affect it.

Not necessarily... That energy has to effect molecules in order to release the kinetic energy. As it does not reside in the CO2 molecule in any meaningful way it does not warm.

And when the retained energy is transferred from the CO2 to another molecule in the atmosphere, it causes warming.

Think of it like down-welling radiation. Most of it can pass through the atmosphere and not warm it.

Because the atmosphere is mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation but less transparent to outgoing IR.

The molecule must be ale to be affected for it to interact.

Because CO2 absorbs IR, it is affected, it retains energy in the atmosphere longer, it causes warming.

Again you make an assumption that CO2 can cause warming. Tell me how a molecule that emits at -80 deg F can warm anything?

Had you read the article you would know that one of the major issues is what that energy, at the wavelength emitted, can AFFECT.. IF it can not be absorbed by water deeper that 10um then it can not warm the body. If Water vapor is a poor absorber of LWIR, then it has no ability to warm the atmosphere because it does not react to it. Both are questions that QM says can not happen. So if it can not affect the molecules in the atmosphere then it has no potential, even if the LWIR energy exists.

The science is far from settled.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"So the idea of CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere is all wrong. Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer, but it simply bounces around until it escapes into space without causing any warming."

From a QM point of view, CAGW is a farce from the word GO...... The engineer who wrote this piece also identifies the region of our atmosphere that should be warming, 90kl up. From that point it is impossible for LWIR to affect the surface.

His closing made me laugh hard;

"And if you disagree with the science above, please explain which sentences you disagree with and exactly how, at the Quantum Physics level, photons from a CO2 molecule at -80C can warm anything."

How can something radiating at -80C warm anything... Priceless...

Radiative Heat Transfer by CO2 or “what’s the quality of your radiation?”

Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer, but it simply bounces around until it escapes into space without causing any warming."

Ummmmmmm.....if the energy is retained longer, it causes warming.

Not necessarily... That energy has to effect molecules in order to release the kinetic energy. As it does not reside in the CO2 molecule in any meaningful way it does not warm.

Think of it like down-welling radiation. Most of it can pass through the atmosphere and not warm it. Is it there? Yes it is, but it can not affect it. The molecule must be ale to be affected for it to interact. IF it can not interact it can not warm. Just like space, the energy is there but it can not affect it.

Not necessarily... That energy has to effect molecules in order to release the kinetic energy. As it does not reside in the CO2 molecule in any meaningful way it does not warm.

And when the retained energy is transferred from the CO2 to another molecule in the atmosphere, it causes warming.

Think of it like down-welling radiation. Most of it can pass through the atmosphere and not warm it.

Because the atmosphere is mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation but less transparent to outgoing IR.

The molecule must be ale to be affected for it to interact.

Because CO2 absorbs IR, it is affected, it retains energy in the atmosphere longer, it causes warming.

Again you make an assumption that CO2 can cause warming. Tell me how a molecule that emits at -80 deg F can warm anything?

Had you read the article you would know that one of the major issues is what that energy, at the wavelength emitted, can AFFECT.. IF it can not be absorbed by water deeper that 10um then it can not warm the body. If Water vapor is a poor absorber of LWIR, then it has no ability to warm the atmosphere because it does not react to it. Both are questions that QM says can not happen. So if it can not affect the molecules in the atmosphere then it has no potential, even if the LWIR energy exists.

The science is far from settled.

Again you make an assumption that CO2 can cause warming.

You said, or at least posted, "Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer"

If energy remains in the atmosphere longer, before finally escaping into space, the atmosphere is warmer than it would be if the energy had in fact immediately escaped into space.

Tell me how a molecule that emits at -80 deg F can warm anything?

Why is a CO2 molecule 2 feet above the ground at -80 F?

Assuming a molecule at -80 F emits a photon and that photon hits the surface and is absorbed, what is the effect on the surface?

IF it can not be absorbed by water deeper that 10um then it can not warm the body.

Energy absorbed at the surface doesn't warm the surface?
Why not? Be as precise as you can.

If Water vapor is a poor absorber of LWIR,

Why do you feel it is a poor absorber?

 

[skookerasbil]

lol......you guys kill me!!

We still don't know dick about what causes warming s0ns!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

lol......you guys kill me!!

We still don't know dick about what causes warming s0ns!!

I know!!

It's bad when warmers use bad science to justify wasting trillions of dollars on "green energy".
At least when SSDD and Billy use bad science, they aren't trying to take/waste our money.
It just makes us look bad, makes it harder for us to resist the warmers when the people on our side politically are so wrong on the science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"So the idea of CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere is all wrong. Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer, but it simply bounces around until it escapes into space without causing any warming."

From a QM point of view, CAGW is a farce from the word GO...... The engineer who wrote this piece also identifies the region of our atmosphere that should be warming, 90kl up. From that point it is impossible for LWIR to affect the surface.

His closing made me laugh hard;

"And if you disagree with the science above, please explain which sentences you disagree with and exactly how, at the Quantum Physics level, photons from a CO2 molecule at -80C can warm anything."

How can something radiating at -80C warm anything... Priceless...

Radiative Heat Transfer by CO2 or “what’s the quality of your radiation?”

Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer, but it simply bounces around until it escapes into space without causing any warming."

Ummmmmmm.....if the energy is retained longer, it causes warming.

Not necessarily... That energy has to effect molecules in order to release the kinetic energy. As it does not reside in the CO2 molecule in any meaningful way it does not warm.

Think of it like down-welling radiation. Most of it can pass through the atmosphere and not warm it. Is it there? Yes it is, but it can not affect it. The molecule must be ale to be affected for it to interact. IF it can not interact it can not warm. Just like space, the energy is there but it can not affect it.

Not necessarily... That energy has to effect molecules in order to release the kinetic energy. As it does not reside in the CO2 molecule in any meaningful way it does not warm.

And when the retained energy is transferred from the CO2 to another molecule in the atmosphere, it causes warming.

Think of it like down-welling radiation. Most of it can pass through the atmosphere and not warm it.

Because the atmosphere is mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation but less transparent to outgoing IR.

The molecule must be ale to be affected for it to interact.

Because CO2 absorbs IR, it is affected, it retains energy in the atmosphere longer, it causes warming.

Again you make an assumption that CO2 can cause warming. Tell me how a molecule that emits at -80 deg F can warm anything?

Had you read the article you would know that one of the major issues is what that energy, at the wavelength emitted, can AFFECT.. IF it can not be absorbed by water deeper that 10um then it can not warm the body. If Water vapor is a poor absorber of LWIR, then it has no ability to warm the atmosphere because it does not react to it. Both are questions that QM says can not happen. So if it can not affect the molecules in the atmosphere then it has no potential, even if the LWIR energy exists.

The science is far from settled.

Again you make an assumption that CO2 can cause warming.

You said, or at least posted, "Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer"

If energy remains in the atmosphere longer, before finally escaping into space, the atmosphere is warmer than it would be if the energy had in fact immediately escaped into space.

Tell me how a molecule that emits at -80 deg F can warm anything?

Why is a CO2 molecule 2 feet above the ground at -80 F?

Assuming a molecule at -80 F emits a photon and that photon hits the surface and is absorbed, what is the effect on the surface?

IF it can not be absorbed by water deeper that 10um then it can not warm the body.

Energy absorbed at the surface doesn't warm the surface?
Why not? Be as precise as you can.

If Water vapor is a poor absorber of LWIR,

Why do you feel it is a poor absorber?

1. The warming, had you read the article is at 90kl, if it was to occur at all. This is consistent with the CAGW hypothesis. This height and temperature is incapable of warming the surface.

2. Surface tension absorption causes immediate evaporation which expends that energy and more reflecting it back into space. The water can not warm with a negative imbalance. it must cool.

3. Like energy in your 110 wall socket at home, the energy is present. Without an affectable conductor it will do nothing..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer, but it simply bounces around until it escapes into space without causing any warming."

Ummmmmmm.....if the energy is retained longer, it causes warming.

Not necessarily... That energy has to effect molecules in order to release the kinetic energy. As it does not reside in the CO2 molecule in any meaningful way it does not warm.

Think of it like down-welling radiation. Most of it can pass through the atmosphere and not warm it. Is it there? Yes it is, but it can not affect it. The molecule must be ale to be affected for it to interact. IF it can not interact it can not warm. Just like space, the energy is there but it can not affect it.

Not necessarily... That energy has to effect molecules in order to release the kinetic energy. As it does not reside in the CO2 molecule in any meaningful way it does not warm.

And when the retained energy is transferred from the CO2 to another molecule in the atmosphere, it causes warming.

Think of it like down-welling radiation. Most of it can pass through the atmosphere and not warm it.

Because the atmosphere is mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation but less transparent to outgoing IR.

The molecule must be ale to be affected for it to interact.

Because CO2 absorbs IR, it is affected, it retains energy in the atmosphere longer, it causes warming.

Again you make an assumption that CO2 can cause warming. Tell me how a molecule that emits at -80 deg F can warm anything?

Had you read the article you would know that one of the major issues is what that energy, at the wavelength emitted, can AFFECT.. IF it can not be absorbed by water deeper that 10um then it can not warm the body. If Water vapor is a poor absorber of LWIR, then it has no ability to warm the atmosphere because it does not react to it. Both are questions that QM says can not happen. So if it can not affect the molecules in the atmosphere then it has no potential, even if the LWIR energy exists.

The science is far from settled.

Again you make an assumption that CO2 can cause warming.

You said, or at least posted, "Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer"

If energy remains in the atmosphere longer, before finally escaping into space, the atmosphere is warmer than it would be if the energy had in fact immediately escaped into space.

Tell me how a molecule that emits at -80 deg F can warm anything?

Why is a CO2 molecule 2 feet above the ground at -80 F?

Assuming a molecule at -80 F emits a photon and that photon hits the surface and is absorbed, what is the effect on the surface?

IF it can not be absorbed by water deeper that 10um then it can not warm the body.

Energy absorbed at the surface doesn't warm the surface?
Why not? Be as precise as you can.

If Water vapor is a poor absorber of LWIR,

Why do you feel it is a poor absorber?

1. The warming, had you read the article is at 90kl, if it was to occur at all. This is consistent with the CAGW hypothesis. This height and temperature is incapable of warming the surface.

2. Surface tension absorption causes immediate evaporation which expends that energy and more reflecting it back into space. The water can not warm with a negative imbalance. it must cool.

3.Like energy in your 110 wall socket at home, the energy is present. Without an affectable conductor it will do nothing..

The warming, had you read the article is at 90kl,

Yes, I saw that stupid error. Thanks for ignoring the effect on the surface.
And for ignoring the temperature of CO2 at the surface.

Surface tension absorption

Surface tension absorption? Wow!
One of the dumber things I've heard you say. Tell me more!!

causes immediate evaporation which expends that energy and more reflecting it back into space.

If the energy causes evaporation, that energy warms the Earth.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not necessarily... That energy has to effect molecules in order to release the kinetic energy. As it does not reside in the CO2 molecule in any meaningful way it does not warm.

Think of it like down-welling radiation. Most of it can pass through the atmosphere and not warm it. Is it there? Yes it is, but it can not affect it. The molecule must be ale to be affected for it to interact. IF it can not interact it can not warm. Just like space, the energy is there but it can not affect it.

Not necessarily... That energy has to effect molecules in order to release the kinetic energy. As it does not reside in the CO2 molecule in any meaningful way it does not warm.

And when the retained energy is transferred from the CO2 to another molecule in the atmosphere, it causes warming.

Think of it like down-welling radiation. Most of it can pass through the atmosphere and not warm it.

Because the atmosphere is mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation but less transparent to outgoing IR.

The molecule must be ale to be affected for it to interact.

Because CO2 absorbs IR, it is affected, it retains energy in the atmosphere longer, it causes warming.

Again you make an assumption that CO2 can cause warming. Tell me how a molecule that emits at -80 deg F can warm anything?

Had you read the article you would know that one of the major issues is what that energy, at the wavelength emitted, can AFFECT.. IF it can not be absorbed by water deeper that 10um then it can not warm the body. If Water vapor is a poor absorber of LWIR, then it has no ability to warm the atmosphere because it does not react to it. Both are questions that QM says can not happen. So if it can not affect the molecules in the atmosphere then it has no potential, even if the LWIR energy exists.

The science is far from settled.

Again you make an assumption that CO2 can cause warming.

You said, or at least posted, "Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer"

If energy remains in the atmosphere longer, before finally escaping into space, the atmosphere is warmer than it would be if the energy had in fact immediately escaped into space.

Tell me how a molecule that emits at -80 deg F can warm anything?

Why is a CO2 molecule 2 feet above the ground at -80 F?

Assuming a molecule at -80 F emits a photon and that photon hits the surface and is absorbed, what is the effect on the surface?

IF it can not be absorbed by water deeper that 10um then it can not warm the body.

Energy absorbed at the surface doesn't warm the surface?
Why not? Be as precise as you can.

If Water vapor is a poor absorber of LWIR,

Why do you feel it is a poor absorber?

1. The warming, had you read the article is at 90kl, if it was to occur at all. This is consistent with the CAGW hypothesis. This height and temperature is incapable of warming the surface.

2. Surface tension absorption causes immediate evaporation which expends that energy and more reflecting it back into space. The water can not warm with a negative imbalance. it must cool.

3.Like energy in your 110 wall socket at home, the energy is present. Without an affectable conductor it will do nothing..

The warming, had you read the article is at 90kl,

Yes, I saw that stupid error. Thanks for ignoring the effect on the surface.
And for ignoring the temperature of CO2 at the surface.

Surface tension absorption

Surface tension absorption? Wow!
One of the dumber things I've heard you say. Tell me more!!

causes immediate evaporation which expends that energy and more reflecting it back into space.

If the energy causes evaporation, that energy warms the Earth.

Surface tension evaporation is a cumulative negative result. Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Tell me more Todd... how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not necessarily... That energy has to effect molecules in order to release the kinetic energy. As it does not reside in the CO2 molecule in any meaningful way it does not warm.

And when the retained energy is transferred from the CO2 to another molecule in the atmosphere, it causes warming.

Think of it like down-welling radiation. Most of it can pass through the atmosphere and not warm it.

Because the atmosphere is mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation but less transparent to outgoing IR.

The molecule must be ale to be affected for it to interact.

Because CO2 absorbs IR, it is affected, it retains energy in the atmosphere longer, it causes warming.

Again you make an assumption that CO2 can cause warming. Tell me how a molecule that emits at -80 deg F can warm anything?

Had you read the article you would know that one of the major issues is what that energy, at the wavelength emitted, can AFFECT.. IF it can not be absorbed by water deeper that 10um then it can not warm the body. If Water vapor is a poor absorber of LWIR, then it has no ability to warm the atmosphere because it does not react to it. Both are questions that QM says can not happen. So if it can not affect the molecules in the atmosphere then it has no potential, even if the LWIR energy exists.

The science is far from settled.

Again you make an assumption that CO2 can cause warming.

You said, or at least posted, "Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer"

If energy remains in the atmosphere longer, before finally escaping into space, the atmosphere is warmer than it would be if the energy had in fact immediately escaped into space.

Tell me how a molecule that emits at -80 deg F can warm anything?

Why is a CO2 molecule 2 feet above the ground at -80 F?

Assuming a molecule at -80 F emits a photon and that photon hits the surface and is absorbed, what is the effect on the surface?

IF it can not be absorbed by water deeper that 10um then it can not warm the body.

Energy absorbed at the surface doesn't warm the surface?
Why not? Be as precise as you can.

If Water vapor is a poor absorber of LWIR,

Why do you feel it is a poor absorber?

1. The warming, had you read the article is at 90kl, if it was to occur at all. This is consistent with the CAGW hypothesis. This height and temperature is incapable of warming the surface.

2. Surface tension absorption causes immediate evaporation which expends that energy and more reflecting it back into space. The water can not warm with a negative imbalance. it must cool.

3.Like energy in your 110 wall socket at home, the energy is present. Without an affectable conductor it will do nothing..

The warming, had you read the article is at 90kl,

Yes, I saw that stupid error. Thanks for ignoring the effect on the surface.
And for ignoring the temperature of CO2 at the surface.

Surface tension absorption

Surface tension absorption? Wow!
One of the dumber things I've heard you say. Tell me more!!

causes immediate evaporation which expends that energy and more reflecting it back into space.

If the energy causes evaporation, that energy warms the Earth.

Surface tension evaporation is a cumulative negative result. Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Tell me more Todd... how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Surface tension evaporation

What's that?

Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Lost by what? How?

how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans

Who said it did? Where? Why does it have to?

...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Flat wrong about what? From what post? Be specific.

 

[IanC]

Surface tension evaporation is a cumulative negative result. Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Tell me more Todd... how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Billybob- tell us again why you think the complete and immediate absorption of IR within the first millimetre of water is inefficient. Surely having all the energy concentrated in a small volume of water causes a greater local effect than if it were spread out over a centimeter or metre?

Going in the opposite direction, IR from the surface to the atmosphere, any energy not captured quickly is soon lost to space, and therefore really is inefficient at warming the atmosphere.

The difference between the two directions is obvious. EMR going into the oceans cannot escape, it all gets absorbed sooner or later no matter how poorly any particular wavelength is capable of being absorbed. Poorly absorbed light buries the energy deeper into the water making it harder to get out again.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Again you make an assumption that CO2 can cause warming. Tell me how a molecule that emits at -80 deg F can warm anything?

Had you read the article you would know that one of the major issues is what that energy, at the wavelength emitted, can AFFECT.. IF it can not be absorbed by water deeper that 10um then it can not warm the body. If Water vapor is a poor absorber of LWIR, then it has no ability to warm the atmosphere because it does not react to it. Both are questions that QM says can not happen. So if it can not affect the molecules in the atmosphere then it has no potential, even if the LWIR energy exists.

The science is far from settled.

Again you make an assumption that CO2 can cause warming.

You said, or at least posted, "Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer"

If energy remains in the atmosphere longer, before finally escaping into space, the atmosphere is warmer than it would be if the energy had in fact immediately escaped into space.

Tell me how a molecule that emits at -80 deg F can warm anything?

Why is a CO2 molecule 2 feet above the ground at -80 F?

Assuming a molecule at -80 F emits a photon and that photon hits the surface and is absorbed, what is the effect on the surface?

IF it can not be absorbed by water deeper that 10um then it can not warm the body.

Energy absorbed at the surface doesn't warm the surface?
Why not? Be as precise as you can.

If Water vapor is a poor absorber of LWIR,

Why do you feel it is a poor absorber?

1. The warming, had you read the article is at 90kl, if it was to occur at all. This is consistent with the CAGW hypothesis. This height and temperature is incapable of warming the surface.

2. Surface tension absorption causes immediate evaporation which expends that energy and more reflecting it back into space. The water can not warm with a negative imbalance. it must cool.

3.Like energy in your 110 wall socket at home, the energy is present. Without an affectable conductor it will do nothing..

The warming, had you read the article is at 90kl,

Yes, I saw that stupid error. Thanks for ignoring the effect on the surface.
And for ignoring the temperature of CO2 at the surface.

Surface tension absorption

Surface tension absorption? Wow!
One of the dumber things I've heard you say. Tell me more!!

causes immediate evaporation which expends that energy and more reflecting it back into space.

If the energy causes evaporation, that energy warms the Earth.

Surface tension evaporation is a cumulative negative result. Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Tell me more Todd... how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Surface tension evaporation

What's that?

Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Lost by what? How?

how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans

Who said it did? Where? Why does it have to?

...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Flat wrong about what? From what post? Be specific.

Surface tension evaporation is a cumulative negative result. Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Tell me more Todd... how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Billybob- tell us again why you think the complete and immediate absorption of IR within the first millimetre of water is inefficient. Surely having all the energy concentrated in a small volume of water causes a greater local effect than if it were spread out over a centimeter or metre?

Going in the opposite direction, IR from the surface to the atmosphere, any energy not captured quickly is soon lost to space, and therefore really is inefficient at warming the atmosphere.

The difference between the two directions is obvious. EMR going into the oceans cannot escape, it all gets absorbed sooner or later no matter how poorly any particular wavelength is capable of being absorbed. Poorly absorbed light buries the energy deeper into the water making it harder to get out again.

I guess we need to go back to high school level science for a bit.

Water tension boundary. Fill a cup until it is full and then slowly add drop after drop until the glass is over full yet water is above the rim in a bubble shape. This is called surface tension. It is the molecular bond that water molecules have with each other and the evaporation of water which creates a thin skin of particulate matter and water in its fluid/vapor state.

This boundary is about 10 microns thick. When LWIR is introduced only the boundary is affected and it creates a fast exchange of energy back into the atmosphere. This cools the water below more than the skin was warmed to create the reaction.

It is well known that temperatures at the sea surface are typically a few-tenths degrees Celsius cooler than the temperatures some tens of centimeters below [Saunders, 1967; Paulson and Simpson, 1981; Wu, 1985; Fairall et al., 1996; Wick et al., 1996; Donlon et al., 2002]

If you are concerned about transfer of heat from atmosphere to ocean, get yourself an electrical heat gun and hold it over a bucket of water at about 16 inches for 5 minutes. Light wind and LWIR will be all that interacts. No heat transfer. The reason, surface tension. NO heat transfer period.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires heat to flow one-way from hot to cold.
Since the atmosphere is colder (average radiating temperature of ~ -10 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way from the ocean surface to the atmosphere, not the other way around.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again you make an assumption that CO2 can cause warming.

You said, or at least posted, "Yes LWIR from CO2 is retained in the atmosphere longer"

If energy remains in the atmosphere longer, before finally escaping into space, the atmosphere is warmer than it would be if the energy had in fact immediately escaped into space.

Tell me how a molecule that emits at -80 deg F can warm anything?

Why is a CO2 molecule 2 feet above the ground at -80 F?

Assuming a molecule at -80 F emits a photon and that photon hits the surface and is absorbed, what is the effect on the surface?

IF it can not be absorbed by water deeper that 10um then it can not warm the body.

Energy absorbed at the surface doesn't warm the surface?
Why not? Be as precise as you can.

If Water vapor is a poor absorber of LWIR,

Why do you feel it is a poor absorber?

1. The warming, had you read the article is at 90kl, if it was to occur at all. This is consistent with the CAGW hypothesis. This height and temperature is incapable of warming the surface.

2. Surface tension absorption causes immediate evaporation which expends that energy and more reflecting it back into space. The water can not warm with a negative imbalance. it must cool.

3.Like energy in your 110 wall socket at home, the energy is present. Without an affectable conductor it will do nothing..

The warming, had you read the article is at 90kl,

Yes, I saw that stupid error. Thanks for ignoring the effect on the surface.
And for ignoring the temperature of CO2 at the surface.

Surface tension absorption

Surface tension absorption? Wow!
One of the dumber things I've heard you say. Tell me more!!

causes immediate evaporation which expends that energy and more reflecting it back into space.

If the energy causes evaporation, that energy warms the Earth.

Surface tension evaporation is a cumulative negative result. Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Tell me more Todd... how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Surface tension evaporation

What's that?

Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Lost by what? How?

how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans

Who said it did? Where? Why does it have to?

...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Flat wrong about what? From what post? Be specific.

Surface tension evaporation is a cumulative negative result. Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Tell me more Todd... how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Billybob- tell us again why you think the complete and immediate absorption of IR within the first millimetre of water is inefficient. Surely having all the energy concentrated in a small volume of water causes a greater local effect than if it were spread out over a centimeter or metre?

Going in the opposite direction, IR from the surface to the atmosphere, any energy not captured quickly is soon lost to space, and therefore really is inefficient at warming the atmosphere.

The difference between the two directions is obvious. EMR going into the oceans cannot escape, it all gets absorbed sooner or later no matter how poorly any particular wavelength is capable of being absorbed. Poorly absorbed light buries the energy deeper into the water making it harder to get out again.

I guess we need to go back to high school level science for a bit.

Water tension boundary. Fill a cup until it is full and then slowly add drop after drop until the glass is over full yet water is above the rim in a bubble shape. This is called surface tension. It is the molecular bond that water molecules have with each other and the evaporation of water which creates a thin skin of particulate matter and water in its fluid/vapor state.

This boundary is about 10 microns thick. When LWIR is introduced only the boundary is affected and it creates a fast exchange of energy back into the atmosphere. This cools the water below more than the skin was warmed to create the reaction.

It is well known that temperatures at the sea surface are typically a few-tenths degrees Celsius cooler than the temperatures some tens of centimeters below [Saunders, 1967; Paulson and Simpson, 1981; Wu, 1985; Fairall et al., 1996; Wick et al., 1996; Donlon et al., 2002]

If you are concerned about transfer of heat from atmosphere to ocean, get yourself an electrical heat gun and hold it over a bucket of water at about 16 inches for 5 minutes. Light wind and LWIR will be all that interacts. No heat transfer. The reason, surface tension. NO heat transfer period.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires heat to flow one-way from hot to cold.
Since the atmosphere is colder (average radiating temperature of ~ -10 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way from the ocean surface to the atmosphere, not the other way around.

When LWIR is introduced only the boundary is affected and it creates a fast exchange of energy back into the atmosphere.

Yes, when water evaporates, the remaining water cools.
So now that we know the IR adds energy to the Earth system, what was your point again?

Light wind and LWIR will be all that interacts. No heat transfer. The reason, surface tension.

The fact that you think surface tension prevents heat transfer is interesting.
Did you come up with that on your own?

Since the atmosphere is colder (average radiating temperature of ~ -10 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way

One-way?
Photons can only travel from the ocean to the atmosphere, never from the atmosphere to the ocean?
Does your theory involve some sort of electromagnetic shield?

 

[Billy_Bob]

1. The warming, had you read the article is at 90kl, if it was to occur at all. This is consistent with the CAGW hypothesis. This height and temperature is incapable of warming the surface.

2. Surface tension absorption causes immediate evaporation which expends that energy and more reflecting it back into space. The water can not warm with a negative imbalance. it must cool.

3.Like energy in your 110 wall socket at home, the energy is present. Without an affectable conductor it will do nothing..

The warming, had you read the article is at 90kl,

Yes, I saw that stupid error. Thanks for ignoring the effect on the surface.
And for ignoring the temperature of CO2 at the surface.

Surface tension absorption

Surface tension absorption? Wow!
One of the dumber things I've heard you say. Tell me more!!

causes immediate evaporation which expends that energy and more reflecting it back into space.

If the energy causes evaporation, that energy warms the Earth.

Surface tension evaporation is a cumulative negative result. Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Tell me more Todd... how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Surface tension evaporation

What's that?

Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Lost by what? How?

how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans

Who said it did? Where? Why does it have to?

...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Flat wrong about what? From what post? Be specific.

Surface tension evaporation is a cumulative negative result. Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Tell me more Todd... how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Billybob- tell us again why you think the complete and immediate absorption of IR within the first millimetre of water is inefficient. Surely having all the energy concentrated in a small volume of water causes a greater local effect than if it were spread out over a centimeter or metre?

Going in the opposite direction, IR from the surface to the atmosphere, any energy not captured quickly is soon lost to space, and therefore really is inefficient at warming the atmosphere.

The difference between the two directions is obvious. EMR going into the oceans cannot escape, it all gets absorbed sooner or later no matter how poorly any particular wavelength is capable of being absorbed. Poorly absorbed light buries the energy deeper into the water making it harder to get out again.

I guess we need to go back to high school level science for a bit.

Water tension boundary. Fill a cup until it is full and then slowly add drop after drop until the glass is over full yet water is above the rim in a bubble shape. This is called surface tension. It is the molecular bond that water molecules have with each other and the evaporation of water which creates a thin skin of particulate matter and water in its fluid/vapor state.

This boundary is about 10 microns thick. When LWIR is introduced only the boundary is affected and it creates a fast exchange of energy back into the atmosphere. This cools the water below more than the skin was warmed to create the reaction.

It is well known that temperatures at the sea surface are typically a few-tenths degrees Celsius cooler than the temperatures some tens of centimeters below [Saunders, 1967; Paulson and Simpson, 1981; Wu, 1985; Fairall et al., 1996; Wick et al., 1996; Donlon et al., 2002]

If you are concerned about transfer of heat from atmosphere to ocean, get yourself an electrical heat gun and hold it over a bucket of water at about 16 inches for 5 minutes. Light wind and LWIR will be all that interacts. No heat transfer. The reason, surface tension. NO heat transfer period.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires heat to flow one-way from hot to cold.
Since the atmosphere is colder (average radiating temperature of ~ -10 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way from the ocean surface to the atmosphere, not the other way around.

When LWIR is introduced only the boundary is affected and it creates a fast exchange of energy back into the atmosphere.

Yes, when water evaporates, the remaining water cools.
So now that we know the IR adds energy to the Earth system, what was your point again?

Light wind and LWIR will be all that interacts. No heat transfer. The reason, surface tension.

The fact that you think surface tension prevents heat transfer is interesting.
Did you come up with that on your own?

Since the atmosphere is colder (average radiating temperature of ~ -10 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way

One-way?
Photons can only travel from the ocean to the atmosphere, never from the atmosphere to the ocean?
Does your theory involve some sort of electromagnetic shield?

You don't understand residency time or when energy is released within the water cycle.

I refuse to argue the circular logic you and Ian like to spout about energy flow. Your belief appears fundamentally wrong as evidenced by the physical laws and observations. You can hypothesize all you want but I will no longer play your circular games. A colder object can not warm a warmer one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The warming, had you read the article is at 90kl,

Yes, I saw that stupid error. Thanks for ignoring the effect on the surface.
And for ignoring the temperature of CO2 at the surface.

Surface tension absorption

Surface tension absorption? Wow!
One of the dumber things I've heard you say. Tell me more!!

causes immediate evaporation which expends that energy and more reflecting it back into space.

If the energy causes evaporation, that energy warms the Earth.

Surface tension evaporation is a cumulative negative result. Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Tell me more Todd... how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Surface tension evaporation

What's that?

Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Lost by what? How?

how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans

Who said it did? Where? Why does it have to?

...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Flat wrong about what? From what post? Be specific.

Surface tension evaporation is a cumulative negative result. Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Tell me more Todd... how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Billybob- tell us again why you think the complete and immediate absorption of IR within the first millimetre of water is inefficient. Surely having all the energy concentrated in a small volume of water causes a greater local effect than if it were spread out over a centimeter or metre?

Going in the opposite direction, IR from the surface to the atmosphere, any energy not captured quickly is soon lost to space, and therefore really is inefficient at warming the atmosphere.

The difference between the two directions is obvious. EMR going into the oceans cannot escape, it all gets absorbed sooner or later no matter how poorly any particular wavelength is capable of being absorbed. Poorly absorbed light buries the energy deeper into the water making it harder to get out again.

I guess we need to go back to high school level science for a bit.

Water tension boundary. Fill a cup until it is full and then slowly add drop after drop until the glass is over full yet water is above the rim in a bubble shape. This is called surface tension. It is the molecular bond that water molecules have with each other and the evaporation of water which creates a thin skin of particulate matter and water in its fluid/vapor state.

This boundary is about 10 microns thick. When LWIR is introduced only the boundary is affected and it creates a fast exchange of energy back into the atmosphere. This cools the water below more than the skin was warmed to create the reaction.

It is well known that temperatures at the sea surface are typically a few-tenths degrees Celsius cooler than the temperatures some tens of centimeters below [Saunders, 1967; Paulson and Simpson, 1981; Wu, 1985; Fairall et al., 1996; Wick et al., 1996; Donlon et al., 2002]

If you are concerned about transfer of heat from atmosphere to ocean, get yourself an electrical heat gun and hold it over a bucket of water at about 16 inches for 5 minutes. Light wind and LWIR will be all that interacts. No heat transfer. The reason, surface tension. NO heat transfer period.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires heat to flow one-way from hot to cold.
Since the atmosphere is colder (average radiating temperature of ~ -10 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way from the ocean surface to the atmosphere, not the other way around.

When LWIR is introduced only the boundary is affected and it creates a fast exchange of energy back into the atmosphere.

Yes, when water evaporates, the remaining water cools.
So now that we know the IR adds energy to the Earth system, what was your point again?

Light wind and LWIR will be all that interacts. No heat transfer. The reason, surface tension.

The fact that you think surface tension prevents heat transfer is interesting.
Did you come up with that on your own?

Since the atmosphere is colder (average radiating temperature of ~ -10 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way

One-way?
Photons can only travel from the ocean to the atmosphere, never from the atmosphere to the ocean?
Does your theory involve some sort of electromagnetic shield?

You don't understand residency time or when energy is released within the water cycle.

I refuse to argue the circular logic you and Ian like to spout about energy flow. Your belief appears fundamentally wrong as evidenced by the physical laws and observations. You can hypothesize all you want but I will no longer play your circular games. A colder object can not warm a warmer one.

You don't understand residency time or when energy is released within the water cycle.

What have I posted that makes you feel that?

I refuse to argue the circular logic you and Ian like to spout about energy flow.

Obviously. Because you'd say stupid stuff about energy fields blocking photons from cooler matter.

Your belief appears fundamentally wrong as evidenced by the physical laws and observations.

Which laws and observations conflict with my beliefs?

A colder object can not warm a warmer one.

But we're not talking about that.
We're talking about what happens when photons hit matter.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Surface tension evaporation is a cumulative negative result. Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Tell me more Todd... how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Surface tension evaporation

What's that?

Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Lost by what? How?

how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans

Who said it did? Where? Why does it have to?

...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Flat wrong about what? From what post? Be specific.

Surface tension evaporation is a cumulative negative result. Thus more energy is lost than gained.

Tell me more Todd... how does magical LWIR penetrate the oceans...Empirical evidence tells us your flat wrong!

Billybob- tell us again why you think the complete and immediate absorption of IR within the first millimetre of water is inefficient. Surely having all the energy concentrated in a small volume of water causes a greater local effect than if it were spread out over a centimeter or metre?

Going in the opposite direction, IR from the surface to the atmosphere, any energy not captured quickly is soon lost to space, and therefore really is inefficient at warming the atmosphere.

The difference between the two directions is obvious. EMR going into the oceans cannot escape, it all gets absorbed sooner or later no matter how poorly any particular wavelength is capable of being absorbed. Poorly absorbed light buries the energy deeper into the water making it harder to get out again.

I guess we need to go back to high school level science for a bit.

Water tension boundary. Fill a cup until it is full and then slowly add drop after drop until the glass is over full yet water is above the rim in a bubble shape. This is called surface tension. It is the molecular bond that water molecules have with each other and the evaporation of water which creates a thin skin of particulate matter and water in its fluid/vapor state.

This boundary is about 10 microns thick. When LWIR is introduced only the boundary is affected and it creates a fast exchange of energy back into the atmosphere. This cools the water below more than the skin was warmed to create the reaction.

It is well known that temperatures at the sea surface are typically a few-tenths degrees Celsius cooler than the temperatures some tens of centimeters below [Saunders, 1967; Paulson and Simpson, 1981; Wu, 1985; Fairall et al., 1996; Wick et al., 1996; Donlon et al., 2002]

If you are concerned about transfer of heat from atmosphere to ocean, get yourself an electrical heat gun and hold it over a bucket of water at about 16 inches for 5 minutes. Light wind and LWIR will be all that interacts. No heat transfer. The reason, surface tension. NO heat transfer period.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires heat to flow one-way from hot to cold.
Since the atmosphere is colder (average radiating temperature of ~ -10 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way from the ocean surface to the atmosphere, not the other way around.

When LWIR is introduced only the boundary is affected and it creates a fast exchange of energy back into the atmosphere.

Yes, when water evaporates, the remaining water cools.
So now that we know the IR adds energy to the Earth system, what was your point again?

Light wind and LWIR will be all that interacts. No heat transfer. The reason, surface tension.

The fact that you think surface tension prevents heat transfer is interesting.
Did you come up with that on your own?

Since the atmosphere is colder (average radiating temperature of ~ -10 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way

One-way?
Photons can only travel from the ocean to the atmosphere, never from the atmosphere to the ocean?
Does your theory involve some sort of electromagnetic shield?

You don't understand residency time or when energy is released within the water cycle.

I refuse to argue the circular logic you and Ian like to spout about energy flow. Your belief appears fundamentally wrong as evidenced by the physical laws and observations. You can hypothesize all you want but I will no longer play your circular games. A colder object can not warm a warmer one.

You don't understand residency time or when energy is released within the water cycle.

What have I posted that makes you feel that?

I refuse to argue the circular logic you and Ian like to spout about energy flow.

Obviously. Because you'd say stupid stuff about energy fields blocking photons from cooler matter.

Your belief appears fundamentally wrong as evidenced by the physical laws and observations.

Which laws and observations conflict with my beliefs?

A colder object can not warm a warmer one.

But we're not talking about that.
We're talking about what happens when photons hit matter.

Get back to me when you have observed physical evidence that a cooler object can warm a warmer one.. Until then, you can argue with yourself over "net" energy flow hypothesis..

This is like saying a guy with a 10cc syringe can hit a guy using a fire hose.. the flows do not allow for the smaller flow to reach the bigger one...

 

[Billy_Bob]

One more long term record showing GAT (global average temperature) dropping and CO2 levels rising. The opposite of what Alarmists and the IPCC Claim should happen...

These data clearly show that whatever effect carbon dioxide may have on the temperature, it is far outweighed by other factors: and this falsifies the hypothesis that carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming. The data show that there is nothing unusual about the current episode of increased global temperature in either its timing or its amplitude, which lies well within the bounds of natural variation.

Source

It also shows that 1-3 deg C changes are not uncommon or historic in our climate records.. Our current rise is nothing out of the normal cyclical changes of the earth.