No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

[IanC]

hahahaha. Ok, start putting up the actual observations. I think you will find reality is not so cut and dried as you present it.

Geez ian, how dense are you...try actually observing that if you want to ACTUALLY measure radiation in the bands of the so called greenhouse gasses moving from the atmosphere to the surface, the instrument must be cooled to something like -80F...then you aren't measuring IR in those bands moving from the cool atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth..you are measuring IR moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...set an instrument at ambient temperature right next to it and it won't be measuring any such radiation...

why are you not putting up evidence?

you keep saying every observation, etc,etc,etc supports your position. start making your case. the time is long past that we are going to take your word for anything. as well, just about every link that you have presented so far either disagrees with your premise, is completely off topic, or is a blog opinion piece.

first off, show us half a dozen instruments that need to be cooled to -80F. link up to the documentation that says the cooling is necessary for the method to work rather than just an improvement to lower the time to make a reading or to increase the sensitivity by blocking out background noise from waste heat contamination.

you keep bringing up -80F. what is the method to reach this temperature? what is the cutoff of the IR bands that would require even more cooling?



it should be easy for you to post pictures of these instruments, and the working environment. please cut and paste relevant sections of the documentation instead of just dropping a link.

it's not that hard. I know I did it to support my position.

 

[IanC]

GHGs make the atmosphere opaque to certain bands of IR. let's concentrate on CO2, and ignore convection which is primarily an effect of water vapour.

roughly 8% of the surface's power is emitted in the 15 micron band dominated by CO2, and it is absorbed to extinction by 10 meters of atmosphere. the exact numbers dont matter, just the general mechanism. so, all that energy is added to the first 10 meters of atmosphere but what happens to it?

when a molecule absorbs a photon it increases its potential energy, but we know that potential and kinetic energy of the atmosphere is freely transferable by collisions. therefore adding potential energy will result in increased kinetic energy (temperature) as well.

the equipartition theorum states that for a substance at a consistent temperature the emission will equal the absorption, basically a restatement of emissivity. this is where the warmers make their claim that CO2 absorbs, then emits in a random direction, which means roughly half returns to the surface. this is incorrect because the atmosphere cools with height because of gravity and the distribution of potential and kinetic energies. (I am ignoring water vapour contribution to lapse rate per above)

every slab of the atmosphere contains some excited CO2 (potential energy), from radiation coming both from above and below. it continues to hold onto this energy until the concentration of CO2 is so thin that emitted photons are more likely to escape to space rather than encounter another CO2 molecule and be absorbed. the amount of CO2 specific radiation lost to space is a small fraction of the amount of CO2 specific radiation put into the atmosphere by the surface. the difference is used to add to the total energy of the atmosphere which both warms the air (kinetic) and increases the height of the atmosphere (potential).

in the comment above we saw the atmospheric window radiation was produced by both the surface and the atmosphere but only warmed the surface. now we have a different type of radiation that warms both the surface and the atmosphere (not directly because the net flow is outward, yada yada yada). if CO2 was not present then the 15 micron IR would be part of the atmospheric window and lost directly to space rather than be captured by the atmosphere. more direct energy loss would result in lower temps for both the atmosphere and the surface. THIS is the greenhouse effect.

IanC I don`t think that whoever is reading your thread disputes Beer`s law. The problems start when AGW proponents assign values which aren`t actually measured but calculated or closer to the truth are estimated. You can`t just plug in Beer`s or Schroedinger`s laws into the 15 μm wavelength region and plot an absorption curve with it then go on and "calculate" an energy budget for the entire planet. Look again at the difference between the numbers when you actually measure what happens in the 15 μm absorption band with CO2 and if you just make all the assumptions that any material like CO2 strictly conforms with these assumptions:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact
Fig. 1 shows the unprocessed spectrum of the 15 µm band for 357 ppm CO2 and 2.6% H2O


If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2. This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

I disagree with many of the IPCC's so called facts and figures. what I am arguing here is the existence of the greenhouse effect.

I know that's what you are doing here and I remember some (pretty good!!!) stuff you posted here a few years ago especially the flaws you found in many of the proxy data.
When it gets to the greenhouse gas effect it gets a bit more complicated than the way it`s explained in general terms by climatologists. Let`s give the part that troubles SSDD some thought. He says in essence that heat can`t be transferred from a colder body to a warmer one and then gets stuck in a corner when someone asks him what happens to the energy the colder body radiates towards the warmer one.
The correct answer to that is quite a bit more complicated because a.) we are not dealing with a black body when applying that set of laws to the earth's surface and b.) with CO2 as a part of the GHG`s that affect the atmospheric window we are not dealing with a substance that adheres to the Beer-Lambert law to the extent the IPCC would have it. Which is the part Heinz Hug also disputes and went on to show that he measured that it is only 1/80 th of what the IPCC claims. That was no surprise to Dr.H.Hug or anyone who ever actually did any serious spectral analysis. In addition to that consider this:
Infrared window - Wikipedia
The window radiation and the non-window radiation from the land-sea surface are not defined in the terms that are necessary for the application of the Beer-Lambert Law. It would therefore be a logical and conceptual error to try to apply the Beer-Lambert Law either to window or non-window radiation considered separately.
The reason for this is that the window and non-window radiation have already been conditioned by the Beer-Lambert Law and the law cannot validly be re-applied to its own products. Logically, the Beer-Lambert Law applies to radiation of which the origin is known but the destination is unknown. Such is not the case for window and non-window radiation. Logically, it is part of the definition of window radiation that its destination is known, namely that it is destined to go to space, and likewise, by definition the destination of non-window radiation is known to be entire absorption by the atmosphere. Thus it makes sense to state the precise spectral distribution and spatial, especially altitudinal, distribution of locations of absorption of non-window radiation in the atmosphere. But none of those locations can be beyond the atmosphere; by definition, non-window radiation has zero probability of escaping absorption by the atmosphere; all of the locations of absorption are within the atmosphere. Radiation that can be described by the Beer-Lambert Law can partly escape absorption by the medium of interest; the law tells just how much that part is. This is a deep conceptual point that distinguishes the kinetic description of window and non-window radiation from the kinetic description of the kind of radiation that is covered by the Beer-Lambert Law.
Non-window radiation is by definition absorbed by the atmosphere, and its energy is thereby transduced into kinetic energy of atmospheric molecules. That kinetic energy is then transferred according to the usual dynamics of atmospheric energy transfer.
These kinetic principles for window and non-window radiation arise in the light of the definition of the atmospheric window as a dynamic property of the whole atmosphere, logically distinct from the electromagnetic spectral window

hahahaha. I have a hard enough time trying to get the very basics across here. I think you are adding an unnecessary level of complexity that will be more confusing than helpful.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

hahahaha. Ok, start putting up the actual observations. I think you will find reality is not so cut and dried as you present it.

Geez ian, how dense are you...try actually observing that if you want to ACTUALLY measure radiation in the bands of the so called greenhouse gasses moving from the atmosphere to the surface, the instrument must be cooled to something like -80F...then you aren't measuring IR in those bands moving from the cool atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth..you are measuring IR moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...set an instrument at ambient temperature right next to it and it won't be measuring any such radiation...

you are measuring IR moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...

And the thing that tells the atmosphere when it can begin emitting downward is??????
And which real scientist has explained this switch? Oh, right, no scientist, just you.

set an instrument at ambient temperature right next to it and it won't be measuring any such radiation...

And that means the radiation isn't there? DERP!

 

[SSDD]

why are you not putting up evidence?

The evidence is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to look...show me ACTUAL measurements of downward radiation...measurments that aren't the result of mathematical models made at ambient temperature with instruments that aren't cooled....I doubt that you will even find record of any such attempts as anyone with any brains at all knows that such an attempt at measurement is pointless...why do you think instruments that actually measure radiation are cooled?

 

[SSDD]

hahahaha. I have a hard enough time trying to get the very basics across here. I think you are adding an unnecessary level of complexity that will be more confusing than helpful.

You don't have a grasp of the basics ian...you have a terribly flawed understanding of the basics...which is why you have been duped into thinking that CO2 has any effect at all on temperature beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

And all the world's PhD scientists? Do they have all have a terribly flawed understanding of the basics? Occam's razor and our own understanding of physics (courtesy of an accredited educational system) says it is many tens of thousands times more likely that it is you with the shortcoming SID.

 

[IanC]

why are you not putting up evidence?

The evidence is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to look...show me ACTUAL measurements of downward radiation...measurments that aren't the result of mathematical models made at ambient temperature with instruments that aren't cooled....I doubt that you will even find record of any such attempts as anyone with any brains at all knows that such an attempt at measurement is pointless...why do you think instruments that actually measure radiation are cooled?

what's the matter SSDD? are you tired of looking foolish whenever you actually try to provide evidence?

you kept making the same nonsense statement (per your above quote) until myself and others finally provided evidence, lots of evidence, that you were wrong. now you have crawled back into your corner like a whipped dog, snarling and snapping, with no fight left in you.

come back when you have more than a fevered rant from a twisted imagination.

 

[IanC]

hahahaha. I have a hard enough time trying to get the very basics across here. I think you are adding an unnecessary level of complexity that will be more confusing than helpful.

You don't have a grasp of the basics ian...you have a terribly flawed understanding of the basics...which is why you have been duped into thinking that CO2 has any effect at all on temperature beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere.

more feeble growls from the safety of your corner. what a mangy cur you have turned into. are you rabid, or is it just a case of distemper?

put up your evidence, or stay in your corner covered in your own filth.

 

[Wuwei]

The evidence is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to look...show me ACTUAL measurements of downward radiation...measurments that aren't the result of mathematical models made at ambient temperature with instruments that aren't cooled....I doubt that you will even find record of any such attempts as anyone with any brains at all knows that such an attempt at measurement is pointless...why do you think instruments that actually measure radiation are cooled?

My gosh are still ranting your misunderstanding of thermodynamics? You still believe that emitted thermal radiation cannot be transmitted between any two objects at any temperature. Read a book.

 

[SSDD]

what's the matter SSDD? are you tired of looking foolish whenever you actually try to provide evidence?

Wow ian...you really are descending into dishonesty aren't you?....now you want me to provide evidence that there is no evidence to support your beliefs?....

The fact that I have pointed out that every bit of so called evidence of back radiation that you have posted has either been made with an instrument that was only measuring temperature changes in an internal thermopile, or has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere is the evidence...you want to prove your belief...then lets see measurements of back radiation with an instrument that actually measures radiation in specific bands which has not been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...

 

[SSDD]

The evidence is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to look...show me ACTUAL measurements of downward radiation...measurments that aren't the result of mathematical models made at ambient temperature with instruments that aren't cooled....I doubt that you will even find record of any such attempts as anyone with any brains at all knows that such an attempt at measurement is pointless...why do you think instruments that actually measure radiation are cooled?

My gosh are still ranting your misunderstanding of thermodynamics? You still believe that emitted thermal radiation cannot be transmitted between any two objects at any temperature. Read a book.

I did...found this quote which settled the issue.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Now remind us what a true blue goober you are by claiming that the above statement only applies to refrigerators....or add claims that aren't stated in the law by whining that it is talking about net energy flows when it says nothing whatsoever about net energy flows..go ahead.

 

[Crick]

How is it that given two options:
1) Matter is aware of its surroundings, is able to control its emissions with infinite precision and rountinely violates special relativity
2) All matter radiates all the time in all directions with a spectrum and intensity dependent on its absolute temperature

both of which ideas result in the same NET transfer of energy, you choose option 1?

God are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

Awareness is no more a requisite for emitters and energy than it is for rocks falling to earth......again, logical fallacy...since I pointed out the argument to ridicule fallacy to you did you decide to try it out?...it is still a fallacy. Since all observations are of energy moving in one direction, you have nothing with which to support your belief other than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

 

[Crick]

God are you stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Awareness is no more a requisite for emitters and energy than it is for rocks falling to earth......again, logical fallacy...since I pointed out the argument to ridicule fallacy to you did you decide to try it out?...it is still a fallacy. Since all observations are of energy moving in one direction, you have nothing with which to support your belief other than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

Since all observations are of energy moving in one direction

Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

In Support of the A in AGW

 

[IanC]

what's the matter SSDD? are you tired of looking foolish whenever you actually try to provide evidence?

Wow ian...you really are descending into dishonesty aren't you?....now you want me to provide evidence that there is no evidence to support your beliefs?....

The fact that I have pointed out that every bit of so called evidence of back radiation that you have posted has either been made with an instrument that was only measuring temperature changes in an internal thermopile, or has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere is the evidence...you want to prove your belief...then lets see measurements of back radiation with an instrument that actually measures radiation in specific bands which has not been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...

quit ducking the issue. you have claimed, dozens of times, that radiation from the atmosphere can only be measured by cooled instruments. show us these instruments. show us the documentation that states cooling is necessary for the radiation to exist rather than just to separate the signal from background noise.

so far you have just been talking out of your ass, making shit up. start providing evidence.

you keep saying every observation ever made supports your position, so start producing some observations.

 

[IanC]

The evidence is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to look...show me ACTUAL measurements of downward radiation...measurments that aren't the result of mathematical models made at ambient temperature with instruments that aren't cooled....I doubt that you will even find record of any such attempts as anyone with any brains at all knows that such an attempt at measurement is pointless...why do you think instruments that actually measure radiation are cooled?

My gosh are still ranting your misunderstanding of thermodynamics? You still believe that emitted thermal radiation cannot be transmitted between any two objects at any temperature. Read a book.

I did...found this quote which settled the issue.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Now remind us what a true blue goober you are by claiming that the above statement only applies to refrigerators....or add claims that aren't stated in the law by whining that it is talking about net energy flows when it says nothing whatsoever about net energy flows..go ahead.

still hiding behind generalized statements meant for macroscopic observations? and implied definitions that were not meant for the specific events we are considering.

find a link that states molecular emission of photons is controlled by the temperature of distant targets. while you are at it, show that the individual molecular targets can be given a specific energy level according to the group's average.

your twisted version of physics breaks down in so many ways that it is hard to keep track of them all. and you duck every criticism, refusing to defend your position.

 

[Wuwei]

I did...found this quote which settled the issue.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Now remind us what a true blue goober you are by claiming that the above statement only applies to refrigerators....or add claims that aren't stated in the law by whining that it is talking about net energy flows when it says nothing whatsoever about net energy flows..go ahead.

There are many ways of stating the second law of thermodynamics. Which ones of the following statements from universities or textbooks do you disagree with?

http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynamics/a/lawthermo_4.htm
It is impossible for a process to have as its sole result the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter one.

LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."

Heat engines and the second law
The second law states that heat flows naturally from regions of higher temperature to regions of lower temperature, but that it will not flow naturally the other way.

Refrigerators
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat will spontaneously always flow from a hot region to a cold region. By itself it never flows the other way, but can be made to do so under the influence of an external agency.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Heat flows spontaneously from a hot body ot a cool one.

http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynamics/a/lawthermo_4.htm
It is impossible for a process to have as its sole result the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter one.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Nov 5, 2016 - The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.

Blufton University The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold body to a hot body.

chemwiki.ucdavis.edu › ... › Laws of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.

MIT: 5.1 Concept and Statements of the Second Law
No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body.

Second Law: There exists for every thermodynamic system in equilibrium an extensive scalar property called the entropy, such that in an infinitesimal reversible change of state of the system, where is the absolute temperature and is the amount of heat received by the system. The entropy of a thermally insulated system cannot decrease and is constant if and only if all processes are reversible.

Book: "Thermodynamics." Cambridge university press.
There are many ways to introduce the Second Law of Thermodynamics...all of it's statements are equivalent and self-consistent....
"Heat flows spontaneously from a system of higher temperature to a system of lower temperature."....

Book: A course in Thermodynamics. Joseph Kestin
It is impossible to produce work by reducing the energy of a system existing in thermal equilibrium and confined within a rigid adiabatic enclosure.

second law of thermodynamics
Second law of thermodynamics - a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy

 

[SSDD]

Awareness is no more a requisite for emitters and energy than it is for rocks falling to earth......again, logical fallacy...since I pointed out the argument to ridicule fallacy to you did you decide to try it out?...it is still a fallacy. Since all observations are of energy moving in one direction, you have nothing with which to support your belief other than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

Since all observations are of energy moving in one direction

Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

In Support of the A in AGW

So lets see a measured observation of energy moving both ways....oh, what's that? There are none?...OK.

 

[SSDD]

still hiding behind generalized statements meant for macroscopic observations? and implied definitions that were not meant for the specific events we are considering.

Hiding behind every observation ever made...what a hoot you have become. When two way energy flow is proven...and observations made, and measurements recorded...and the laws of thermodynamics have been rewritten...be sure to let me know.

find a link that states molecular emission of photons is controlled by the temperature of distant targets.

don't see anything there about distance between T and Tc...do you?...

while you are at it, show that the individual molecular targets can be given a specific energy level according to the group's average.

Sure thing....just as soon as you prove with empirical evidence, and actual observations and measurements, that the groups average has any bearing on the issue....of course, if such proof existed, the laws of thermodynamics would already be rewritten....wouldn't they?

]