No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

[SSDD]

What, in these responses, do you think supports your position and refutes ours? We have always insisted the issue was net transfer. Why don't you write these people back and ask them the REAL question. "Does cold matter still radiate even it if is towards warmer matter?" I'm quite certain you didn't because you're afraid of the answer.

Of course it doesn't...the second law of thermodynamics states quite clearly that neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from cool areas to warm. I never cease to find it interesting that you guys don't get that...and there is nothing whatsoever in any of the laws of thermodynamics regarding net energy flows...all the laws of thermodynamics describe gross energy movement...of course I wouldn't expect you to get that since you believe that a statement like 7-3=4 is a statement of net change rather than gross change.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD says there is no IR in the fridge or freezer, unless you put something warmer or cooler in it.

You know that complaint you have been making about crick mischaracterizing what you say, and then responding to that distortion of your comment...perfect example here of you doing precisely the same thing...only you do it far more often than crick ever did....Of course there is Ir in the fridge...it only moves spontaneously to cooler areas though...P=A sigma (Tˆ4-Tcˆ4)

He doesn't quite grasp the concept that heat flow is a NET balance derived by subtracting the radiation from one object from the radiation of the second. Likewise there is no radiation in an oven.

You don't quite grasp that "net" is an ad hoc product of a mathematica model...never observed, and never tested...and the laws of thermodynamics say nothing about net energy movement...they say that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm.

 

[SSDD]

The gross flow out of an object is described by the single term first S-B equation and is proportional to its temperature.

If you add a second object then you reapply the single term S-B equation.

Sorry ian...P=A sigma (Tˆ4-Tcˆ4) is a gross term...you need another term to describe net....P=(Tˆ4 - Tcˆ4) is no different from 4=(7-3) in so far as there description of changes.... which describes a gross change...you need another term in there if you want to show a net change...and throwing in the distributive property won't make a net change happen in reality...that is just bad math....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What, in these responses, do you think supports your position and refutes ours? We have always insisted the issue was net transfer. Why don't you write these people back and ask them the REAL question. "Does cold matter still radiate even it if is towards warmer matter?" I'm quite certain you didn't because you're afraid of the answer.

Of course it doesn't...the second law of thermodynamics states quite clearly that neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from cool areas to warm. I never cease to find it interesting that you guys don't get that...and there is nothing whatsoever in any of the laws of thermodynamics regarding net energy flows...all the laws of thermodynamics describe gross energy movement...of course I wouldn't expect you to get that since you believe that a statement like 7-3=4 is a statement of net change rather than gross change.

the second law of thermodynamics states quite clearly that neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from cool areas to warm.

I've looked at the 2nd Law and don't remember it mentioning photons.

 

[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.

Why doesn't CO2 absorb incoming IR?

it does. who told you it didn't?

 

[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.

 

[IanC]

Excellent!! I can tell by the classical case of transference (in the psychological sense) in his sneering insult, that he is coming around at least somewhat.

Says the guy who has adopted the phrase smart photons from rocks.

really? Old Rocks originated that? huh

I disagreed with your vision of photons etc right from the beginning. I invoked Maxwell's Daemon but that probably didnt resonate with many people.

 

[SSDD]

Excellent!! I can tell by the classical case of transference (in the psychological sense) in his sneering insult, that he is coming around at least somewhat.

Says the guy who has adopted the phrase smart photons from rocks.

really? Old Rocks originated that? huh

I disagreed with your vision of photons etc right from the beginning. I invoked Maxwell's Daemon but that probably didnt resonate with many people.

Doesn't really matter...either is logical fallacy since you can show no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of your belief...

 

[IanC]

The gross flow out of an object is described by the single term first S-B equation and is proportional to its temperature.

If you add a second object then you reapply the single term S-B equation.

Sorry ian...P=A sigma (Tˆ4-Tcˆ4) is a gross term...you need another term to describe net....P=(Tˆ4 - Tcˆ4) is no different from 4=(7-3) in so far as there description of changes.... which describes a gross change...you need another term in there if you want to show a net change...and throwing in the distributive property won't make a net change happen in reality...that is just bad math....

there is no way to 'simplify' or 'cancel out' radiation. radiation is created by matter, travels in a straight line until it is absorbed by different matter. while it is moving from point A to point B nothing affects it (gravity and expansion of space make no difference in Earth's frame of reference).

 

[SSDD]

The gross flow out of an object is described by the single term first S-B equation and is proportional to its temperature.

If you add a second object then you reapply the single term S-B equation.

Sorry ian...P=A sigma (Tˆ4-Tcˆ4) is a gross term...you need another term to describe net....P=(Tˆ4 - Tcˆ4) is no different from 4=(7-3) in so far as there description of changes.... which describes a gross change...you need another term in there if you want to show a net change...and throwing in the distributive property won't make a net change happen in reality...that is just bad math....

there is no way to 'simplify' or 'cancel out' radiation. radiation is created by matter, travels in a straight line until it is absorbed by different matter. while it is moving from point A to point B nothing affects it (gravity and expansion of space make no difference in Earth's frame of reference).

So you claim....

And it only moves spontaneously in the direction of warm to cool...any other claim is based on nothing more than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model....pardon me if I stick with reality and actual observations.

 

[IanC]

SSDD says there is no IR in the fridge or freezer, unless you put something warmer or cooler in it.

You know that complaint you have been making about crick mischaracterizing what you say, and then responding to that distortion of your comment...perfect example here of you doing precisely the same thing...only you do it far more often than crick ever did....Of course there is Ir in the fridge...it only moves spontaneously to cooler areas though...P=A sigma (Tˆ4-Tcˆ4)

He doesn't quite grasp the concept that heat flow is a NET balance derived by subtracting the radiation from one object from the radiation of the second. Likewise there is no radiation in an oven.

You don't quite grasp that "net" is an ad hoc product of a mathematica model...never observed, and never tested...and the laws of thermodynamics say nothing about net energy movement...they say that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm.

this is not even close to crick misquoting me. we have discussed this time and time again.

physics describes the movement of energy by radiation photons, which results in heat transfer from warm to cool as a net result, proven by statistical methods. energy in the form of photons is not restricted in any way, and indeed goes in both (all) directions.

whenever you have been trapped in logical inconsistency you either run away or make ridiculous unsubstantiated claims. like 'photons aren't real', 'quantum mechanics is nothing but a placeholder', etc.

you proudly proclaim that objects stop radiating if they are near warmer objects. but you have no explanation, no mechanism at work, and you refuse to even acknowledge the effect on entropy by this bizarre personal version of physics. with you it is the actual verbal description of thermodynamic laws that count, not the idea behind them. you confuse the term 'energy' with the term 'heat'. and then point to instances where the terms have been ambiguously used in a general description somewhere to 'prove' your case.

 

[IanC]

The gross flow out of an object is described by the single term first S-B equation and is proportional to its temperature.

If you add a second object then you reapply the single term S-B equation.

Sorry ian...P=A sigma (Tˆ4-Tcˆ4) is a gross term...you need another term to describe net....P=(Tˆ4 - Tcˆ4) is no different from 4=(7-3) in so far as there description of changes.... which describes a gross change...you need another term in there if you want to show a net change...and throwing in the distributive property won't make a net change happen in reality...that is just bad math....

there is no way to 'simplify' or 'cancel out' radiation. radiation is created by matter, travels in a straight line until it is absorbed by different matter. while it is moving from point A to point B nothing affects it (gravity and expansion of space make no difference in Earth's frame of reference).

So you claim....

And it only moves spontaneously in the direction of warm to cool...any other claim is based on nothing more than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model....pardon me if I stick with reality and actual observations.

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

 

[jc456]

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.

Why doesn't CO2 absorb incoming IR?

it does. who told you it didn't?

so, any reference from you on back radiation? I mean you asked a question and I answered it. you never responded.

 

[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.

Why doesn't CO2 absorb incoming IR?

it does. who told you it didn't?

so, any reference from you on back radiation? I mean you asked a question and I answered it. you never responded.

hahahahaha. you are sooooooo retarded.

what is this special question that you think I have ducked?

repeat it, define the context, explain how you think the question and answer are germaine to the topic.

 

[jc456]

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.

Why doesn't CO2 absorb incoming IR?

it does. who told you it didn't?

so, any reference from you on back radiation? I mean you asked a question and I answered it. you never responded.

hahahahaha. you are sooooooo retarded.

what is this special question that you think I have ducked?

repeat it, define the context, explain how you think the question and answer are germaine to the topic.

funny stuff. go read the question yourself duck dynasty.

 

[IanC]

Why doesn't CO2 absorb incoming IR?

-answered

Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

-answered

So curious, what is the difference between vacuum and perfect vacuum?

-answered, though not specifically directed at you. a 'perfect' vacuum is one that not only contains no matter, but is also devoid of radiation as well. your definition may differ.

ok, where does the 288k come from?

Oh and, do you agree that the earth surface is 70% water? And if that is so, how can you double the output when the greatest percentage of the planet only absorbs incoming solar energy? and that only one hemisphere is in sun at any one time.

-answered

so again, where does 288K come from? It was the question to which you responded Kelvin. I know that, I wanted to know where you get 288k from. why isn't it 239K?

And again, you stated that 400W was double what the emitted energy was from the incoming sun, so somewhere you have to get an extra 200w. I asked you from where?

-answered

well let's hear your answer on where the same amount energy comes from other than the sun. Because I got to hear this one.

-answered

Ian, you just stated SSDD didn't answer your question. how do you figure? He gave you an answer. It's obvious you didn't like the answer you got. plain and simply. Did you look up gravitothermal atmospheric effect? if you didn't, then how do you figure it is an opinion? dude, you seem to be acting desperate. So again, you asked, "You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input" "Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere."

SSDD posted "gravitothermal atmospheric effect". It was an answer. Why do you lie and state he didn't answer you? That is sure a sign of desperation when one lies.

And BTW, SSDD is correct, you believe a feedback from the atmosphere is as hot as the incoming sun rays. If that is so, prove it? You shouldn't have to cool a thermometer to take a reading. he is spot fking on with that comment. So again, you sir are in a position that I call lying. And SSDD deserves an apology.

-answered. you guys claimed the Loschmidt Gravito-Thermal Effect answered my question about the missing 200+ watts. when I actually posted it up for all to see, you guys said 'never mind'.

did I miss something on this thread? I answered the questions directed at me, and some others to boot.

 

[jc456]

Why doesn't CO2 absorb incoming IR?

-answered

Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

-answered

So curious, what is the difference between vacuum and perfect vacuum?

-answered, though not specifically directed at you. a 'perfect' vacuum is one that not only contains no matter, but is also devoid of radiation as well. your definition may differ.

ok, where does the 288k come from?

Oh and, do you agree that the earth surface is 70% water? And if that is so, how can you double the output when the greatest percentage of the planet only absorbs incoming solar energy? and that only one hemisphere is in sun at any one time.

-answered

so again, where does 288K come from? It was the question to which you responded Kelvin. I know that, I wanted to know where you get 288k from. why isn't it 239K?

And again, you stated that 400W was double what the emitted energy was from the incoming sun, so somewhere you have to get an extra 200w. I asked you from where?

-answered

well let's hear your answer on where the same amount energy comes from other than the sun. Because I got to hear this one.

-answered

Ian, you just stated SSDD didn't answer your question. how do you figure? He gave you an answer. It's obvious you didn't like the answer you got. plain and simply. Did you look up gravitothermal atmospheric effect? if you didn't, then how do you figure it is an opinion? dude, you seem to be acting desperate. So again, you asked, "You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input" "Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere."

SSDD posted "gravitothermal atmospheric effect". It was an answer. Why do you lie and state he didn't answer you? That is sure a sign of desperation when one lies.

And BTW, SSDD is correct, you believe a feedback from the atmosphere is as hot as the incoming sun rays. If that is so, prove it? You shouldn't have to cool a thermometer to take a reading. he is spot fking on with that comment. So again, you sir are in a position that I call lying. And SSDD deserves an apology.

-answered. you guys claimed the Loschmidt Gravito-Thermal Effect answered my question about the missing 200+ watts. when I actually posted it up for all to see, you guys said 'never mind'.

did I miss something on this thread? I answered the questions directed at me, and some others to boot.

and here I thought you did have some smarts. guess not. it's ok, jc don't need to play your game.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why doesn't CO2 absorb incoming IR?

-answered

Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

-answered

So curious, what is the difference between vacuum and perfect vacuum?

-answered, though not specifically directed at you. a 'perfect' vacuum is one that not only contains no matter, but is also devoid of radiation as well. your definition may differ.

ok, where does the 288k come from?

Oh and, do you agree that the earth surface is 70% water? And if that is so, how can you double the output when the greatest percentage of the planet only absorbs incoming solar energy? and that only one hemisphere is in sun at any one time.

-answered

so again, where does 288K come from? It was the question to which you responded Kelvin. I know that, I wanted to know where you get 288k from. why isn't it 239K?

And again, you stated that 400W was double what the emitted energy was from the incoming sun, so somewhere you have to get an extra 200w. I asked you from where?

-answered

well let's hear your answer on where the same amount energy comes from other than the sun. Because I got to hear this one.

-answered

Ian, you just stated SSDD didn't answer your question. how do you figure? He gave you an answer. It's obvious you didn't like the answer you got. plain and simply. Did you look up gravitothermal atmospheric effect? if you didn't, then how do you figure it is an opinion? dude, you seem to be acting desperate. So again, you asked, "You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input" "Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere."

SSDD posted "gravitothermal atmospheric effect". It was an answer. Why do you lie and state he didn't answer you? That is sure a sign of desperation when one lies.

And BTW, SSDD is correct, you believe a feedback from the atmosphere is as hot as the incoming sun rays. If that is so, prove it? You shouldn't have to cool a thermometer to take a reading. he is spot fking on with that comment. So again, you sir are in a position that I call lying. And SSDD deserves an apology.

-answered. you guys claimed the Loschmidt Gravito-Thermal Effect answered my question about the missing 200+ watts. when I actually posted it up for all to see, you guys said 'never mind'.

did I miss something on this thread? I answered the questions directed at me, and some others to boot.

and here I thought you did have some smarts. guess not. it's ok, jc don't need to play your game.

jc was playing a game? LOL!

 

[polarbear]

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

 

[SSDD]

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...