Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[IanC]

Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.24410^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.

SO we add 16 zeros to your decimal... 0.000000000000000024410 Tell me again how this very small amount of 'back radiation' from CO2 can do anything?

What a fucking retard you are. Wu had thee numbers, all with 4 sig figs, and descending powers of ten. The last number was missing a space so you decided it was a 6 sig fig number raised to the 16th power. When that was too difficult to calculate you mashed things up and multiplied by 10^-16 instead.

Nobody with scientific training would have been confused with Wu's line of calculation. That you went totally out to lunch because of a missing space just shows how stupid you are.

 

[Wuwei]

What a fucking retard you are. Wu had thee numbers, all with 4 sig figs, and descending powers of ten. The last number was missing a space so you decided it was a 6 sig fig number raised to the 16th power. When that was too difficult to calculate you mashed things up and multiplied by 10^-16 instead.

Nobody with scientific training would have been confused with Wu's line of calculation. That you went totally out to lunch because of a missing space just shows how stupid you are.

Thank you. I had no idea what he was talking about. I generally ignore him when he says something screwy.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.24410^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.

SO we add 16 zeros to your decimal... 0.000000000000000024410 Tell me again how this very small amount of 'back radiation' from CO2 can do anything?

What a fucking retard you are. Wu had thee numbers, all with 4 sig figs, and descending powers of ten. The last number was missing a space so you decided it was a 6 sig fig number raised to the 16th power. When that was too difficult to calculate you mashed things up and multiplied by 10^-16 instead.

Nobody with scientific training would have been confused with Wu's line of calculation. That you went totally out to lunch because of a missing space just shows how stupid you are.

The correct calculation is 10^-16, which is what I posted even though he missed the proper form. Speaking of stupid... LOL you idiots never cease to amaze me..

 

[Billy_Bob]

So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere? What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?

There is no energy reservoir.....what bit of energy that so called greenhouse gasses actually emit in the form of IR moves on to space at the speed of light rather than by the cumbersome process of conduction/convection...add more so called greenhouse gas molecules to the atmosphere and you have a greater number of them managing to emit a photon which skips the conduction/convection elevator to the top of the troposphere and moves directly to space....there is no back radiation, and "scattering" is so negligible as to be irrelevant...

The process that you imagine energy moving through the troposphere is simply, and completely wrong.

All of the atmosphere is an energy reserve. Kinetic energy stored as temperature, potential energy stored as height in the gravity field, latent energy stored by phase change.

You made the casual unsupported statement that more molecules of a GHG means more opportunity to radiate a photon to space. I say that GHGs only radiate to space once their density is low enought that a photonescapes rather than gets reabsorbed.


If the emission concentration is xx per cubic centimetre then you have to go up in the amosphere until that concentratin is reached, the emission height. If you double the GHG concentration, the emission concentration is still the same but you have to go farther up into the atmosphere where the overall density of air is 1/2 of what it was. There will only be the same amout of the GHG capable of radiating to space but it will be at a colder height.

Adding more of a GHG does not increase escaping radiation. It decreases it because the new height has less energy to convert into radiation.

So, where is the energy coming from for your claim of extra cooling and which wavelengths account for it?

And water vapor blows a huge hole in your hypothesis... Water vapor in the atmosphere is the reason we have never gone outside the 14 deg C average temperature range for over 4.5 billion years. Even at concentrations above 7000ppm.

View attachment 263304

My hypoothesis is that adding more of an existing GHG reduces escaping radiation in the wavelengths affected by the increased GHG. I explained my reasoning.

You say water vapour blows a hole in that statement. Where is the hole, what energy are you talking about and which wavelengths.

Water Vapor emits LWIR as it rises in the atmospheric column, when it cools enough to re-nucleate into a water droplet. This phase change happens at various altitudes and starts at 12um and elongates out to over 130um.. Water vapor at just 36% relative humidity, at ground level, is capable of absorbing all the LWIR energy CO2 can absorb and loses by collision. Once captured by water vapor, the cooling of the air mass, as it rises will place the resulting release of LWIR out of reach of any further interaction with CO2 in our atmosphere simply because its wavelength will be bigger than 16um. At just 150 meters, the air has cooled by 30 degrees from the surface temperature, which will place its emission out side of the range (>16um) that CO2 can interfere with.

GHG game over...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.24410^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.

SO we add 16 zeros to your decimal... 0.000000000000000024410 Tell me again how this very small amount of 'back radiation' from CO2 can do anything?

What a fucking retard you are. Wu had thee numbers, all with 4 sig figs, and descending powers of ten. The last number was missing a space so you decided it was a 6 sig fig number raised to the 16th power. When that was too difficult to calculate you mashed things up and multiplied by 10^-16 instead.

Nobody with scientific training would have been confused with Wu's line of calculation. That you went totally out to lunch because of a missing space just shows how stupid you are.

The correct calculation is 10^-16, which is what I posted even though he missed the proper form. Speaking of stupid... LOL you idiots never cease to amaze me..

The correct calculation is 10^-16,

10^-16 for the number of molecules?

 

[Wuwei]

The correct calculation is 10^-16,

10^-16 for the number of molecules?

Those guys often make a fool of themselves when trying to make a fool of others.

.

 

[IanC]

So SSDD. I will ask you again, why do you think adding more GHGs will cool the atmosphere? What energy reservoir will it be depleting, and by which wavelengths?

There is no energy reservoir.....what bit of energy that so called greenhouse gasses actually emit in the form of IR moves on to space at the speed of light rather than by the cumbersome process of conduction/convection...add more so called greenhouse gas molecules to the atmosphere and you have a greater number of them managing to emit a photon which skips the conduction/convection elevator to the top of the troposphere and moves directly to space....there is no back radiation, and "scattering" is so negligible as to be irrelevant...

The process that you imagine energy moving through the troposphere is simply, and completely wrong.

All of the atmosphere is an energy reserve. Kinetic energy stored as temperature, potential energy stored as height in the gravity field, latent energy stored by phase change.

You made the casual unsupported statement that more molecules of a GHG means more opportunity to radiate a photon to space. I say that GHGs only radiate to space once their density is low enought that a photonescapes rather than gets reabsorbed.


If the emission concentration is xx per cubic centimetre then you have to go up in the amosphere until that concentratin is reached, the emission height. If you double the GHG concentration, the emission concentration is still the same but you have to go farther up into the atmosphere where the overall density of air is 1/2 of what it was. There will only be the same amout of the GHG capable of radiating to space but it will be at a colder height.

Adding more of a GHG does not increase escaping radiation. It decreases it because the new height has less energy to convert into radiation.

So, where is the energy coming from for your claim of extra cooling and which wavelengths account for it?

And water vapor blows a huge hole in your hypothesis... Water vapor in the atmosphere is the reason we have never gone outside the 14 deg C average temperature range for over 4.5 billion years. Even at concentrations above 7000ppm.

View attachment 263304

My hypoothesis is that adding more of an existing GHG reduces escaping radiation in the wavelengths affected by the increased GHG. I explained my reasoning.

You say water vapour blows a hole in that statement. Where is the hole, what energy are you talking about and which wavelengths.

Water Vapor emits LWIR as it rises in the atmospheric column, when it cools enough to re-nucleate into a water droplet. This phase change happens at various altitudes and starts at 12um and elongates out to over 130um.. Water vapor at just 36% relative humidity, at ground level, is capable of absorbing all the LWIR energy CO2 can absorb and loses by collision. Once captured by water vapor, the cooling of the air mass, as it rises will place the resulting release of LWIR out of reach of any further interaction with CO2 in our atmosphere simply because its wavelength will be bigger than 16um. At just 150 meters, the air has cooled by 30 degrees from the surface temperature, which will place its emission out side of the range (>16um) that CO2 can interfere with.

GHG game over...

Your five sentence explanation has so many errors and inconsistencies that I cannot spare the time and effort to go over all of them.

Your last sentence says that the atmospheric temperature drops 30 (undefined) degrees in 150 meters. That works out to a 200 (undefined) degrees per kilometer lapse rate. Have the moist and dry lapse rates of 6.5 and 9.8 degrees Celcius per kilometer been overturned? What happened to the hudreds of millions of temperature readings by weather balloons? Are you just talking out of your ass again? Making shit up?

Seriously, your biggest mistake that hinders you from understanding this stuff is your mistaken belief that a substance at a specific temperature can only radiate one specific wavelength. Not true. It radiates according to its temperature and emissivity, resulting in a range of possible wavelengths, with different amounts for each wavelength. Until you understand the basic idea behind a Planck Curve you will be lost and just babble the gobbledygook that you have been spewing for the last 10 years.

 

[IanC]

Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.24410^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.

SO we add 16 zeros to your decimal... 0.000000000000000024410 Tell me again how this very small amount of 'back radiation' from CO2 can do anything?

What a fucking retard you are. Wu had thee numbers, all with 4 sig figs, and descending powers of ten. The last number was missing a space so you decided it was a 6 sig fig number raised to the 16th power. When that was too difficult to calculate you mashed things up and multiplied by 10^-16 instead.

Nobody with scientific training would have been confused with Wu's line of calculation. That you went totally out to lunch because of a missing space just shows how stupid you are.

The correct calculation is 10^-16, which is what I posted even though he missed the proper form. Speaking of stupid... LOL you idiots never cease to amaze me..

The correct calculation is 10^-16,

10^-16 for the number of molecules?

Wouldnt 10^-16 th of any characteristic for a molecule put it past the quantum limit for size? I tnink Billy Boob should just own up to his mistake and try to learn from this encounter.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.24410^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.

SO we add 16 zeros to your decimal... 0.000000000000000024410 Tell me again how this very small amount of 'back radiation' from CO2 can do anything?

What a fucking retard you are. Wu had thee numbers, all with 4 sig figs, and descending powers of ten. The last number was missing a space so you decided it was a 6 sig fig number raised to the 16th power. When that was too difficult to calculate you mashed things up and multiplied by 10^-16 instead.

Nobody with scientific training would have been confused with Wu's line of calculation. That you went totally out to lunch because of a missing space just shows how stupid you are.

The correct calculation is 10^-16, which is what I posted even though he missed the proper form. Speaking of stupid... LOL you idiots never cease to amaze me..

The correct calculation is 10^-16,

10^-16 for the number of molecules?

Wouldnt 10^-16 th of any characteristic for a molecule put it past the quantum limit for size? I tnink Billy Boob should just own up to his mistake and try to learn from this encounter.

The amount of re-radiated LWIR, by CO2, is so small that it is negligible. I'm sorry that this conflicts with your religious beleif's but it is what it is..

 

[Billy_Bob]

It radiates according to its temperature and emissivity, resulting in a range of possible wavelengths, with different amounts for each wavelength. Until you understand the basic idea behind a Planck Curve you will be lost

I understand Planks Curve very well. It is you who is having a problem with understanding the emissions side of the equation.

 

[Wuwei]

The amount of re-radiated LWIR, by CO2, is so small that it is negligible. I'm sorry that this conflicts with your religious beleif's but it is what it is..

Here it is again with my typos corrected. It is not negligible.

The equipartition principle requires that 2/9 of the CO2 energy is in a vibration mode.
At STP there are 1.012 x 10^22 CO2 molecules per cubic meter in air at 400ppm.

Number in excitation state 1.01 10^22 x 2/9 = 0.244 x 10^22

Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.244 x 10^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.

The radiation is not limited to the surface. In fact the surface radiation adds to the above radiation that naturally occurs. If you do the math you will find that at 15 microns the radiation density of a cubic meter is over 100 Watts.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

REPORT: Earth Has Not Warmed For Past 19 Years
we might be going into a deep cooling period

 

[Billy_Bob]

The amount of re-radiated LWIR, by CO2, is so small that it is negligible. I'm sorry that this conflicts with your religious beleif's but it is what it is..

Here it is again with my typos corrected. It is not negligible.

The equipartition principle requires that 2/9 of the CO2 energy is in a vibration mode.
At STP there are 1.012 x 10^22 CO2 molecules per cubic meter in air at 400ppm.

Number in excitation state 1.01 10^22 x 2/9 = 0.244 x 10^22

Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.244 x 10^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.

The radiation is not limited to the surface. In fact the surface radiation adds to the above radiation that naturally occurs. If you do the math you will find that at 15 microns the radiation density of a cubic meter is over 100 Watts.

The problem is that all of those molecules are COLLIDING with other atmospheric molecules 30,000 times during the potential time the energy can reside before the dipole moment occurs and the photon is re-emitted. The odds are 30,000 to 1 that the energy will be lost kinetically to other molecules in our atmosphere. Water vapor alone, of just 36% relative humidity, will absorb all the energy, near surface, that CO2 can absorb and lose by collision at 1 atmosphere pressure. This leaves very little energy (less than 0.01%) that can be re-radiated by the CO2 molecule. This does not stop other molecules from emitting LWIR. Your potential of 100 watts, according to recent studies, is lost to convention and conduction in most of our atmosphere (roughly 86%).

Once that energy is carried away in water vapor, it will cool by 30 deg F in the first 150 meters, lowering its temperature and elongating the wave length of IR (greater than 16um) to the point that CO2 can do nothing to stop its loss to space. Water vapor is kicking CO2's ass and you folks cant see the forest due to the trees.

An experiment I ask you folks to do in a desert and again in a high water vapor region proves this out.

In a desert, the temp can start below freezing and sore to over 100 degrees by 10am. In four hours we can blow by the range of temperature a high water vapor region gets in a whole day. By 4pm it will be near 120 degrees. Once the sun sets, the cooling is rapid and we can be near freezing again in less than 4 hours as there is no atmospheric MASS (water vapor) to slow the energy release. The CO2 levels are nearly the same in both regions so it is ruled out by empirical experiment. The dry atmosphere can swing 90-110 degrees and the the water vapor laden atmosphere can only swing 70-80 degrees due to the weight/mass in that region, slowing both incoming and outgoing radiation.

This is basic atmospheric physics.. You folks have your noses so buried into complex computer models and calculations that your missing the very basic concepts that disprove your hypothesis.

 

[Billy_Bob]

REPORT: Earth Has Not Warmed For Past 19 Years
we might be going into a deep cooling period

Its worse than that report... They don't even touch on the spectral shift of incoming radiation that changes where energy is absorbed on earths surface. The Oceans have lost about 12% of the radiation that is passed through our atmosphere where water vapor can not impede it. The shift in energy from 0.6um to 1.9um allows the atmosphere to reflect most of it that was once unimpeded from hitting earths oceans and warming them to 700 meters. That loss is very well recorded in the last 12 months.

The heat/energy loss is massive... As our oceans go so do the land temperatures..

 

[Wuwei]

The problem is that all of those molecules are COLLIDING with other atmospheric molecules 30,000 times during the potential time the energy can reside before the dipole moment occurs and the photon is re-emitted.

This is a back-of-the-envelope calculation I posted somewhere before. It shows that the energy of CO2 15 micron radiation per cubic meter is around 175 Joules.

Probability of CO2 emission from excited state (with no collision) = 1 / 30,000

Number of air molecules per m^3 = 2.53 10^25 (Use Avogadro's number)
CO2 density: 400 ppm
Number of CO2 molecules per m^3 @ 400ppm = 1.01 10^22

Number in excitation state 1.01 10^22 x 2/9 = 0.244 10^22 (From Equipartition Principle)

Relaxation time for CO2 vibration 6 microSec.
There will be roughly 0.244 10^22 molecules emitting 15 micron radiation every 6 microSec
Number of photons per second from CO2 = number x probability / 6.0 10^-6
= 0.244 10^22 / ( 30,000 x 6.0 10^-6 ) = 1.35 10^22 emissions / sec

Energy of 15 micron photon = 1.3 10^-20 J
Joules per second of 15 micron photons = 1.35 10^22 x 1.3 10-20 J/s = 1.75 x 10^2 W

Conclusion:
So even though the collision probability is very high and there are only 400 ppm of CO2, the radiation density is around 175 Watts radiating within a cubic meter at STP. That doesn't count what CO2 absorbs from the earth's total 396 W/ m^2 radiation.

Water vapor alone, of just 36% relative humidity, will absorb all the energy, near surface, that CO2 can absorb and lose by collision at 1 atmosphere pressure.

CO2 absorbs and radiates in a different band. Water absorption is negligible at 15 microns.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The amount of re-radiated LWIR, by CO2, is so small that it is negligible. I'm sorry that this conflicts with your religious beleif's but it is what it is..

Here it is again with my typos corrected. It is not negligible.

The equipartition principle requires that 2/9 of the CO2 energy is in a vibration mode.
At STP there are 1.012 x 10^22 CO2 molecules per cubic meter in air at 400ppm.

Number in excitation state 1.01 10^22 x 2/9 = 0.244 x 10^22

Even if a million collide and don't radiate, there would still be 0.244 x 10^16 CO2 molecules radiating per cubic meter.

The radiation is not limited to the surface. In fact the surface radiation adds to the above radiation that naturally occurs. If you do the math you will find that at 15 microns the radiation density of a cubic meter is over 100 Watts.

The problem is that all of those molecules are COLLIDING with other atmospheric molecules 30,000 times during the potential time the energy can reside before the dipole moment occurs and the photon is re-emitted. The odds are 30,000 to 1 that the energy will be lost kinetically to other molecules in our atmosphere. Water vapor alone, of just 36% relative humidity, will absorb all the energy, near surface, that CO2 can absorb and lose by collision at 1 atmosphere pressure. This leaves very little energy (less than 0.01%) that can be re-radiated by the CO2 molecule. This does not stop other molecules from emitting LWIR. Your potential of 100 watts, according to recent studies, is lost to convention and conduction in most of our atmosphere (roughly 86%).

Once that energy is carried away in water vapor, it will cool by 30 deg F in the first 150 meters, lowering its temperature and elongating the wave length of IR (greater than 16um) to the point that CO2 can do nothing to stop its loss to space. Water vapor is kicking CO2's ass and you folks cant see the forest due to the trees.

An experiment I ask you folks to do in a desert and again in a high water vapor region proves this out.

In a desert, the temp can start below freezing and sore to over 100 degrees by 10am. In four hours we can blow by the range of temperature a high water vapor region gets in a whole day. By 4pm it will be near 120 degrees. Once the sun sets, the cooling is rapid and we can be near freezing again in less than 4 hours as there is no atmospheric MASS (water vapor) to slow the energy release. The CO2 levels are nearly the same in both regions so it is ruled out by empirical experiment. The dry atmosphere can swing 90-110 degrees and the the water vapor laden atmosphere can only swing 70-80 degrees due to the weight/mass in that region, slowing both incoming and outgoing radiation.

This is basic atmospheric physics.. You folks have your noses so buried into complex computer models and calculations that your missing the very basic concepts that disprove your hypothesis.

The odds are 30,000 to 1 that the energy will be lost kinetically to other molecules in our atmosphere. Water vapor alone, of just 36% relative humidity, will absorb all the energy, near surface, that CO2 can absorb and lose by collision at 1 atmosphere pressure. This leaves very little energy (less than 0.01%) that can be re-radiated by the CO2 molecule.

I have this sneaking suspicion that you don't realize that as quickly as CO2 can lose energy by collision, it can also absorb energy by collision. Energy which is again available to emit as a photon.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You two are like talking to a brick....

The energy absorbed by CO2 is LOST BY COLLISION, NOT RADIATION, in over 86% of our atmosphere. In regions that are dry (ie: little atmospheric mass and the only region CO2 re-emits LWIR of any consequence) the energy is lost to space at a 1.47 times faster rate than an atmosphere of 36% relative humidity.

Its the simple things you people are totally ignorant of and that is why your models FAIL without exception.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 absorbs and radiates in a different band. Water absorption is negligible at 15 microns

Incorrect:

Water Vapor is an incredible absorber at 15um.. Once the number of molecules is greater than about 5 times that of CO2, Collision with and energy loss to them is almost totally assured.

 

[IanC]

You two are like talking to a brick....

The energy absorbed by CO2 is LOST BY COLLISION, NOT RADIATION, in over 86% of our atmosphere. In regions that are dry (ie: little atmospheric mass and the only region CO2 re-emits LWIR of any consequence) the energy is lost to space at a 1.47 times faster rate than an atmosphere of 36% relative humidity.

Its the simple things you people are totally ignorant of and that is why your models FAIL without exception.

More bullshit false precision. you dont have a source for any of those numbers, you just pull them out of your ass.

My 'model' says roughly a degree of warming influence per doubling of CO2. There Has been about 1C warming in 150 years and it is possible that CO2 has caused some of it, although it would be nearly impossible to prove.

What is easier to dispute is the 3+C waarming that the climate concensus claims for 2xCO2. Water feedbacks are simply not happening in the fashion that they predicted.

 

[IanC]

CO2 absorbs and radiates in a different band. Water absorption is negligible at 15 microns

Incorrect:

Water Vapor is an incredible absorber at 15um.. Once the number of molecules is greater than about 5 times that of CO2, Collision with and energy loss to them is almost totally assured.

View attachment 263672

When are you going to learn how to read your own graph? Water would be able to absorb roughly half of 15 micron radiation IF it wasnt already absorbed in the first few metres by CO2. Anything less than 100% absorbance mean a weak reaction either because of molecular activity or small fraction in the atmosphere.

The blue hump is the amount of Surface Radiation that transits the atmosphere and escapes to space directly. This is called the Atmospheric Window and it spans 8-12 microns roughly.