Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Grumblenuts]

Evidence continues to build that English is simply beyond ding's grasp.

 

[ding]

Evidence continues to build that English is simply beyond ding's grasp.

Repeat after me... heat radiates in all directions. Not heat radiates towards warmer objects.

 

[Crick]

So you don't believe heat radiates in all directions is a more accurate way of saying it than saying heat radiates towards warmer objects like you originally claimed?

In a list of questions, all attempting to find out if anyone was as misguided as had been the case when this sticky thread was created, I asked a question concerning that radiative point. You apparently failed to see that a list of four questions was a list of four questions and that every one of them was looking for fundamental MISunderstandings of physical laws. Why didn't you ask me if I rejected the greenhouse effect or if I rejected the SB equation or if I rejected the known absorption spectrum of CO2 and other GHGs? I am more and more convinced by your responses here that you DO think thermal radiation is dependent on surrounding temperatures. But perhaps that's just because you're constantly attempting and failing to look clever with your annoying and unhelpful non-answers.

 

[ding]

Why didn't you ask me if I rejected the greenhouse effect or if I rejected the SB equation or if I rejected the known absorption spectrum of CO2 and other GHGs?

Because I already know that you believe the atmosphere drives the climate of the planet. Just as you already know that I believe the surface temperature for every doubling of CO2 is only 1C because that's what the physics calculate the radiative forcing of CO2 to be.

 

[ding]

I am more and more convinced by your responses here that you DO think thermal radiation is dependent on surrounding temperatures. But perhaps that's just because you're constantly attempting and failing to look clever with your annoying and unhelpful non-answers.

You can believe whatever you want to believe about what I believe. Just don't publish it as what I believe because you hardly ever get what I believe correct. This being no exception.

 

[Crick]

Then, again, I request management release this sticky thread.

 

[ding]

Guess the answer was a resounding no.

 

[jc456]

all matter radiates, can the colder object warm the warmer object and you skipped the answer. why? Doesn't fit your narrative.

Crick , you never answered the question. Why?

 

[Crick]

Global warming has been taking place since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It is caused by the greenhouse effect acting on the CO2 that humans have added to the atmosphere via the combustion of fossil fuels. The greenhouse effect warms the planet when specific greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation coming from the planet's surface and both slow its escape to space and return some of it back to the surface. All matter radiates thermal energy in EM bands specified by the Stephan-Boltzmann equations. Absorption peaks are determined by the atomic and molecular structure of atmospheric gases. The greenhouse gas with the most effect is water vapor but since it is a precipitable component of the atmosphere, humans cannot directly affect its levels. It is, instead, a feedback mechanism, rising with temperature. Carbon dioxide is the next most effective and absorbs IR frequencies that water vapor does not. Carbon dioxide has a lifetime in the atmosphere of 1 to 3 centuries.

As noted, all matter radiates themal energy away as photons (EM energy). Thus all matter is both transmitting EM and receiving EM from the matter that surrounds it. If there is a difference in the magnitudes, there will be a net effect, either of cooling or warming. The reason we have this sticky thread here was that a single, contrarian poster chose to interpret that net calculation to actually indicate that matter would somehow refuse - or was unable - to radiate towards warmer matter. He used that to claim that the cool atmosphere could not radiate towards the warmer Earth and that therefore there was no greenhouse effect. No one has attempted that argument since that poster graced us with his absence and I suspect none have any inclination to do so. Therefore I again suggest that this sticky thread be released as it is no longer pertinent to any conversations taking place in this forum.

 

[jc456]

Global warming has been taking place since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It is caused by the greenhouse effect acting on the CO2 that humans have added to the atmosphere via the combustion of fossil fuels. The greenhouse effect warms the planet when specific greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation coming from the planet's surface and both slow its escape to space and return some of it back to the surface. All matter radiates thermal energy in EM bands specified by the Stephan-Boltzmann equations. Absorption peaks are determined by the atomic and molecular structure of atmospheric gases. The greenhouse gas with the most effect is water vapor but since it is a precipitable component of the atmosphere, humans cannot directly affect its levels. It is, instead, a feedback mechanism, rising with temperature. Carbon dioxide is the next most effective and absorbs IR frequencies that water vapor does not. Carbon dioxide has a lifetime in the atmosphere of 1 to 3 centuries.

As noted, all matter radiates themal energy away as photons (EM energy). Thus all matter is both transmitting EM and receiving EM from the matter that surrounds it. If there is a difference in the magnitudes, there will be a net effect, either of cooling or warming. The reason we have this sticky thread here was that a single, contrarian poster chose to interpret that net calculation to actually indicate that matter would somehow refuse - or was unable - to radiate towards warmer matter. He used that to claim that the cool atmosphere could not radiate towards the warmer Earth and that therefore there was no greenhouse effect. No one has attempted that argument since that poster graced us with his absence and I suspect none have any inclination to do so. Therefore I again suggest that this sticky thread be released as it is no longer pertinent to any conversations taking place in this forum.

You mean it wasn't warming before the one mile ice sheet melted over Chicago? what caused the melt if it wasn't warmer air?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Repeat after me... heat radiates in all directions. Not heat radiates towards warmer objects.

Repeat after me... "radiates" already means in all directions.
No need to restrict the context to "heat" nor to be redundant.

radiate meaning - Google Search

Every other "object" then lies in the path of any given radiating source.
That obviously includes every colder and "warmer" object.
Say it!

 

[ding]

Repeat after me... "radiates" already means in all directions.
No need to restrict the context to "heat" nor to be redundant.

radiate meaning - Google Search

Every other "object" then lies in the path of any given radiating source.
That obviously includes every colder and "warmer" object.
Say it!

Ok, the correct way to say it is "heat radiates in all directions. Not heat radiates towards warmer objects."

 

[jc456]

Repeat after me... "radiates" already means in all directions.
No need to restrict the context to "heat" nor to be redundant.

radiate meaning - Google Search

Every other "object" then lies in the path of any given radiating source.
That obviously includes every colder and "warmer" object.
Say it!

Since all things radiate, do cooler objects heat hotter objects?

 

[ding]

Since all things radiate, do cooler objects heat hotter objects?

It's hilarious how ass backwards these guys are in understanding the basic mechanics. Apparently they want to skip the step of radiative forcing warming the surrounding air which is cooler than the vibrating GHG molecules it surrounds. It seems they want to go straight to vibrating GHG molecules heat the surface of the planet no matter what that surface temperature might be. They have no concept of how a choke works.

 

[ding]

So has anyone figured out how an incremental 120 ppm of CO2 can be 450% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect at the surface of the planet when the entire atmosphere of GHG's is only 44% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect at the surface of the planet?

 

[Crick]

Thanks

 

[ding]

CO2 is a relatively weak GHG. Any questions?

 

[ding]

Evidence continues to build that English is simply beyond ding's grasp.

I'm curious... how does it feel to be wrong about practically everything?

 

[ReinyDays]

CO2 is a relatively weak GHG. Any questions?

What laboratory experiment can we perform that demonstrates this? ... why can't CO2 be just a good GHG as any other ... water's 20 times as powerful because there's 20 times as much mass ... and we can statistically jack that up to 50 by using molar mass values ... one photon, one molecule ... how it is in the universe ...

 

[ding]

What laboratory experiment can we perform that demonstrates this? ... why can't CO2 be just a good GHG as any other ... water's 20 times as powerful because there's 20 times as much mass ... and we can statistically jack that up to 50 by using molar mass values ... one photon, one molecule ... how it is in the universe ...

What's wrong with simple physics? It's an actual physical phenomenon. Molecules vibrating heating up the surrounding air. They already know it. ~1C per doubling of CO2.