Ian says- the earth is not a closed system, the sun supplies constant energy which is available to do work directly and decreases enthropy which also can perform work
Neither absorption nor emission are work.
Ian says- every body above absolute zero emits energy, if that body recieves more energy as an imput than it radiated out it warms, otherwise it cools.
Neither the earth nor the atmosphere are blackbodies. Further, simply because one object emits does not necessitate another body absorbing those, or any part of those emissions. Radiation outward is subject to already existing EM fields or any fields that come into existence..
Ian says- actually you have, at first I tried to nudge you into a more reasonable position but you only became more obstinant.
I suggested that you bring forward any quote by me along with a link in which I said any such thing. I can't help but note that you didn't.
My position is perfectly reasonable as it complies with all known laws of physics and I have done the math to prove my position. It is your position, and that of all warmers and luke warmers that is unreasonable. You are operating from a position of faith rather than hard science, observable, repeatable results, and mathematical proofs.
Ian says- a photon randomly emitted will continue upon its path until it interacts with some object (I will ignore gravitation and expansion of space as irrelevent in our situation)
Simply not true. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what photons are. You seem to be operating under the belief that photons are free agents that zip about the universe until they run into some solid object. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
A photon is the quantum of an electromagnetic field. I have provided these definitions of photon out previously, but for you Ian, I will drag them out again. First, however, here is the definition of quantum.
quantum - A discrete, indivisible manifestation of a physical property, such as a force or angular momentum. Some quanta take the form of elementary particles; for example, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the photon, while the quanta of the weak force are the W and Z particles.
photon - n - The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime.
photon - n - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation
photon - n - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation. The photon has a rest mass of zero, but has measurable momentum,
exhibits deflection by a gravitational field, and can exert a force. It has no electric charge, has an indefinitely long lifetime, and is its own antiparticle. See Note at electromagnetic radiation.
Note: as you can see, you were also mistaken in your belief that a photon will ignore gravitation and expansion of space. Clearly you have not taken any time to do any actual research or study into this area as the basic fact of what photons are and how they behave escapes you. As I said, this, for you, is a matter of faith. Not hard, observable, repeatable, provable science.
Here is what the note at electromagnetic radiation in the above definitions says:
electromagnetic radiation - Energy in the form of transverse magnetic and electric waves. In a vacuum, these waves travel at the speed of light (which is itself a form of electromagnetic radiation). The acceleration of electric charges (such as alternating current in a radio transmitter) gives rise to electromagnetic radiation. Other common examples of electromagnetic radiation are x-rays, microwaves, and radio waves.
A single unit, or quantum, of electromagnetic radiation is called a photon .
As you should be able to rationalize at this point, photons are not free agents that zip about the universe, ignoring everyting, till they run into something. Photons are the "stuff" that make up EM fields and therefore obey the physics of EM fields. Further, when an EM field weakens (as it does with distance or resistance), that weakening is, in reality, the expiration of photons.
Ian says- the SB equation is an idealized law that is vastly complicated by the fact that the earth is not a true black body and the heating from the sun is variable by latitude and orientation
A distorted and manufactured version of the SB equation is used in an attempt to rationalize backradiation. If you are going to get serious about the reality of what the earth and atmosphere are actually like, and trust only models that reflect what the physical world is like, then you might take a look at a model that views the world not as a flat disk that is perpetually bathed in some sort of twilight but a sphere that is absorbing radiation on one side and dark on the other. Discussion of such a model can be found here.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
You should note that if you take models of the earth and atmosphere that reflect their reality seriously, you are going to have to dump your belief in a greenhouse effect as it is not necessary to account for the temperature of the planet. The greenhouse effect is a fabrication that was necessary to rationalize the actual temperature of the earth because the flat disk in half light models were so far from reality that they didn't even get close to predicting what actually is.
Ian says- I have a problem with 'in perfect compliance' and the notion that you seem to believe subtracting one field from another negates both fields from existence, leaving only the net field
Of course I am subtracting one field from the other. That is what is required when one is dealing with two opposing EM fields. Subtracting one field from the other only negages one field from existence if the fields are unequal in magnitude. The stronger field "overpowers" the weaker field and the remaining field, weakend by the exchange with the weaker field continues on, propagated from its origin. If both fields were precisely equal, both would still exist, but would cease forward movement at some distance derived by calculating the magnitude and distance between the fields.
The entire series of calculations have already been done on this board. I did them with RWatt who rationally seems to have accepted the facts when he did the math himself. As I remember, you had some comment regarding magical thinking on the thread after the math had been done and the proof offered.
If you need a link to the discussion and calculations, I will provide it.
Ian says- remember that video on CO2 that your repeatedly posted, and your fairytale of an explanation about what was going on (a la Cliff Clavin)? I quoted the actual experimenter on the methods and the results. perhaps I misspoke by saying you change your story, your story just remains the same no matter how out of touch with reality it is.
The experimenter acknowledged that his experiment was a fraud and that he was only showing a very narrow band of EM energy which behaved exactly as I stated. That narrow band was completely blocked (nothing to do with this discussion however) precisely because the CO2 molecules on the camera end of the tube could not absorb the emission from the CO2 molecules on the candle end of the tube.
Ian says- there is no difference between UV, visible or IR except the wavelength and energy carried.
Which defines a difference. You may as well say that there is no difference between rock and water except for the molecules they are composed of.
I am not knowledgeable on IR cameras but I do know that CCDs can capture IR that is emitted from sources much cooler than the CCD itself.
CCD does not depend entirely on IR.
Ian says- many people have questioned you and all you do is bloviate.
Explaining my position to you in terms of physical laws and mathematically proving that position constitutes bloviation to you? Interesting. Spoken like a true believer. Rather than point out some problem with my position or show me a math error, you accuse me of bloviating. Hell, you are as bad as rocks and konradv. You aren't showing even a glimmer of rational thought. You are lashing out at what challenges your belief, pure and simple.
Ian says- CO2 preferentially absorbs two IR wavelengths that create an occilation within the molecule rather than kick an electron up into a higher orbital. when the excited molecule gives up that vibrational energy it is in the same quantum of energy as was absorbed. of course reality is more complicated than idealized equations so I dont know how often the favoured IR photons are absorbed and emitted before they are transformed into a different wavelength or escape into space/return to earth. most of the preferred IR is absorbed in the first few tens of metres but there is always some logrithmically incremental absorption as well as smearing of the absorbed wavelength as CO2 goes up. satellite readings show a hole in the spectrum where CO2 absorbs, so yes I think CO2has an influence on the escape of IR radiation into space. I dont think it is as important as the CAGWers claim but I think it there, which you apparently do not.
You left out the fact that the IR passing through the CO2 molecule is passing through at or near the speed of light. Absorption and emission are almost instantaneous. There is no retention of energy. That photon that emits is a packet of EM energy and is subject to the physics of any EM fields it is exposed to. The CO2 molecule can emit photons till the cows come home but if it is trying to emit them downward where a more powerful EM field is radiating against them in that direction, they, being massless particles, will never make it to the surface. They will either cease to exist in opposition to the more powerful EM field or be swept up in the field as it radiates into cold space.
Nothing in your explanation of CO2 supports the retention of heat.
