Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[SSDD]

emissivity -

1. the ability of a surface to emit radiant energy compared to that of a black body at thesame temperature and with the same area.

Your definition doesn't appear to be written for gases.

CO2 has 3 main frequencies for emission/absorbance. 2, 3, and 15 microns, if memory stands. It is very close to a blackbody at those frequencies but only at those three. The other terrestrial IR frequencies have little or no reactivity. Even the 2, and 3 micron frequencies are mostly useless because the CO2 rarely gets hot enough to produce them, although it will always absorb them if present.

So the list is
1 micron 0
2 " 1
3 " 1
4 " 0
0
0
Etc
14 microns 0.5
15 microns 1
16 microns 0.5
17 microns 0
0
0
Etc.

How do you reasonably define the emissivity? By restricting the range of frequencies and temperatures.

If those frequencies increase the amount of radiative absorption and emission possible over simple air and oxygen, then the emissivity is increased..

 

[Billy_Bob]

You are still laboring under the flawed assumption that radiation travels through the troposphere being absorbed, emitted, and reabsorbed...few molecules of so called greenhouse gasses ever actually emit anything...they lose the energy they absorb to collisions and the energy moves up through the troposphere via conduction and convection...radiation is little more than a bit player till the top of the troposphere is reached..

CO2 absorbing energy and losing it to collisions means it warms the atmosphere via collisions.

Only if the CO2 molecule is warmer..

The empirically observed experiment we just finished proved the CO2 does not warm in the presence of LWIR only.

 

[Wuwei]

And energy transferred by collision is not radiation...therefore, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is simply not possible in a troposphere so overwhelmingly dominated by conduction and convection...that is the primary reason the climate models fail at predicting reality so badly...they are operating under a mistaken idea of how energy moves through the troposphere...

Radiation absorption is in the first few hundred meters, which is a few sigma beyond the mean free path of the radiation that resonates with the GHGs. After that it's the lapse rate formula that governs the temperature to the top of the troposphere. Some distance above that, radiation again dominates.

.

 

[SSDD]

And energy transferred by collision is not radiation...therefore, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is simply not possible in a troposphere so overwhelmingly dominated by conduction and convection...that is the primary reason the climate models fail at predicting reality so badly...they are operating under a mistaken idea of how energy moves through the troposphere...

Radiation absorption is in the first few hundred meters, which is a few sigma beyond the mean free path of the radiation that resonates with the GHGs. After that it's the lapse rate formula that governs the temperature to the top of the troposphere. Some distance above that, radiation again dominates.

.

Sorry guy...not even close...conduction is the predominant means of energy movement from millimeters off the ground to the top of the troposphere...the lapse rate is due to auto compression....

 

[IanC]

emissivity -

1. the ability of a surface to emit radiant energy compared to that of a black body at thesame temperature and with the same area.

Your definition doesn't appear to be written for gases.

CO2 has 3 main frequencies for emission/absorbance. 2, 3, and 15 microns, if memory stands. It is very close to a blackbody at those frequencies but only at those three. The other terrestrial IR frequencies have little or no reactivity. Even the 2, and 3 micron frequencies are mostly useless because the CO2 rarely gets hot enough to produce them, although it will always absorb them if present.

So the list is
1 micron 0
2 " 1
3 " 1
4 " 0
0
0
Etc
14 microns 0.5
15 microns 1
16 microns 0.5
17 microns 0
0
0
Etc.

How do you reasonably define the emissivity? By restricting the range of frequencies and temperatures.

If those frequencies increase the amount of radiative absorption and emission possible over simple air and oxygen, then the emissivity is increased..

You seldom say anything pertinent . This line of discussion started with you saying that more CO2 increases the emissivity . I asked you which wavelengths and where it happens. Since then you have ducked the question.

Of course the original addition of a GHG changes the emissivity. But you said adding more of the same GHG will increase the emissivity even more. How?


A GHG acts like a sieve, albeit in 3 dimensions. More of the GHG shrinks the grid size, less widens it.

CO2 already blocks 1/2 of 15 micron radiation in just 2 metres at sea level. The grid pattern is very fine.

It is only very high up in the atmosphere where the CO2 molecules are spread apart that 15 micron radiation can finally find a way through the sieve and escape to space. The grid pattern is coarse.

There are two boundaries here. High up where energy escapes, and at the surface where energy enters the atmosphere. Adding more CO2 means that the surface radiation is absorbed even sooner but the level where the 15 micron radiation escapes moves outward to an even colder height. There has been no change in emissivity, just in balance points.

SSDD correctly points out that most of the 15 micron radiation energy is stored as kinetic energy (temperature ), and potential energy (height of the atmosphere in the gravity field). Only to be recycled over and over again. Energy is stored in the daytime and released at night.

 

[Wuwei]

SSDD correctly points out that most of the 15 micron radiation energy is stored as kinetic energy (temperature )....

Really? My impression is that he maintains that CO2 IR absorption cannot warm the air. Thousands of "sales brochures" and home heating engineers claim that.

 

[IanC]

SSDD correctly points out that most of the 15 micron radiation energy is stored as kinetic energy (temperature )....

Really? My impression is that he maintains that CO2 IR absorption cannot warm the air. Thousands of "sales brochures" and home heating engineers claim that.

He and his minions claim a technicality by saying the energy is not turned into a temperature change directly from the IR.

Is it ever?

 

[Wuwei]

SSDD correctly points out that most of the 15 micron radiation energy is stored as kinetic energy (temperature )....

Really? My impression is that he maintains that CO2 IR absorption cannot warm the air. Thousands of "sales brochures" and home heating engineers claim that.

He and his minions claim a technicality by saying the energy is not turned into a temperature change directly from the IR.

Is it ever?

I kept pressing him on that but he kept skirting the issue. I think he believes the indirect process, but for some reason won't admit it.

 

[IanC]

SSDD correctly points out that most of the 15 micron radiation energy is stored as kinetic energy (temperature )....

Really? My impression is that he maintains that CO2 IR absorption cannot warm the air. Thousands of "sales brochures" and home heating engineers claim that.

He and his minions claim a technicality by saying the energy is not turned into a temperature change directly from the IR.

Is it ever?

I kept pressing him on that but he kept skirting the issue. I think he believes the indirect process, but for some reason won't admit it.

Hahahahaha. He found out a long time ago that making seemingly small concessions often led glaringly large inconsistencies and he would find himself painted into a corner.

So he disappeared and came back as SSDD, with no discussion only talking points. The more vague the better.

 

[Wuwei]

Hahahahaha. He found out a long time ago that making seemingly small concessions often led glaringly large inconsistencies and he would find himself painted into a corner.

So he disappeared and came back as SSDD, with no discussion only talking points. The more vague the better.

Ah, I see. He is doing that in the Ozone Hole thread.

 

[SSDD]

You seldom say anything pertinent . This line of discussion started with you saying that more CO2 increases the emissivity . I asked you which wavelengths and where it happens. Since then you have ducked the question.

I seldom say anything that agrees with your flawed ideas of how energy moves through the atmosphere...that is unlikely to change...

Which wavelengths are irrelevant...Any wavelength that presents an opportunity to bypass the cumbersome movement of conduction and convection is, by definition, an increase in emissivity...

Of course the original addition of a GHG changes the emissivity. But you said adding more of the same GHG will increase the emissivity even more. How?

Since conduction and convection take over as the primary means of energy movement long before CO2 has absorbed to extinction...again, any increased possibility of bypassing conduction and convection is an increase in emissivity....you are clearly laboring under the belief in back radiation even though you can provide no physical evidence of it...it doesn't happen outside of your models...

A GHG acts like a sieve, albeit in 3 dimensions. More of the GHG shrinks the grid size, less widens it.

A additional gig molecules act like additional holes in the sieve...400 holes now vs 200 earlier...

CO2 already blocks 1/2 of 15 micron radiation in just 2 metres at sea level. The grid pattern is very fine.

CO2 blocks nothing...it absorbs and immediately emits whatever it has absorbed assuming that it doesn't lose the energy to collision with another molecule first...a very large assumption since so few ghg molecules actually get to emit the energy they absorbed.. The only time a ghg molecule might block IR is after it has reached its equilibrium temperature...at roughly -80F...till then, it absorbs and emits if it has the opportunity to emit...it doesn't block anything.

It is only very high up in the atmosphere where the CO2 molecules are spread apart that 15 micron radiation can finally find a way through the sieve and escape to space. The grid pattern is coarse.

Your belief that CO2 blocks anything is a glaring flaw in your belief...it doesn't..

There are two boundaries here. High up where energy escapes, and at the surface where energy enters the atmosphere. Adding more CO2 means that the surface radiation is absorbed even sooner but the level where the 15 micron radiation escapes moves outward to an even colder height. There has been no change in emissivity, just in balance points.

Again...that rests on the premise that radiation is the primary means of movement of energy through the troposphere...it isn't even close...it is barely a player at all..conduction and convection are the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...

 

[SSDD]

SSDD correctly points out that most of the 15 micron radiation energy is stored as kinetic energy (temperature )....

Really? My impression is that he maintains that CO2 IR absorption cannot warm the air. Thousands of "sales brochures" and home heating engineers claim that.

It doesn't...Ian has the habit of interpreting what is said just like you...and like you, he is rarely arguing against anything other than his own interpretation of what has been said.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD correctly points out that most of the 15 micron radiation energy is stored as kinetic energy (temperature )....

Really? My impression is that he maintains that CO2 IR absorption cannot warm the air. Thousands of "sales brochures" and home heating engineers claim that.

He and his minions claim a technicality by saying the energy is not turned into a temperature change directly from the IR.

Is it ever?

And yet, that is precisely the flawed thinking upon which both the greenhouse hypothesis, the AGW hypothesis, and climate models are based on...an unreality...that is why they are all failing..

 

[SSDD]

SSDD correctly points out that most of the 15 micron radiation energy is stored as kinetic energy (temperature )....

Really? My impression is that he maintains that CO2 IR absorption cannot warm the air. Thousands of "sales brochures" and home heating engineers claim that.

He and his minions claim a technicality by saying the energy is not turned into a temperature change directly from the IR.

Is it ever?

I kept pressing him on that but he kept skirting the issue. I think he believes the indirect process, but for some reason won't admit it.

Neither conduction, nor convection are radiation...the greenhouse hypothesis is based on radiation...radiation is not the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere....a conductive greenhouse effect, if you must use the word greenhouse, would look quite dfferent from a radiative greenhouse effect,..and it is...which is why the greenhouse effect can't predict energy movement through the troposphere...

 

[SSDD]

SSDD correctly points out that most of the 15 micron radiation energy is stored as kinetic energy (temperature )....

Really? My impression is that he maintains that CO2 IR absorption cannot warm the air. Thousands of "sales brochures" and home heating engineers claim that.

He and his minions claim a technicality by saying the energy is not turned into a temperature change directly from the IR.

Is it ever?

I kept pressing him on that but he kept skirting the issue. I think he believes the indirect process, but for some reason won't admit it.

Hahahahaha. He found out a long time ago that making seemingly small concessions often led glaringly large inconsistencies and he would find himself painted into a corner.

So he disappeared and came back as SSDD, with no discussion only talking points. The more vague the better.

Got the first piece of evidence to back that up? Didn't think so...

 

[SSDD]

Hahahahaha. He found out a long time ago that making seemingly small concessions often led glaringly large inconsistencies and he would find himself painted into a corner.

So he disappeared and came back as SSDD, with no discussion only talking points. The more vague the better.

Ah, I see. He is doing that in the Ozone Hole thread.

Actually, I have handed you and crick your ass on the ozone thread...you are both dupes without the first bit of critical thinking capacity...it is you and the skid mark who are conspicuously absent there...not me.

 

[Wuwei]

Neither conduction, nor convection are radiation...the greenhouse hypothesis is based on radiation...radiation is not the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere....a conductive greenhouse effect, if you must use the word greenhouse, would look quite dfferent from a radiative greenhouse effect,..and it is...which is why the greenhouse effect can't predict energy movement through the troposphere...

I never said that the radiative greenhouse effect predicted movement through the troposphere. The CO2 a few hundred meters near the earth is what captures the IR and transfers it to heat. The lapse rate concept prevails at least above that. Call it conduction if you want.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Actually, I have handed you and crick your ass on the ozone thread...you are both dupes without the first bit of critical thinking capacity...it is you and the skid mark who are conspicuously absent there...not me.

Nope. You were only awed by small numbers without the critical thinking to see what part of those numbers involved inelastic collisions.

 

[IanC]

Which wavelengths are irrelevant...Any wavelength that presents an opportunity to bypass the cumbersome movement of conduction and convection is, by definition, an increase in emissivity...

With no GHGs the atmosphere would have an emissivity of nearly zero for terrestrial infrared.

The surface would lose all of its emitted radiation directly to space at the speed of light.

Somehow you have convinced yourself that GHGs that intercept surface radiation, and continue to absorb it anytime it is remitted until very high up in the atmosphere, is somehow more efficient than directly escaping to space.

Without GHGs the atmosphere would store less energy, therefore be at a cooler temperature. The surface would also be cooler because there would be less energy to return to the surface at night.

You refuse to take mechanisms to their logical conclusions.

 

[SSDD]

With no GHGs the atmosphere would have an emissivity of nearly zero for terrestrial infrared.

The surface would lose all of its emitted radiation directly to space at the speed of light.

Tell that to the planets who have essentially none of the so called greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres and yet, are considerably warmer than the earth in the depths of their atmospheres...

Somehow you have convinced yourself that GHGs that intercept surface radiation, and continue to absorb it anytime it is remitted until very high up in the atmosphere, is somehow more efficient than directly escaping to space.

More interpretation...actually I said that so called GHG's with the exception of water vapor absorb energy then immediately emit it if they don't lose it first to collision with other molecules...CO2 for example, if allowed to absorb and emit will emit everything it absorbs till such time as it reaches its equilibrium temperature..something like -80F.

And yes, radiation is a more efficient means of moving energy than conduction and convection...and the evidence is what convinced me...the actual observable measurable evidence as opposed to a model that can neither be observed, nor tested.

Without GHGs the atmosphere would store less energy, therefore be at a cooler temperature. The surface would also be cooler because there would be less energy to return to the surface at night.

Observation on the planets within the solar system which have little to no so called greenhouse gasses prove you quite wrong...

You refuse to take mechanisms to their logical conclusions.

You refuse to grasp that the mechanisms you describe aren't borne out by observation..