Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[CrusaderFrank]

So if clicks IR chart with no temperature axis is all the Warmers have to offer as evidence, we can infer that one single CO2 molecule is all it takes to cause, what do you call it today, "global climate warming change"?

Volume is irrelevant

The information in that graphic would apply to single molecules, yes.

So we can Terraform Mars into a tropical Paradise by dropping a single CO2 molecule there?

Then you wonder how we know your "theory" is an epic fail

 

[Olde Europe]

when CO2 in the atmosphere increases...the emissivity of the atmosphere increases...FACT....

Now, by definition, what happens to the temperature of an object or system when you increase its emissivity?

More CO2 in the atmosphere means it absorbs more radiation, and in order to emit more, it has to have a higher temperature.

That was easy. You couldn't figure it out?

 

[Crick]

So we can Terraform Mars into a tropical Paradise by dropping a single CO2 molecule there?

Then you wonder how we know your "theory" is an epic fail

No. I wonder how you've been able to remain so incredibly ignorant.

 

[SSDD]

when CO2 in the atmosphere increases...the emissivity of the atmosphere increases...FACT....

Now, by definition, what happens to the temperature of an object or system when you increase its emissivity?

More CO2 in the atmosphere means it absorbs more radiation, and in order to emit more, it has to have a higher temperature.

That was easy. You couldn't figure it out?

Again...you are making an appeal to complexity...you believe that because the terribly flawed basic model has been made far more complex, that somehow the complexity untucked it...it didn't.

In thermodynamics, there are two ways to raise temperature...AND ONLY TWO....you can raise the temperature via work, or heat. Back radiation, even if it existed, would not constitute work as it is not a mechanical process...as is the case with friction...or an adiabatic change...that being the case, back radiation would have to function as heat in order to raise temperature...and alas, that is not possible either...backradiation, even if it existed could not function as heat because heat can only flow from hot to cool...not the other way around...

And the bullshit claim that additional CO2 "slows" heat flow from the surface, leading to warmer temperatures is just one more appeal to complexity... Heat flow simply isn't a conserved quantity....it wants to be zero and in fact, seeks zero....when you get close to equilibrium....the quantity that is being conserved is energy...

Energy isn't always heat...but heat is always energy.. Look

The two curves represent energy...the only difference between them is heat.... pick either curve....it is entirely energy but neither one of them can be entirely heat....And the difference between the two...again...heat...goes to zero as the heat flow from the warmer one moves to the cooler one bringing them to thermal equilibrium....

Q = P2 – P1 where P is the energy level of the object, and Q is the heat flow... Q moves closer to zero the closer the two objects get to thermal equilibrium and therefore Q is not a conserved quantity... Where this is going is that as Q nears zero, the warmer object is still emitting its energy, it just isn't transferring heat to the cooler one...the claim that slowing the rate of heat flow is nothing more than bullshit...an ad hoc construct resulting from the attempt to make a failed model successful by making it more complex...

And even more basic is the fact that there simply is almost zero radiation between air layers as they are in intimate contact. it is all convection..and radiation is the basis for your bullshit model..if there is so little radiation between layers of air, and your model assumes all radiation....it fails every possible reality test..

And even more basic than that....adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emmisivity...you claim to be a smart boy....by definition, what happens to an object or a system when you increase its emissivity?

 

[SSDD]

More CO2 in the atmosphere means it absorbs more radiation, and in order to emit more, it has to have a higher temperature.

Sadly...not true...in order to transfer more heat it must have a higher temperature..

That was easy. You couldn't figure it out?

Apparently for you it is very difficult...your position is not based in reality...it is based in the teachings of a glassy eyed chanting cult...as evidenced by your belief that increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere will somehow make it warmer....how stupid do you have to be to believe that you would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself by adding a radiative gas?

 

[Crick]

How does CO2 radiate without absorbing energy first? Is this another of your perpetual motion fantasies?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

when CO2 in the atmosphere increases...the emissivity of the atmosphere increases...FACT....

Now, by definition, what happens to the temperature of an object or system when you increase its emissivity?

More CO2 in the atmosphere means it absorbs more radiation, and in order to emit more, it has to have a higher temperature.

That was easy. You couldn't figure it out?

Again...you are making an appeal to complexity...you believe that because the terribly flawed basic model has been made far more complex, that somehow the complexity untucked it...it didn't.

In thermodynamics, there are two ways to raise temperature...AND ONLY TWO....you can raise the temperature via work, or heat. Back radiation, even if it existed, would not constitute work as it is not a mechanical process...as is the case with friction...or an adiabatic change...that being the case, back radiation would have to function as heat in order to raise temperature...and alas, that is not possible either...backradiation, even if it existed could not function as heat because heat can only flow from hot to cool...not the other way around...

And the bullshit claim that additional CO2 "slows" heat flow from the surface, leading to warmer temperatures is just one more appeal to complexity... Heat flow simply isn't a conserved quantity....it wants to be zero and in fact, seeks zero....when you get close to equilibrium....the quantity that is being conserved is energy...

Energy isn't always heat...but heat is always energy.. Look

The two curves represent energy...the only difference between them is heat.... pick either curve....it is entirely energy but neither one of them can be entirely heat....And the difference between the two...again...heat...goes to zero as the heat flow from the warmer one moves to the cooler one bringing them to thermal equilibrium....

Q = P2 – P1 where P is the energy level of the object, and Q is the heat flow... Q moves closer to zero the closer the two objects get to thermal equilibrium and therefore Q is not a conserved quantity... Where this is going is that as Q nears zero, the warmer object is still emitting its energy, it just isn't transferring heat to the cooler one...the claim that slowing the rate of heat flow is nothing more than bullshit...an ad hoc construct resulting from the attempt to make a failed model successful by making it more complex...

And even more basic is the fact that there simply is almost zero radiation between air layers as they are in intimate contact. it is all convection..and radiation is the basis for your bullshit model..if there is so little radiation between layers of air, and your model assumes all radiation....it fails every possible reality test..

And even more basic than that....adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emmisivity...you claim to be a smart boy....by definition, what happens to an object or a system when you increase its emissivity?

...you believe that because the terribly flawed basic model has been made far more complex, that somehow the complexity untucked it...it didn't.


Sounds like your "smart photon" model.

Still won't explain how photons from the cooler Sun can travel toward the hotter corona. I wonder why?

 

[SSDD]

How does CO2 radiate without absorbing energy first? Is this another of your perpetual motion fantasies?

The point is...skidmark....that because the time it takes for a molecule to absorb IR and then emit a photon (assuming photons exist) is about a billion times longer than the time between collisions between CO2 and some other molecule like N2 or O2...it doesn't radiate because the energy is being converted into heat by collisions between the CO2 molecule and some other molecule...ususally N2.


It doesn't matter whether the CO2 molecule acquires that energy via radiation or through collision with another molecule...it is far...far...far...far....far...far a billion times more likely to pass that energy on via another collision than it is to emit a photon..assuming that photons exist.

If you have an energy transfer model of the atmosphere that depends heavily on radiation before the upper reaches of the atmosphere..your model is dead in the water..

 

[Olde Europe]

how stupid do you have to be to believe that you would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself by adding a radiative gas?

You know, SSDD, here's the thing you keep missing despite having been remembered of same: That "radiative gas" is also very absorptive (as Crick tried to tell you above). If you included that in your analysis, and also this graph you helpfully provided...

... you'd be all set to understand the basics of CO2-driven global warming in general, and back radiation in particular. You'd understand, in particular, that without GHGs in the atmosphere, surface radiation would get out to space immediately, cooling the surface, whereas with GHG most of that radiation would be absorbed and about half kicked back to the surface, thus by comparison warming the surface.

Alas, you understand neither that graph, nor radiation, but you're delusional enough to believe you have the wherewithal to prove climate science wrong, based on your misunderstanding of the science involved.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does CO2 radiate without absorbing energy first? Is this another of your perpetual motion fantasies?

The point is...skidmark....that because the time it takes for a molecule to absorb IR and then emit a photon (assuming photons exist) is about a billion times longer than the time between collisions between CO2 and some other molecule like N2 or O2...it doesn't radiate because the energy is being converted into heat by collisions between the CO2 molecule and some other molecule...ususally N2.


It doesn't matter whether the CO2 molecule acquires that energy via radiation or through collision with another molecule...it is far...far...far...far....far...far a billion times more likely to pass that energy on via another collision than it is to emit a photon..assuming that photons exist.

If you have an energy transfer model of the atmosphere that depends heavily on radiation before the upper reaches of the atmosphere..your model is dead in the water..

it doesn't radiate because the energy is being converted into heat by collisions between the CO2 molecule and some other molecule...ususally N2.

CO2 absorbs the IR, before it escapes to space, and transfers the energy to N2.
What happened to your claim that it causes the planet to cool...faster?

 

[Wuwei]

Sufficient? No. A basic building block? Yes.

I can agree with that. As a building block it subtracts one from the number of degrees of freedom in any atmospheric formula.

Sure. There are hundreds of them. Like speed of rotation, longer days lower average temps.

?
I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

So make it more obvious what you mean.

This thread started out with an oversimplified concept of pressure and temperature. You are bringing complexity far beyond the scope of simpler atmospheric models. Speed of rotation, longer days and more complex factors are used in short term weather prediction. Not simpler atmospheric models.

 

[SSDD]

how stupid do you have to be to believe that you would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself by adding a radiative gas?

You know, SSDD, here's the thing you keep missing despite having been remembered of same: That "radiative gas" is also very absorptive (as Crick tried to tell you above). If you included that in your analysis, and also this graph you helpfully provided...

... you'd be all set to understand the basics of CO2-driven global warming in general, and back radiation in particular. You'd understand, in particular that without GHGs in the atmosphere, surface radiation would get out to space immediately, cooling the surface, whereas with GHG most of that radiation would be absorbed and about half kicked back to the surface, thus by comparison warming the surface.

Alas, you understand neither that graph, nor radiation, but you're delusional enough to believe you have the wherewithal to prove climate science wrong, based on your misunderstanding of the science involved.

First...there is no basics of CO2 driven warming because there is no CO2 driven warming....and no...if there were no GHG's in the atmosphere, it would be warmer by some small degree because without GHG's the emissivity of the atmosphere would be lower...and as such, the atmosphere would depend on nothing but convection to move energy to the top of the atmosphere where it would very slowly radiate out to space....far from being a blanket...so called GHG's are small holes in the blanket moving what small bit of energy they are able to move radiatively much more quickly than convection...raising the emissivity of the atmosphere means that it cools more quickly...not that it cools more slowly...more of your glassy eyed chanting which has no bearing on reality...by definition when you raise the emissivity of an object or a system, its temperature drops...

And there is no back radiation...and has never been a measurement of it made with an instrument at ambient temperature despite the fact that you wackos claim that back radiation is equal to the amount of energy coming in from the sun...if you want to measure back radiation moving down from the atmosphere, you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than the atmosphere...and then it isn't back radiation at all...is it..it is just energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument as the second law predicts.

And climate pseudoscience has been long for a very long time...I just caught on more quickly than you... you believe that you can complicate a f'ked model to the point that it becomes reality...I live under no such delusion..

 

[SSDD]

Sufficient? No. A basic building block? Yes.

I can agree with that. As a building block it subtracts one from the number of degrees of freedom in any atmospheric formula.

Sure. There are hundreds of them. Like speed of rotation, longer days lower average temps.

?
I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

So make it more obvious what you mean.

This thread started out with an oversimplified concept of pressure and temperature. You are bringing complexity far beyond the scope of simpler atmospheric models. Speed of rotation, longer days and more complex factors are used in short term weather prediction. Not simpler atmospheric models.

No..this thread started with how f'cked up the radiative greenhouse hypothesis is at its very foundations..then moved on to the rantings and chantings of the glassy eyed cult and eventually cam to the point where you believe it is mere coincidence that the ideal gas law accurately predicts the temperatures of the planets with atmospheres...requiring adjustment for incoming solar for the planets closer to the sun and less and the distance from the sun increases..

 

[Olde Europe]

First...there is no basics of CO2 driven warming because there is no CO2 driven warming....and no...if there were no GHG's in the atmosphere, it would be warmer by some small degree because without GHG's the emissivity of the atmosphere would be lower.

Didn't think it possible, but you still add to the vastness of your incomprehension. Without GHG's, the earth's average surface temperature would be -18°C. The 15°C we're seeing is the consequence of the greenhouse effect. You're still lacking the first hint of the beginnings of a clue.

 

[SSDD]

First...there is no basics of CO2 driven warming because there is no CO2 driven warming....and no...if there were no GHG's in the atmosphere, it would be warmer by some small degree because without GHG's the emissivity of the atmosphere would be lower.

Didn't think it possible, but you still add to the vastness of your incomprehension. Without GHG's, the earth's average surface temperature would be -18°C. The 15°C we're seeing is the consequence of the greenhouse effect. You're still lacking the first hint of the beginnings of a clue.

No...without an atmosphere the earths' temperature would be -18....if the atmosphere were the same as it is now without so called GHG's...the emissivity would be much lower and as a consequence, it would be a much slower process bleeding heat into space and as a result, the temperature would be warmer...the radiative greenhouse effect is nothing more than bullshit...it doesn't exist because the amount of energy that actually gets radiated when contrasted with the amount of energy that gets convected is so small as to be inconsequential....you claim a radiative greenhouse effect when radiation in the lower atmosphere accounts for almost none of the energy transfer...and to top it off, your hypothesis requires that increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere would actually cause it to become warmer...go look up emissivity and get it through your head that if you increase the emissivity, by definition the temperature drops...not the other way around...this is what happens when you get involved with, and actually believe glassy eyed cultists...you end up chanting right along with them..

 

[IanC]

when CO2 in the atmosphere increases...the emissivity of the atmosphere increases...FACT....

Now, by definition, what happens to the temperature of an object or system when you increase its emissivity?

More CO2 in the atmosphere means it absorbs more radiation, and in order to emit more, it has to have a higher temperature.

That was easy. You couldn't figure it out?

Again...you are making an appeal to complexity...you believe that because the terribly flawed basic model has been made far more complex, that somehow the complexity untucked it...it didn't.

In thermodynamics, there are two ways to raise temperature...AND ONLY TWO....you can raise the temperature via work, or heat. Back radiation, even if it existed, would not constitute work as it is not a mechanical process...as is the case with friction...or an adiabatic change...that being the case, back radiation would have to function as heat in order to raise temperature...and alas, that is not possible either...backradiation, even if it existed could not function as heat because heat can only flow from hot to cool...not the other way around...

And the bullshit claim that additional CO2 "slows" heat flow from the surface, leading to warmer temperatures is just one more appeal to complexity... Heat flow simply isn't a conserved quantity....it wants to be zero and in fact, seeks zero....when you get close to equilibrium....the quantity that is being conserved is energy...

Energy isn't always heat...but heat is always energy.. Look

The two curves represent energy...the only difference between them is heat.... pick either curve....it is entirely energy but neither one of them can be entirely heat....And the difference between the two...again...heat...goes to zero as the heat flow from the warmer one moves to the cooler one bringing them to thermal equilibrium....

Q = P2 – P1 where P is the energy level of the object, and Q is the heat flow... Q moves closer to zero the closer the two objects get to thermal equilibrium and therefore Q is not a conserved quantity... Where this is going is that as Q nears zero, the warmer object is still emitting its energy, it just isn't transferring heat to the cooler one...the claim that slowing the rate of heat flow is nothing more than bullshit...an ad hoc construct resulting from the attempt to make a failed model successful by making it more complex...

And even more basic is the fact that there simply is almost zero radiation between air layers as they are in intimate contact. it is all convection..and radiation is the basis for your bullshit model..if there is so little radiation between layers of air, and your model assumes all radiation....it fails every possible reality test..

And even more basic than that....adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its emmisivity...you claim to be a smart boy....by definition, what happens to an object or a system when you increase its emissivity?

There is both mechanical work and heat input being done to the atmosphere. Raising and lowering the air in the gravity field, and the solar input q.

As well as many other things that are more minor factors. Edit- less basic factors that are not as germaine to the topic of temperature being a function of height in the gravity field.

 

[Crick]

So show us the cooling that you believe has taken place since the Industrial Revolution began pumping the atmosphere full of CO2.

 

[polarbear]

when CO2 in the atmosphere increases...the emissivity of the atmosphere increases...FACT....

Now, by definition, what happens to the temperature of an object or system when you increase its emissivity?

More CO2 in the atmosphere means it absorbs more radiation, and in order to emit more, it has to have a higher temperature.

That was easy. You couldn't figure it out?

And to do that how much higher does that temperature have to be?
The back-radiation experts (like you) keep saying that this higher temperature is when the atmosphere emits the same # of w/m^2 as it absorbs.
So what`s going on at 40 to 60 000 feet a.g.l?
Above that the lower stratosphere is as warm as -3 C because of the UV the ozone absorbs
Are you telling us that the air below that, which is colder than -40 C will have to warm up to that temperature before it can radiate heat outwards?
And should you not worry a whole lot more how much of a (heat) radiation barrier the ozone layer is .

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So show us the cooling that you believe has taken place since the Industrial Revolution began pumping the atmosphere full of CO2.

You don't get it......
by absorbing IR emitted by the surface and then re-emitting that IR to space (and back to the surface), the planet cools much faster than if the emitted IR had instantly escaped into outer space.
Because a slower escape cools faster. Because a slower escape is like holes in a blanket. Get it?

Holes in a blanket cool you much faster than no blanket at all. Because of the 2nd Law. Get it?

 

[SSDD]

There is both mechanical work and heat input being done to the atmosphere. Raising and lowering the air in the gravity field, and the solar input q.
.

Yes...but CO2 has nothing to do with it beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere..