What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?

[Toddsterpatriot]

The entire climate thing is a fraud.

Entire climate thing? Are you thinking the physical basis of the GHE is fraudulent? If so, can you be more specific?

.

sure, 99% of the CO2 absorbed IR is handed off on collisions resulting in a conduction. If 99% hand their energy off, then how does downward IR from CO2 occur?

If 99% hand their energy off, then how does downward IR from CO2 occur?

If 99% hand their energy off, then how does spaceward IR from CO2 occur?

ask William Happer

Why don't you ask him?
Start with asking him if CO2 ever gets energy back from collisions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whatever SSDD. By your bizarroland version of physics, a blanket doesn't keep you warm.

A blanket can't raise your temperature...and it doesn't do what it does by means of anything like a radiative greenhouse effect.

Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

You create buzzwords like 'spontaneous'. The surface spontaneously radiatrs because the Sun added energy and reduces entropy. The atmosphere spontaneously radiates because the surface added energy and reduced entropy.

Sorry guy...not my words...I just go along with the laws of physics...sorry if they throw a monkey wrench in your made up greenhouse hypothesis.

I am not going to go further.

Of course not...you do this every time...talk and talk and talk but when it becomes clear that you aren't going to be able to support your beliefs with anything like the actual laws of physics, you walk away. It is to be expected...a belief is a very hard thing to overcome...especially when you come to hold said belief in spite of reality.

Sorry guy...not my words...I just go along with the laws of physics...

View attachment 262062

Feel free to bring forward any quote from me, or any instance where I have altered or distorted any physical law in an attempt to make a point...

We both know no such quote or example will be forthcoming..

Of course it does...it says that the output of the radiator is dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

wash, rinse, repeat, every fking thread from you.

Yes, I'll continue to point out SSDD's confusion.

 

[jc456]

The entire climate thing is a fraud.

Entire climate thing? Are you thinking the physical basis of the GHE is fraudulent? If so, can you be more specific?

.

sure, 99% of the CO2 absorbed IR is handed off on collisions resulting in a conduction. If 99% hand their energy off, then how does downward IR from CO2 occur?

If 99% hand their energy off, then how does downward IR from CO2 occur?

If 99% hand their energy off, then how does spaceward IR from CO2 occur?

ask William Happer

Why don't you ask him?
Start with asking him if CO2 ever gets energy back from collisions.

Why, I don't need the information.

 

[jc456]

A blanket can't raise your temperature...and it doesn't do what it does by means of anything like a radiative greenhouse effect.

Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

Sorry guy...not my words...I just go along with the laws of physics...sorry if they throw a monkey wrench in your made up greenhouse hypothesis.

Of course not...you do this every time...talk and talk and talk but when it becomes clear that you aren't going to be able to support your beliefs with anything like the actual laws of physics, you walk away. It is to be expected...a belief is a very hard thing to overcome...especially when you come to hold said belief in spite of reality.

Sorry guy...not my words...I just go along with the laws of physics...

View attachment 262062

Feel free to bring forward any quote from me, or any instance where I have altered or distorted any physical law in an attempt to make a point...

We both know no such quote or example will be forthcoming..

Of course it does...it says that the output of the radiator is dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

wash, rinse, repeat, every fking thread from you.

Yes, I'll continue to point out SSDD's confusion.

highlighting yours

 

[IanC]

The Enhanced GHE works by raising the emission height which means a lower temperature which in turn means less radiation produced to escape.

Which might actually mean something if radiation were the primary, or even a significant means of transporting energy through the troposphere...it is neither..it is barely a bit player...energy movement through the troposphere is completely dominated by conduction and convection.

As per usual, I make a point and you say it is refuted by adding a non sequitur.

How much energy does the Earth lose to space by conduction and convection? 0%

How much energy does the Earth lose to space by radiation? 100%

I am not saying comductiom and convection have no part in our system. But if I was to act like you then I would say that gravity was the dominant factor. And unlike you, I could built a strong case for it. You just run away.

 

[toobfreak]

Never said it was. Ask your OP. He is the one who brought up distant stars, color temperature, collimated light and so much more totally unrelated to greenhouse theories! ALL of this extraneous dialog was generated by several of YOU simply because I gave a very simple definition as asked for by the OP and qualified my background as being in the physics sciences.

I've yet to hear that any of you even have a high school diploma.

That doesn't matter anymore. Sunsetommy finally understood what I was talking about. It's the vibration mode that is important in 15 micron absorption and emission.

But his animation is wrong in one important aspect. The CO2 that is excited by an incoming photon most likely will NOT emit a photon as the animation suggests. A collision with another gas molecule is much more likely to happen. In that way the capture of a photon by CO2 will transfer it's energy to linear kinetic energy of a different molecule and go to it's ground state without emission. The gain in the other molecule of course is random and manifests as local heat.

.

Actually, no. If a CO2 atom is excited by a photon, it has taken some part of that photon and converted it to heat, the source of the excitation. It will then re-radiate that heat in the form of another photon returning to its ground state. Gas molecules OTOH are rather far apart and collisions comparatively less likely.

You are right that a CO2 molecule excited by a 15 micron photon is a part of the internal random thermal energy.

However, the prominent process is not to re-radiate while in that excited state because the relaxation time of the CO2 excited state was measured to be about 26 microSec and the mean collision rate at STP is around 2 nSec (I think. I'm too lazy to look it up again, but you can check that if you want.) That means the probability of collision is extremely high compared to the vibrational relaxation rate.

The upshot is that the probability of the process shown in sunsetommy's animation ranges from one in a few hundred thousand; to one in a trillion; depending on which blog you read. There is a lot more to it than that, if there is any interest.

.

Not sure how you can justify the collision rates of a gas as a fixed number when that would be entirely dependent on the pressure and temperature, which vary greatly with elevation.

 

[Wuwei]

Not sure how you can justify the collision rates of a gas as a fixed number when that would be entirely dependent on the pressure and temperature, which vary greatly with elevation.

STP means standard temperature and pressure, ie roughly what it is at sea level. Of course the exponential decrease in pressure with altitude changes things..

Edit:
This site gives a formula for the collision rate as a function of pressure and temperature. The model has some problems, but it gives an order of magnitude.

Look at equations 15, 16, and 17.
Mean free path & collision frequency - tec-science


.

 

[IanC]

[

Simply put: The earth's atmosphere is largely transparent to sunlight. That's why we don't live in permanent darkness on the surface, and we can catch a sunburn, too. The atmosphere is, however, largely opaque to the infrared radiation the earth's surface is emitting.

To part one, true...the atmosphere is largely transparent to sunlight.

To part two, false...the atmosphere is largely transparent to infrared radiation as well. 95% of the atmosphere is composed of O2 and N2 which are effectively transparent to infrared radiation.

And yet the mean free path for 15 micron radiation is two metres at the surface (STP).

You keep making nonsense inferences. Just because N2 and O2 are transparent to IR that does not mean that the air is.

 

[jc456]

The Enhanced GHE works by raising the emission height which means a lower temperature which in turn means less radiation produced to escape.

Which might actually mean something if radiation were the primary, or even a significant means of transporting energy through the troposphere...it is neither..it is barely a bit player...energy movement through the troposphere is completely dominated by conduction and convection.

As per usual, I make a point and you say it is refuted by adding a non sequitur.

How much energy does the Earth lose to space by conduction and convection? 0%

How much energy does the Earth lose to space by radiation? 100%

I am not saying comductiom and convection have no part in our system. But if I was to act like you then I would say that gravity was the dominant factor. And unlike you, I could built a strong case for it. You just run away.

the question is how much radiation is lost to space that isn't absorbed by CO2 and H2O?

 

[IanC]

My interpretation of you is that you are an unequivocal idiot. Always has been. Always will. Just one more unqualified voice in the dark. Your opinion means nothing.

Fair enough. I will take that assertion as seriously as The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space.

Can you show us a physical law which predicts that a body can be warmed by reabsorbing its own radiation?

See? You're just being stupid again. Radiation leaving an object travels in a straight line. It cannot hit the original emitter.

 

[jc456]

My interpretation of you is that you are an unequivocal idiot. Always has been. Always will. Just one more unqualified voice in the dark. Your opinion means nothing.

Fair enough. I will take that assertion as seriously as The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space.

Can you show us a physical law which predicts that a body can be warmed by reabsorbing its own radiation?

See? You're just being stupid again. Radiation leaving an object travels in a straight line. It cannot hit the original emitter.

 

[IanC]

I looked for a reasonably scientific explanation of the GHE on Google and was very disappointed. You would think it would be everywhere but it isnt.

I then specifically searched for the IPCC version. Imagine my surprise when 'denier' sites were the major places of discussion.

How weak is their case if they are effectively hiding it? For the record, I believe in the GHE in principle as a very important part of atmospheric radiative physics. I don't see how the addition of more CO2 can cause huge changes though.

What is your reference site for the GHE? Or do you just know it?

I'll post up a few links later if no one cares to post theirs.

I go here.

Watts Up With That?

Solid site.

Greg

Yup. I read that site just about every day because it stays current with climate news.

 

[IanC]

The trenberth cartoon? HAAHAHHHAHHA SNORT HAAAHHAAHAAHAHAAHAH NNSNORT HHHA AHAAAHAHHHAHAHHA

Anyone who takes the trenberth cartoon seriously is a top shelf idiot...

Yes, we know how you feel about that. You don't believe that CO2 in a vibration mode emits radiation isotropically. Your reason is because of a failure in black body radiation near a warmer object. Many people here don't believe that failure.

.

I dont like Trenberth's Cartoon either but at least it is a starting point. Guys like SSDD just sputter when asked for a better energy budget and say look it up yourself.

 

[Wuwei]

I dont like Trenberth's Cartoon either but at least it is a starting point. Guys like SSDD just sputter when asked for a better energy budget and say look it up yourself.

It's fun to tease him with it.

.

 

[toobfreak]

Actually, no. If a CO2 atom is excited by a photon, it has taken some part of that photon and converted it to heat, the source of the excitation. It will then re-radiate that heat in the form of another photon returning to its ground state. Gas molecules OTOH are rather far apart and collisions comparatively less likely.

On that particular point, I believe you are mistaken I defer to Dr. Wiliam Happer. I am sure you are familiar with the man. This from an email exchange regarding the transfer of energy in the atmosphere. Dr. Happer's responses to the questions are in blue.

All fine and good, I won't dispute any of that, my interests have never been in gases but rather solid materials in a laboratory setting, but it remains curious to me you people seem fixated on the exact properties and relationships of ONE atom, CO2 in relation to the atmosphere when CO2 is:

1. Not even the strongest or only GHG.
2. Only one of MANY items in the atmosphere which absorb sunlight as infrared energy.

I wonder why you ignore the actions of methane, water vapor, dust, aerosols, and other gases, etc., in the roles they all play in converting sunlight to IR energy and re-radiating it back into their environment? Will you tell me because CO2 holds a unique place in that it uniquely matches some special resonant place in the mechanics of heat storage and transfer?

Further, it seems a distinction without a difference that having timed the EXACT time it takes for an atom to re-release an IR photon vs. an atomic collision (ie: kinetic transfer) of energy, the energy is still released, transferred, and in a random way. Either way you cook it, all kinds of stuff up there is catching sunlight, trapping it as heat and then releasing it, some of which is locally transferred kinetically, some of it radiated.

Either way, the air is still collecting and storing energy from the Sun and I'm much more interested in the broad picture than purely just CO2, which is clearly just as fraction of the entire greenhouse process essential to life on Earth.

 

[IanC]

Actually, no. If a CO2 atom is excited by a photon, it has taken some part of that photon and converted it to heat, the source of the excitation. It will then re-radiate that heat in the form of another photon returning to its ground state. Gas molecules OTOH are rather far apart and collisions comparatively less likely

Hahahahaha.

Hard to believe this steaming pile of crap was authored by a 'trained physicist '!!!!!


Hahahahaha

 

[toobfreak]

Actually, no. If a CO2 atom is excited by a photon, it has taken some part of that photon and converted it to heat, the source of the excitation. It will then re-radiate that heat in the form of another photon returning to its ground state. Gas molecules OTOH are rather far apart and collisions comparatively less likely

Hahahahaha.
Hard to believe this steaming pile of crap was authored by a 'trained physicist '!!!!!
Hahahahaha

That I spent many years working in a physics research lab is well documented.


That you are only documented as a deflecting lying asshat who makes shit up and calls it "science" is also well documented. You ever even go to college at all? Why do you avoid answering?
Still looking forward to the first credible scientific paper or article you can produce which establishes the existence of sunlight as a "collimated" light source!

 

[IanC]

fixated on the exact properties and relationships of ONE atom, CO2 in relation to the atmosphere when CO2 is:

1. Not even the strongest or only GHG.
2. Only one of MANY items in the atmosphere which absorb sunlight as infrared energy.

Again, hard to believe a 'trained physicist ' would make this statement. How much solar insolation in the IR band does CO2 absorb? 0.0001 w/m2?

And you complained that I used the word collimated after you rejected the previous term, highly-ordered?

Physics is like an onion, with layer after layer making smaller and smaller contributions. You have to make a decision on how many factors are enough to give a reasonable answer. Ignoring the amount of sunlight absorbed by CO2 is more than reasonable, it would in fact be a meaningless complication.

 

[Wuwei]

I wonder why you ignore the actions of methane, water vapor, dust, aerosols, and other gases, etc., in the roles they all play in converting sunlight to IR energy and re-radiating it back into their environment? Will you tell me because CO2 holds a unique place in that it uniquely matches some special resonant place in the mechanics of heat storage and transfer?

Right CO2 is not the only GHG, but it is, in a sense, a case study on how GHG's act. Once you understand CO2, then you can understand the others, and the similarities and differences.

Further, it seems a distinction without a difference that having timed the EXACT time it takes for an atom to re-release an IR photon vs. an atomic collision (ie: kinetic transfer) of energy, the energy is still released, transferred, and in a random way. Either way you cook it, all kinds of stuff up there is catching sunlight, trapping it as heat and then releasing it, some of which is locally transferred kinetically, some of it radiated.

Either way, the air is still collecting and storing energy from the Sun and I'm much more interested in the broad picture than purely just CO2, which is clearly just as fraction of the entire greenhouse process essential to life on Earth.

I thought you were interested in the physics of the GHE, but now it seems you aren't. The broad picture cannot be handled without some of the underlying basics.

.

 

[IanC]

That I spent many years working in a physics research lab is well documented

Where is the documentation for your education or job history? It certainly isnt here.