What the science says

[CrusaderFrank]

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

just so I have your position straight.....if I fill a tube with CO2, some of which is is in the excited mode...the CO2 will never emit a photon because the tube and the CO2 are the same temperature?????? for a day, a year, longer even?


hahahahahaha

Sorry Frank, I must have missed your reply.

Is my example consistent with your world view that radiation cannot form without a temperature gradient? Do you agree that internal atomic events are controlled by external macroscopic conditions?

Do you have any links from physicists that agree with your bizarre position? Are there any theorized explanations for it? Did you conceive of these proposals by yourself or are you repeating a perhaps poorly understood or mistakenly remembered vision put forward by someone else?

I have taken a lot of physics and read a lot of science history. It baffles me how you guys come up with some of the stuff you bbelieve
elieve. And are so CERTAIN about.

I'm trying to find where I said that radiation can't former without a temperature gradient.

Can you please find my post

 

[IanC]

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

just so I have your position straight.....if I fill a tube with CO2, some of which is is in the excited mode...the CO2 will never emit a photon because the tube and the CO2 are the same temperature?????? for a day, a year, longer even?


hahahahahaha

Sorry Frank, I must have missed your reply.

Is my example consistent with your world view that radiation cannot form without a temperature gradient? Do you agree that internal atomic events are controlled by external macroscopic conditions?

Do you have any links from physicists that agree with your bizarre position? Are there any theorized explanations for it? Did you conceive of these proposals by yourself or are you repeating a perhaps poorly understood or mistakenly remembered vision put forward by someone else?

I have taken a lot of physics and read a lot of science history. It baffles me how you guys come up with some of the stuff you bbelieve
elieve. And are so CERTAIN about.

I'm trying to find where I said that radiation can't former without a temperature gradient.

Can you please find my post

It is embedded in your last post...

...and always from warmer to cooler...

Are you recinding that statement?

 

[Crick]

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

just so I have your position straight.....if I fill a tube with CO2, some of which is is in the excited mode...the CO2 will never emit a photon because the tube and the CO2 are the same temperature?????? for a day, a year, longer even?


hahahahahaha

Sorry Frank, I must have missed your reply.

Is my example consistent with your world view that radiation cannot form without a temperature gradient? Do you agree that internal atomic events are controlled by external macroscopic conditions?

Do you have any links from physicists that agree with your bizarre position? Are there any theorized explanations for it? Did you conceive of these proposals by yourself or are you repeating a perhaps poorly understood or mistakenly remembered vision put forward by someone else?

I have taken a lot of physics and read a lot of science history. It baffles me how you guys come up with some of the stuff you bbelieve
elieve. And are so CERTAIN about.

I'm trying to find where I said that radiation can't former without a temperature gradient.

Can you please find my post

It is embedded in your last post...

...and always from warmer to cooler...

Are you recinding that statement?

No.

I could just as easily infer that your theory supposes that the non-excited gas will pop off a photon to its excited neighbors

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

just so I have your position straight.....if I fill a tube with CO2, some of which is is in the excited mode...the CO2 will never emit a photon because the tube and the CO2 are the same temperature?????? for a day, a year, longer even?


hahahahahaha

Sorry Frank, I must have missed your reply.

Is my example consistent with your world view that radiation cannot form without a temperature gradient? Do you agree that internal atomic events are controlled by external macroscopic conditions?

Do you have any links from physicists that agree with your bizarre position? Are there any theorized explanations for it? Did you conceive of these proposals by yourself or are you repeating a perhaps poorly understood or mistakenly remembered vision put forward by someone else?

I have taken a lot of physics and read a lot of science history. It baffles me how you guys come up with some of the stuff you bbelieve
elieve. And are so CERTAIN about.

I'm trying to find where I said that radiation can't former without a temperature gradient.

Can you please find my post

It is embedded in your last post...

...and always from warmer to cooler...

Are you recinding that statement?

No.

I could just as easily infer that your theory supposes that the non-excited gas will pop off a photon to its excited neighbors

What do you feel would prevent that?

 

[SSDD]

wow! did not expect such a whiney response from you. buck up man

while I am OK with the whole photons having no time or distance in their reference frame, we dont live there and cannot even visit.

there are two types of photons; paid in advance and cash on delivery virtual ones. radiative or reactive.

Got anything more than a mathematical model in support of actual photons existing...much less the virtual sort? You crack me up Ian...pretending in your head that you know exactly what is going on and who is doing what when there is not the first bit of observed evidence to support any of it.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, there is, the mechanism of what they do is undefined currently but greenhouse gases are well established.

I would say that the existence of radiative gasses is well established....but to call them greenhouse gasses is to ascribe to the reality of a greenhouse effect such as described by climate science...and no such effect has ever been measured or quantified outside of a mathematical model.

 

[SSDD]

No. We KNOW that GHG's exist. To date however, there has been no real lab experiments to actually decipher their operation.

Lets say we know radiative gasses exist....greenhouse?..not so much.

 

[SSDD]

No.

I could just as easily infer that your theory supposes that the non-excited gas will pop off a photon to its excited neighbors

We have already been through that with him and it is clear that radiation is the smallest bit of the energy movement through the atmosphere...something like 1 in a billion CO2 molecules actually radiates as opposed to the rest transferring energy via collisions.

 

[IanC]

In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler

just so I have your position straight.....if I fill a tube with CO2, some of which is is in the excited mode...the CO2 will never emit a photon because the tube and the CO2 are the same temperature?????? for a day, a year, longer even?


hahahahahaha

Sorry Frank, I must have missed your reply.

Is my example consistent with your world view that radiation cannot form without a temperature gradient? Do you agree that internal atomic events are controlled by external macroscopic conditions?

Do you have any links from physicists that agree with your bizarre position? Are there any theorized explanations for it? Did you conceive of these proposals by yourself or are you repeating a perhaps poorly understood or mistakenly remembered vision put forward by someone else?

I have taken a lot of physics and read a lot of science history. It baffles me how you guys come up with some of the stuff you bbelieve
elieve. And are so CERTAIN about.

I'm trying to find where I said that radiation can't former without a temperature gradient.

Can you please find my post

It is embedded in your last post...

...and always from warmer to cooler...

Are you recinding that statement?

No.

I could just as easily infer that your theory supposes that the non-excited gas will pop off a photon to its excited neighbors

Well, yes, that could happen.

The molecules are constantly colliding with each other. We know the average speed from the temperature but we don't know the speed of any individual molecule precisely unless we measure it, which of course would change the speed.

A molecule that absorbs a photon gains POTENTIAL energy (plus the small amount of momentum that is a fundamental of entropy). During the next molecular collision the excited molecule may or may not give up the potential energy, either to another molecule's potential energy; or more likely ,add that energy to the pool of kinetic energy. Adding to kinetic energy is by definition warming the temperature. AKA thermalization of radiation.

The opposite also happens. Closer to the top of the atmosphere, collisions excite the CO2 molecules but because there are fewer collisions it is more likely that the molecules will stay excited long enough to re-emit and that the reemission will escape to space.

Therefore CO2 tends to warm the atmosphere lower down but cool the atmosphere higher up.

Increasing CO2 concentration decreases the height to extinction of certain IR bands radiated by the surface. And raises the height in the upper atmosphere where radiation can escape, which is typically cooler and therefore less radiation.

I am not saying I believe the IPCC consensus position. I am saying that I believe CO2 has a warming influence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

just so I have your position straight.....if I fill a tube with CO2, some of which is is in the excited mode...the CO2 will never emit a photon because the tube and the CO2 are the same temperature?????? for a day, a year, longer even?


hahahahahaha

Sorry Frank, I must have missed your reply.

Is my example consistent with your world view that radiation cannot form without a temperature gradient? Do you agree that internal atomic events are controlled by external macroscopic conditions?

Do you have any links from physicists that agree with your bizarre position? Are there any theorized explanations for it? Did you conceive of these proposals by yourself or are you repeating a perhaps poorly understood or mistakenly remembered vision put forward by someone else?

I have taken a lot of physics and read a lot of science history. It baffles me how you guys come up with some of the stuff you bbelieve
elieve. And are so CERTAIN about.

I'm trying to find where I said that radiation can't former without a temperature gradient.

Can you please find my post

It is embedded in your last post...

...and always from warmer to cooler...

Are you recinding that statement?

No.

I could just as easily infer that your theory supposes that the non-excited gas will pop off a photon to its excited neighbors

What do you feel would prevent that?

IDK, maybe its the same reason we use step down transformers so that the smaller current can go back the wrong way and make a bigger current

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry Frank, I must have missed your reply.

Is my example consistent with your world view that radiation cannot form without a temperature gradient? Do you agree that internal atomic events are controlled by external macroscopic conditions?

Do you have any links from physicists that agree with your bizarre position? Are there any theorized explanations for it? Did you conceive of these proposals by yourself or are you repeating a perhaps poorly understood or mistakenly remembered vision put forward by someone else?

I have taken a lot of physics and read a lot of science history. It baffles me how you guys come up with some of the stuff you bbelieve
elieve. And are so CERTAIN about.

I'm trying to find where I said that radiation can't former without a temperature gradient.

Can you please find my post

It is embedded in your last post...

...and always from warmer to cooler...

Are you recinding that statement?

No.

I could just as easily infer that your theory supposes that the non-excited gas will pop off a photon to its excited neighbors

What do you feel would prevent that?

IDK, maybe its the same reason we use step down transformers so that the smaller current can go back the wrong way and make a bigger current

Why bring current into the discussion?
We're talking about photons and why you feel their emission is dictated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (not Newton's 2nd Law).

 

[SSDD]

I'm trying to find where I said that radiation can't former without a temperature gradient.

Can you please find my post

It is embedded in your last post...

...and always from warmer to cooler...

Are you recinding that statement?

No.

I could just as easily infer that your theory supposes that the non-excited gas will pop off a photon to its excited neighbors

What do you feel would prevent that?

IDK, maybe its the same reason we use step down transformers so that the smaller current can go back the wrong way and make a bigger current

Why bring current into the discussion?
We're talking about photons and why you feel their emission is dictated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (not Newton's 2nd Law).

All energy transfer is dictated by the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is embedded in your last post...

Are you recinding that statement?

No.

I could just as easily infer that your theory supposes that the non-excited gas will pop off a photon to its excited neighbors

What do you feel would prevent that?

IDK, maybe its the same reason we use step down transformers so that the smaller current can go back the wrong way and make a bigger current

Why bring current into the discussion?
We're talking about photons and why you feel their emission is dictated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (not Newton's 2nd Law).

All energy transfer is dictated by the second law of thermodynamics.

All energy transfer is dictated by the second law of thermodynamics.

It's weird that the second law doesn't mention photons.

 

[SSDD]

just so I have your position straight.....if I fill a tube with CO2, some of which is is in the excited mode...the CO2 will never emit a photon because the tube and the CO2 are the same temperature?????? for a day, a year, longer even?


hahahahahaha

Sorry Frank, I must have missed your reply.

Is my example consistent with your world view that radiation cannot form without a temperature gradient? Do you agree that internal atomic events are controlled by external macroscopic conditions?

Do you have any links from physicists that agree with your bizarre position? Are there any theorized explanations for it? Did you conceive of these proposals by yourself or are you repeating a perhaps poorly understood or mistakenly remembered vision put forward by someone else?

I have taken a lot of physics and read a lot of science history. It baffles me how you guys come up with some of the stuff you bbelieve
elieve. And are so CERTAIN about.

I'm trying to find where I said that radiation can't former without a temperature gradient.

Can you please find my post

It is embedded in your last post...

...and always from warmer to cooler...

Are you recinding that statement?

No.

I could just as easily infer that your theory supposes that the non-excited gas will pop off a photon to its excited neighbors

Well, yes, that could happen.

The molecules are constantly colliding with each other. We know the average speed from the temperature but we don't know the speed of any individual molecule precisely unless we measure it, which of course would change the speed.

A molecule that absorbs a photon gains POTENTIAL energy (plus the small amount of momentum that is a fundamental of entropy). During the next molecular collision the excited molecule may or may not give up the potential energy, either to another molecule's potential energy; or more likely ,add that energy to the pool of kinetic energy. Adding to kinetic energy is by definition warming the temperature. AKA thermalization of radiation.

The opposite also happens. Closer to the top of the atmosphere, collisions excite the CO2 molecules but because there are fewer collisions it is more likely that the molecules will stay excited long enough to re-emit and that the reemission will escape to space.

Therefore CO2 tends to warm the atmosphere lower down but cool the atmosphere higher up.

Increasing CO2 concentration decreases the height to extinction of certain IR bands radiated by the surface. And raises the height in the upper atmosphere where radiation can escape, which is typically cooler and therefore less radiation.

I am not saying I believe the IPCC consensus position. I am saying that I believe CO2 has a warming influence.

CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere at all. You believe in the magic..you just believe it isn't as strong as the off the deep end wackos believe...but belief in magic is belief in magic...even if it is belief in weak magic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry Frank, I must have missed your reply.

Is my example consistent with your world view that radiation cannot form without a temperature gradient? Do you agree that internal atomic events are controlled by external macroscopic conditions?

Do you have any links from physicists that agree with your bizarre position? Are there any theorized explanations for it? Did you conceive of these proposals by yourself or are you repeating a perhaps poorly understood or mistakenly remembered vision put forward by someone else?

I have taken a lot of physics and read a lot of science history. It baffles me how you guys come up with some of the stuff you bbelieve
elieve. And are so CERTAIN about.

I'm trying to find where I said that radiation can't former without a temperature gradient.

Can you please find my post

It is embedded in your last post...

...and always from warmer to cooler...

Are you recinding that statement?

No.

I could just as easily infer that your theory supposes that the non-excited gas will pop off a photon to its excited neighbors

Well, yes, that could happen.

The molecules are constantly colliding with each other. We know the average speed from the temperature but we don't know the speed of any individual molecule precisely unless we measure it, which of course would change the speed.

A molecule that absorbs a photon gains POTENTIAL energy (plus the small amount of momentum that is a fundamental of entropy). During the next molecular collision the excited molecule may or may not give up the potential energy, either to another molecule's potential energy; or more likely ,add that energy to the pool of kinetic energy. Adding to kinetic energy is by definition warming the temperature. AKA thermalization of radiation.

The opposite also happens. Closer to the top of the atmosphere, collisions excite the CO2 molecules but because there are fewer collisions it is more likely that the molecules will stay excited long enough to re-emit and that the reemission will escape to space.

Therefore CO2 tends to warm the atmosphere lower down but cool the atmosphere higher up.

Increasing CO2 concentration decreases the height to extinction of certain IR bands radiated by the surface. And raises the height in the upper atmosphere where radiation can escape, which is typically cooler and therefore less radiation.

I am not saying I believe the IPCC consensus position. I am saying that I believe CO2 has a warming influence.

CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere at all. You believe in the magic..you just believe it isn't as strong as the off the deep end wackos believe...but belief in magic is belief in magic...even if it is belief in weak magic.

CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere at all.

Does it absorb IR from the surface? Does it collide with other molecules?

 

[LaDexter]

More precisely, the whole "greenhouse gas" thing is bullshit and every gas absorbs something from the EM spectrum emitted by the Sun. IR is a particularly weak portion of that spectrum and the reason why increased CO2 hasn't warmed the atmosphere at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More precisely, the whole "greenhouse gas" thing is bullshit and every gas absorbs something from the EM spectrum emitted by the Sun. IR is a particularly weak portion of that spectrum and the reason why increased CO2 hasn't warmed the atmosphere at all.

every gas absorbs something from the EM spectrum emitted by the Sun.

We're talking about gasses that absorb IR from the Earth's surface.

IR is a particularly weak portion of that spectrum

Is that the scientific term for IR.....weak?

 

[SSDD]

I'm trying to find where I said that radiation can't former without a temperature gradient.

Can you please find my post

It is embedded in your last post...

...and always from warmer to cooler...

Are you recinding that statement?

No.

I could just as easily infer that your theory supposes that the non-excited gas will pop off a photon to its excited neighbors

Well, yes, that could happen.

The molecules are constantly colliding with each other. We know the average speed from the temperature but we don't know the speed of any individual molecule precisely unless we measure it, which of course would change the speed.

A molecule that absorbs a photon gains POTENTIAL energy (plus the small amount of momentum that is a fundamental of entropy). During the next molecular collision the excited molecule may or may not give up the potential energy, either to another molecule's potential energy; or more likely ,add that energy to the pool of kinetic energy. Adding to kinetic energy is by definition warming the temperature. AKA thermalization of radiation.

The opposite also happens. Closer to the top of the atmosphere, collisions excite the CO2 molecules but because there are fewer collisions it is more likely that the molecules will stay excited long enough to re-emit and that the reemission will escape to space.

Therefore CO2 tends to warm the atmosphere lower down but cool the atmosphere higher up.

Increasing CO2 concentration decreases the height to extinction of certain IR bands radiated by the surface. And raises the height in the upper atmosphere where radiation can escape, which is typically cooler and therefore less radiation.

I am not saying I believe the IPCC consensus position. I am saying that I believe CO2 has a warming influence.

CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere at all. You believe in the magic..you just believe it isn't as strong as the off the deep end wackos believe...but belief in magic is belief in magic...even if it is belief in weak magic.

CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere at all.

Does it absorb IR from the surface? Does it collide with other molecules?

About 1 in a billion CO2 molecules absorbs a bit of IR radiation from the surface and then emits it...along a temperature gradient which is always moving from warm to cool...the other nine hundred ninety nine million nine hundred ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine CO2 molecules pick up a bit of energy via collisions just like O2 and N2 and pass it along via conduction. CO2 acts as a hole in the blanket allowing some small bit of energy to move on out of the atmosphere at a much quicker rate than does convection and conduction.

And what warms the atmosphere is energy...not CO2.

 

[SSDD]

More precisely, the whole "greenhouse gas" thing is bullshit and every gas absorbs something from the EM spectrum emitted by the Sun. IR is a particularly weak portion of that spectrum and the reason why increased CO2 hasn't warmed the atmosphere at all.

every gas absorbs something from the EM spectrum emitted by the Sun.

We're talking about gasses that absorb IR from the Earth's surface.

IR is a particularly weak portion of that spectrum

Is that the scientific term for IR.....weak?

CO2's peak emitting temperature is -80C....how much warming do you really think that could cause?