What the science says

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, conduction is also physics.

It's also what helps maintain the warm at the surface.

Great. So what happens when a collision adds energy to CO2?

Since it can't heat up the CO2 it's re-emitted. There's a 1 in a billion chance that the CO2 absorbs the photon in the first place and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth , so basically vertical little happens

and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth ,

Or emitted toward the ground (shhhh.....that's back radiation.....shhhhh)

I take it back, it cannot head back to a warmer area, it ALL radiates away. It's not random at all.

it cannot head back to a warmer area,

Why not? Tiny thermometers?

It's not random at all.

Smart photons? Which laws cover that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since it can't heat up the CO2 it's re-emitted. There's a 1 in a billion chance that the CO2 absorbs the photon in the first place and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth , so basically vertical little happens

Surface sourced CO2 specific IR radiation is absorbed to extinction by roughly 10 metres of atmosphere at STP. As density decreases with height that distance gets longer the further up in the atmosphere you get, until you reach a height where CO2 specific radiation is more likely to escape than be reabsorbed. At that height the temperature has cooled dramatically and the amount of radiation produced is much less than at the surface. The atmosphere has gained a net amount of energy that is equal to the amount of surface IR absorbed less the amount of TOA IR released. That energy is used in part to increase kinetic speed of atmospheric molecules, otherwise known as temperature.

This is the basic mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect.

Agan...a 1 in a billion chance that a CO2 molecule emits a photon...and even less chance that that theoretical particle gets absorbed by another CO2 molecule...and whatever theoretical particles are emitted move on to a cooler part of the atmosphere...not back to the warmer earth. Again, from a photon's point of view, the distance to where it is going is zero, and the time it takes to get there is zero...just the same as for energy moving via conduction along a temperature gradient in a solid material.

...and whatever theoretical particles are emitted move on to a cooler part of the atmosphere...not back to the warmer earth

DERP!

Again, from a photon's point of view, the distance to where it is going is zero, and the time it takes to get there is zero...

Causality is nothing when your photons are smart, right? LOL!

 

[IanC]

SSDD has as much problems collecting inferred knowledge from graphs as Crick does.

Satellites measuring outgoing radiation from the earth 'see' CO2 specific radiation coming from a source that appears to be -80C. So what does that mean?

It means that CO2 specific radiation cannot pass through the atmosphere and escape to space until it reaches a height in the atmosphere where the density of the air is so thin that it is no longer likely to absorb that radiation. How high? The layer that corresponds to -80C. (Yes I know it is a fuzzy boundary)

Until that point any radiation emitted by CO2 is retained by the atmosphere, the Greenhouse Effect.

The so-called Atmospheric Window allows radiation around 10 microns to escape directly to space. This radiation is not part of the Greenhouse Effect. Where do the satellites 'see' this radiation coming from? The layer coming from a temperature of +15C, the surface.

And "retained by the atmosphere" you mean that the excited CO2 is hotter than it's non-excited neighbor?

I am pretty sure we have been through this numerous times.

It takes a lot of stored energy to keep an atmosphere aloft in the gravity field and at its temperature. These two things are interconnected. The first is potential energy, and the second is kinetic energy. You do realize that the kinetic energy portion, the speed of the molecules is what defines the temperature? Every collision rearranges the proportion of kinetic to potential energy.

Next, we have to decide whether molecules absorbing photons is potential or kinetic energy. Either an electron is bumped into a higher energy orbital or the bonds between the constituent elements is changed in fashion that is called vibration. Neither of these changes the speed of the molecules, so it obviously is a change of potential energy.

To be more complete, there is also an exchange of momentum between the emitters and absorbers. A tiny fraction which drives the two away from each other, and ensures that entropy ensues.

In a collision the two (or more) molecules crash together and the potential and kinetic energies are briefly combined by deforming the electron shells. When they move apart the combined energy is once again divided up into potential and kinetic energies. The individual molecule may have more or less of each upon leaving. An excited molecule may return to ground state at a different speed, or a ground state molecule may exit in an excited state. There are numerous possibilities. These collisions also cause blackbody radiation to be formed. Higher energy photons from high speed head on collisions, lower energy photons from glancing or low speed collisions.

To reiterate, a CO2 molecule that absorbs a photon simply adds to the total energy of the atmosphere, part of which is in kinetic energy AKA temperature.

This also makes it easier to understand why, at higher altitude where it is less dense hense fewer collisions , that CO2 molecules can hold onto the excited state long enough to emit a photon that won't simply be recaptured.

Sorry ian...you give radiation a much better place at the table than it deserves...conduction rules and in the lower atmosphere, radiation barely earns a place on the floor with the dogs..

that is an interesting topic that I have a lot of sympathy for, especially when it comes to what happens to captured energy from the recent increase of CO2. But we are talking about whether the Greenhouse Effect is real, and what are the mechanisms.

 

[jc456]

why?

Physics!

like conduction?

Yes, conduction is also physics.

It's also what helps maintain the warm at the surface.

Great. So what happens when a collision adds energy to CO2?

what does happen in your world?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Physics!

like conduction?

Yes, conduction is also physics.

It's also what helps maintain the warm at the surface.

Great. So what happens when a collision adds energy to CO2?

what does happen in your world?

Well, sometimes collisions take energy from the CO2, sometimes they add energy to the CO2.
Can CO2 ever emit IR?

 

[IanC]

Since it can't heat up the CO2 it's re-emitted. There's a 1 in a billion chance that the CO2 absorbs the photon in the first place and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth , so basically vertical little happens

Surface sourced CO2 specific IR radiation is absorbed to extinction by roughly 10 metres of atmosphere at STP. As density decreases with height that distance gets longer the further up in the atmosphere you get, until you reach a height where CO2 specific radiation is more likely to escape than be reabsorbed. At that height the temperature has cooled dramatically and the amount of radiation produced is much less than at the surface. The atmosphere has gained a net amount of energy that is equal to the amount of surface IR absorbed less the amount of TOA IR released. That energy is used in part to increase kinetic speed of atmospheric molecules, otherwise known as temperature.

This is the basic mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect.

Agan...a 1 in a billion chance that a CO2 molecule emits a photon...and even less chance that that theoretical particle gets absorbed by another CO2 molecule...and whatever theoretical particles are emitted move on to a cooler part of the atmosphere...not back to the warmer earth. Again, from a photon's point of view, the distance to where it is going is zero, and the time it takes to get there is zero...just the same as for energy moving via conduction along a temperature gradient in a solid material.

one in a billion sounds like an impressively small number until you remember Avagadro's number. about 10^24 if I remember correctly, for a single mole.

now you are claiming energy is moving at the speed of light during conduction? hahahahahaha.

I must admit I am a sucker for contemplating effects of quantum and relativistic events. someone, Feynman maybe, posited or said something that made me posit, that the reason for inertia is simply the energy needed to redo photon exchange when an object ends up in a different position from what was expected before the time passed in the real world because of the speed limit on light. (and gravitons or any other massless speed of light force carriers.) kinda fucks up the Arrow of Time though. I certainly have no idea what the mechanism could be. just an interesting idea.

your jihad against radiation being free to move in any direction reminds me of the belief in the 'ether'. temperature is a meaningless concept for individual particles. temperature is only a valid concept for large cohorts of particles. even then temperature does not capture the total energy of the cohort as much of the energy is potential energy. can a high speed (high temp)/low potential energy particle radiate towards a low speed/high potential particle even if the total energy contained in the low speed (low temp) particle is greater than the high speed (high temp) particle? why is potential energy ignored in your world view?

even in a large cohort of particles that has a 'temperature', there is a range of speeds in the individual particles. a different cohort with a similar but slightly lower temp would have a range of speeds for individual particles that overlaps with the warmer one. could faster particles in the 'cool' cohort pass a photon to a slower particle in the 'warm' cohort? your system lacks internal consistency.

 

[SSDD]

The effect on time perception while traveling at the speed of light is completely irrelevant to thermodynamics.

God are you stupid.

Sorry that this is so far past your ability to grasp...but since it is the photon that is transferring the energy...everything happens according to their point of view...to bad you can't grasp it.

 

[SSDD]

now you are claiming energy is moving at the speed of light during conduction? hahahahahaha.

Not at all...just you making up arguments to rail against again...I never suggested any such thing.

your jihad against radiation being free to move in any direction reminds me of the belief in the 'ether'. temperature is a meaningless concept for individual particles. temperature is only a valid concept for large cohorts of particles. even then temperature does not capture the total energy of the cohort as much of the energy is potential energy. can a high speed (high temp)/low potential energy particle radiate towards a low speed/high potential particle even if the total energy contained in the low speed (low temp) particle is greater than the high speed (high temp) particle? why is potential energy ignored in your world view?

Radiation is free to move in any direction just like a rock is free to fall in any direction it cares to fall.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD has as much problems collecting inferred knowledge from graphs as Crick does.

Satellites measuring outgoing radiation from the earth 'see' CO2 specific radiation coming from a source that appears to be -80C. So what does that mean?

It means that CO2 specific radiation cannot pass through the atmosphere and escape to space until it reaches a height in the atmosphere where the density of the air is so thin that it is no longer likely to absorb that radiation. How high? The layer that corresponds to -80C. (Yes I know it is a fuzzy boundary)

Until that point any radiation emitted by CO2 is retained by the atmosphere, the Greenhouse Effect.

The so-called Atmospheric Window allows radiation around 10 microns to escape directly to space. This radiation is not part of the Greenhouse Effect. Where do the satellites 'see' this radiation coming from? The layer coming from a temperature of +15C, the surface.

And "retained by the atmosphere" you mean that the excited CO2 is hotter than it's non-excited neighbor?

I am pretty sure we have been through this numerous times.

It takes a lot of stored energy to keep an atmosphere aloft in the gravity field and at its temperature. These two things are interconnected. The first is potential energy, and the second is kinetic energy. You do realize that the kinetic energy portion, the speed of the molecules is what defines the temperature? Every collision rearranges the proportion of kinetic to potential energy.

Next, we have to decide whether molecules absorbing photons is potential or kinetic energy. Either an electron is bumped into a higher energy orbital or the bonds between the constituent elements is changed in fashion that is called vibration. Neither of these changes the speed of the molecules, so it obviously is a change of potential energy.

To be more complete, there is also an exchange of momentum between the emitters and absorbers. A tiny fraction which drives the two away from each other, and ensures that entropy ensues.

In a collision the two (or more) molecules crash together and the potential and kinetic energies are briefly combined by deforming the electron shells. When they move apart the combined energy is once again divided up into potential and kinetic energies. The individual molecule may have more or less of each upon leaving. An excited molecule may return to ground state at a different speed, or a ground state molecule may exit in an excited state. There are numerous possibilities. These collisions also cause blackbody radiation to be formed. Higher energy photons from high speed head on collisions, lower energy photons from glancing or low speed collisions.

To reiterate, a CO2 molecule that absorbs a photon simply adds to the total energy of the atmosphere, part of which is in kinetic energy AKA temperature.

This also makes it easier to understand why, at higher altitude where it is less dense hense fewer collisions , that CO2 molecules can hold onto the excited state long enough to emit a photon that won't simply be recaptured.

Sorry ian...you give radiation a much better place at the table than it deserves...conduction rules and in the lower atmosphere, radiation barely earns a place on the floor with the dogs..

that is an interesting topic that I have a lot of sympathy for, especially when it comes to what happens to captured energy from the recent increase of CO2. But we are talking about whether the Greenhouse Effect is real, and what are the mechanisms.

There is no energy captured due to any amount of CO2...of all the so called greenhouse gasses...only H2O can actually capture energy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's also what helps maintain the warm at the surface.

Great. So what happens when a collision adds energy to CO2?

Since it can't heat up the CO2 it's re-emitted. There's a 1 in a billion chance that the CO2 absorbs the photon in the first place and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth , so basically vertical little happens

and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth ,

Or emitted toward the ground (shhhh.....that's back radiation.....shhhhh)

I take it back, it cannot head back to a warmer area, it ALL radiates away. It's not random at all.

it cannot head back to a warmer area,

Why not? Tiny thermometers?

It's not random at all.

Smart photons? Which laws cover that?

The why of it is probably wrapped up in the creation of the Universe, that's just how it works.

If they don't experience time as we do, why do you suppose they need a thermometer?

 

[IanC]

now you are claiming energy is moving at the speed of light during conduction? hahahahahaha.

Not at all...just you making up arguments to rail against again...I never suggested any such thing.

your jihad against radiation being free to move in any direction reminds me of the belief in the 'ether'. temperature is a meaningless concept for individual particles. temperature is only a valid concept for large cohorts of particles. even then temperature does not capture the total energy of the cohort as much of the energy is potential energy. can a high speed (high temp)/low potential energy particle radiate towards a low speed/high potential particle even if the total energy contained in the low speed (low temp) particle is greater than the high speed (high temp) particle? why is potential energy ignored in your world view?

Radiation is free to move in any direction just like a rock is free to fall in any direction it cares to fall.

Does gravity stop in the face of stronger gravity, or does the matter move in the direction of the net force? Are gravitons smart too?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But we're not nearly as interested in the photon's point of view as we are in ours, where it DOES take time to travel distance. Have you got a mechanism that allows all matter to know the temperature of its surroundings out to the farthest reaches of the universe? Do you have a mechanism for matter, down to a single atom, to control its photon emissions? Do you have a mechanism by which all matter would be able to predict what temperature matter will be in front of photons it emitted a second back (cause, you know, things move)? How about an hour back? A century back? A billion years back?

Your... 'idea' is complete idiotic lunacy

Tell the photon it's doing it wrong, you know best

 

[IanC]

I think it's funny that some people that denied the existence of photons, relativity, and quantum theory in the recent past are now latching on to one of the most esoteric properties proposed.

 

[IanC]

But we're not nearly as interested in the photon's point of view as we are in ours, where it DOES take time to travel distance. Have you got a mechanism that allows all matter to know the temperature of its surroundings out to the farthest reaches of the universe? Do you have a mechanism for matter, down to a single atom, to control its photon emissions? Do you have a mechanism by which all matter would be able to predict what temperature matter will be in front of photons it emitted a second back (cause, you know, things move)? How about an hour back? A century back? A billion years back?

Your... 'idea' is complete idiotic lunacy

The photon does not experience time, so it IS everywhere at once, even at the "farthest reaches"

A slight correction in order. The photon exists at all points along its pathway.

A useful explanatory concept to explain how virtual photons can find a partner particle to exchange force with. Not so useful to explain radiative photons that just carry away energy, with no compulsory partner needed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think it's funny that some people that denied the existence of photons, relativity, and quantum theory in the recent past are now latching on to one of the most esoteric properties proposed.

Even funnier how we live in a Universe that mostly stuff we can only imagine: Dark matter and dark energy, but some are absolutely sure they can bend the Universe to their laws

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Great. So what happens when a collision adds energy to CO2?

Since it can't heat up the CO2 it's re-emitted. There's a 1 in a billion chance that the CO2 absorbs the photon in the first place and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth , so basically vertical little happens

and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth ,

Or emitted toward the ground (shhhh.....that's back radiation.....shhhhh)

I take it back, it cannot head back to a warmer area, it ALL radiates away. It's not random at all.

it cannot head back to a warmer area,

Why not? Tiny thermometers?

It's not random at all.

Smart photons? Which laws cover that?

The why of it is probably wrapped up in the creation of the Universe, that's just how it works.

If they don't experience time as we do, why do you suppose they need a thermometer?

that's just how it works.

Except, it doesn't. Heat isn't photons.
Photons don't care about temperature.

why do you suppose they need a thermometer?

They would need one, to see that a target was hotter and then decide not to go that way.
Instead of just using Stefan-Boltzmann, which says matter emits, based on its own temperature, not based on the temperature of the rest of the universe.

 

[IanC]

I think it's funny that some people that denied the existence of photons, relativity, and quantum theory in the recent past are now latching on to one of the most esoteric properties proposed.

Even funnier how we live in a Universe that mostly stuff we can only imagine: Dark matter and dark energy, but some are absolutely sure they can bend the Universe to their laws

Someone will come along and pull back the curtain on some of those questions. But the new answers will incorporate relativity and QM just like those only refined classic Newtonian physics.

 

[westwall]

now you are claiming energy is moving at the speed of light during conduction? hahahahahaha.

Not at all...just you making up arguments to rail against again...I never suggested any such thing.

your jihad against radiation being free to move in any direction reminds me of the belief in the 'ether'. temperature is a meaningless concept for individual particles. temperature is only a valid concept for large cohorts of particles. even then temperature does not capture the total energy of the cohort as much of the energy is potential energy. can a high speed (high temp)/low potential energy particle radiate towards a low speed/high potential particle even if the total energy contained in the low speed (low temp) particle is greater than the high speed (high temp) particle? why is potential energy ignored in your world view?

Radiation is free to move in any direction just like a rock is free to fall in any direction it cares to fall.

Does gravity stop in the face of stronger gravity, or does the matter move in the direction of the net force? Are gravitons smart too?

Actually, that IS an interesting question. I don't think we have the ability to measure that yet. It's amazing how little we know about gravity.

 

[IanC]

Since it can't heat up the CO2 it's re-emitted. There's a 1 in a billion chance that the CO2 absorbs the photon in the first place and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth , so basically vertical little happens

and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth ,

Or emitted toward the ground (shhhh.....that's back radiation.....shhhhh)

I take it back, it cannot head back to a warmer area, it ALL radiates away. It's not random at all.

it cannot head back to a warmer area,

Why not? Tiny thermometers?

It's not random at all.

Smart photons? Which laws cover that?

The why of it is probably wrapped up in the creation of the Universe, that's just how it works.

If they don't experience time as we do, why do you suppose they need a thermometer?

that's just how it works.

Except, it doesn't. Heat isn't photons.
Photons don't care about temperature.

why do you suppose they need a thermometer?

They would need one, to see that a target was hotter and then decide not to go that way.
Instead of just using Stefan-Boltzmann, which says matter emits, based on its own temperature, not based on the temperature of the rest of the universe.

Yup, I agree.

Energy transfered by radiation is not heat. It is potential energy that may be transferred into kinetic energy via collisions of particles of matter.

 

[jc456]

and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth ,

Or emitted toward the ground (shhhh.....that's back radiation.....shhhhh)

I take it back, it cannot head back to a warmer area, it ALL radiates away. It's not random at all.

it cannot head back to a warmer area,

Why not? Tiny thermometers?

It's not random at all.

Smart photons? Which laws cover that?

The why of it is probably wrapped up in the creation of the Universe, that's just how it works.

If they don't experience time as we do, why do you suppose they need a thermometer?

that's just how it works.

Except, it doesn't. Heat isn't photons.
Photons don't care about temperature.

why do you suppose they need a thermometer?

They would need one, to see that a target was hotter and then decide not to go that way.
Instead of just using Stefan-Boltzmann, which says matter emits, based on its own temperature, not based on the temperature of the rest of the universe.

Yup, I agree.

Energy transfered by radiation is not heat. It is potential energy that may be transferred into kinetic energy via collisions of particles of matter.

where does your heat come from then?