Global Mean Temperature

[dogtowner]

Scattering from CO2 is where a photon hits it with an energy in one of the CO2 resonance bands and knocks it to an internal excited state of vibration. After a bit, the excited state drops back to "normal" and emits the photon at that same wavelength. If that didn't happen CO2 industrial IR lasers would not work.

In the time between absorption and reemission, the CO2 molecule has rotated to a different random position and emits the photon in a random direction. If the direction is away from earth, it will continue on and hit another photon within an average distance of around 6 meters. If the photon heads for earth and is not absorbed by another CO2 molecule, it will hit earth and be absorbed. That process is all quantum mechanics. Thermodynamics does not enter at that point. That is what backscattering is. You are right that it doesn't retain that energy, it just redirects it.

the first suggests retention to me but we both agree that this does not happen.

the laser is a good example of "external work". CO2 is nice as it retains nothing (little or no loss of energy) and something else directs and concentrates.

 

[palerider]

Pale, look at my post 106 again. You object to item 1. I am not talking about heat radiation I am talking about photon wavelength statistics and trajectories.

I understand perfectly well that you aren't talking about heat radiation. I also understand that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't limit itself to heat. The statement says that heat will not transfer from cool to warm then goes on, in a new sentence to say that energy won't transfer from cool to warm. There is not a single bit of observable, repeatable evidence that proves otherwise.

The second law of thermodynamics is stated in absolute terms because it is an absolute law. You may believe that statistically you can manage to get around the law some of the time but you can't show a shred of real evidence that proves you can any of the time.

If you disagree, tell me what is the temperature of a photon with a wavelength of 21 microns?

I don't do parlor tricks, espeically when they serve no useful purpose. If you are curious, here is the formula. Ep = 1.24/wl eV

And again, the second law states that energy won't spontaneously move from cool to warm. Are you going to tell me that photon radiation is not energy?

The atomic physics phenomena 1 and 2 are used to prove the second law.

They are not part of the second law. Max Planck discovered a centry ago that the atomic physics of 1 and 2 proves that net energy does not flow to a hotter object.

Once more, the second law speaks in absolute terms. It isn't a statistical phenomenon, it is a law of nature. It is not possible for energy to move from cool towards warm unless some work is done to accomplish the task.

If you say a photon shuns aiming at a hotter object, what atomic mechanism causes that? You are continually and totally confusing the atomic properties of black bodies with the second law.

I didn't say that it shuns aiming at a hotter object, I said that it simply can't. Photons don't "think" about moving from warm towards cool any more than a golf ball "thinks" about which way it will go when it is struck. It moves in the direction the laws of physics demand. A photon can no more emit towards warm than a golf ball can decide to stick to the clubhead when struck.

Do you still believe that photon radiation between two identical light bulbs cancel and give a black streak between them. You constantly avoid this counterexample.

Not at all and that silly statement is in reality, a statement of your own misunderstanding. Backradiation, and the so called greenhouse effect have nothing to do with objects in equilibrium so I am not going off on that tangent again. If you can't stick to backradiation and the so called greenhouse effect, then simply say so and move along.

 

[palerider]

If the photon heads for earth and is not absorbed by another CO2 molecule, it will hit earth and be absorbed. That process is all quantum mechanics. Thermodynamics does not enter at that point. That is what backscattering is. You are right that it doesn't retain that energy, it just redirects it.

The IR emitted from a CO2 molecule can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule. IR emits from a CO2 moleucle in a wavelength that is invisible to other CO2 molecules.

http://www.biocab.org/NNS-Recycling_of_Heat_in_the_Atmosphere.pdf

And again, there is no backradiation. If you beleive there is, then show an observable, repeatable experiment that proves as much.

 

[palerider]

CO2 is nice as it retains nothing (little or no loss of energy) and something else directs and concentrates.

It does lose just a little. The vibration caused by the absorption of IR takes some small bit of energy so the IR is emitted at a very slightly longer wavelength that at which it was absorbed. That slight difference is why its emission is invisible to other CO2 molecules. Backscattering or backradiation is a fantasy, a fiction, a fabrication by people who want desperately for the laws of physics to mean something other than that which they do.

 

[Lagboltz]

the first suggests retention to me but we both agree that this does not happen.

The retention of the CO2 excited state is only a few microseconds. That is enough time for the fast-spinning molecule to release the energy in another direction. So essentially, there is very little retention.

 

[Lagboltz]

The second law of thermodynamics is stated in absolute terms because it is an absolute law. You may believe that statistically you can manage to get around the law some of the time but you can't show a shred of real evidence that proves you can any of the time.

You are several decades behind in physics. It used to be an empirical law, but it is a now a law derived from the field of Statistical Mechanics.

I don't do parlor tricks, espeically when they serve no useful purpose. If you are curious, here is the formula. Ep = 1.24/wl eV

Right on! A photon is energy, not temperature.

And again, the second law states that energy won't spontaneously move from cool to warm. Are you going to tell me that photon radiation is not energy?

Nope, the second law states is concerned with NET energy. A single photon is energy, but it's not the net energy.

Once more, the second law speaks in absolute terms. It isn't a statistical phenomenon, it is a law of nature..

In the old days, yeah, but today that concept is outmoded. Like Newton's gravity is useful in many cases, but not in fundamental sense. Here is what you do not understand, that I have been trying to tell you long ago:

Encyclopedia Britannica:
The science of statistical mechanics derives bulk properties of systems from the mechanical properties of their molecular constituents, assuming molecular chaos and applying the laws of probability... Such reasoning, placed in mathematically precise form, is typical of statistical mechanics, which is capable of deriving the laws of thermodynamics but goes beyond them in describing fluctuations.

Climate science goes back to fundamental principles of the statistical mechanics of radiation flow, so you can't dismiss the statistics. If you want to reply, "Encyclopedia Britannica. chuckle," google the millions of other references to articles and books on the subject.

I didn't say that it shuns aiming at a hotter object, I said that it simply can't. Photons don't "think" about moving from warm towards cool any more than a golf ball "thinks" about which way it will go when it is struck. It moves in the direction the laws of physics demand. A photon can no more emit towards warm than a golf ball can decide to stick to the clubhead when struck.

You are making some progress, but you're not there yet.

Not at all and that silly statement is in reality, a statement of your own misunderstanding. Backradiation, and the so called greenhouse effect have nothing to do with objects in equilibrium so I am not going off on that tangent again. If you can't stick to backradiation and the so called greenhouse effect, then simply say so and move along.

You said the all the radiation cancels out. Still not true. How about non-equilibrium thermodynamics:
What if one light bulb were 100 watts and the other was 99. Would 99% of the radiation cancel out? This is an important concept you need to answer in how the radiation on the earth behaves.

 

[Lagboltz]

The IR emitted from a CO2 molecule can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule. IR emits from a CO2 moleucle in a wavelength that is invisible to other CO2 molecules.

http://www.biocab.org/NNS-Recycling_of_Heat_in_the_Atmosphere.pdf

The vibration caused by the absorption of IR takes some small bit of energy so the IR is emitted at a very slightly longer wavelength that at which it was absorbed.

You and the author of that article just proved that CO2 lasers don't work. The guts of a laser is very hot, yet it still allows CO2 to absorb and reemit it's resonant energy wavelength.

I looked at your reference, and it was quite amusing. The author gave no reference to why he thinks that CO2 radiation can't be reabsorbed. Like you, he made many errors in understanding. He thinks Statistical Mechanics is abnormal.

According to the author, {my comments are in brackets}

We do know that serious science makes a clear distinction between heat and internal energy. {good} However, we will not touch this abnormal definition {what? statistical mechanics is abnormal??!!} of heat from those erroneous diagrams1, 2 on the annual Earth’s energy budget. In addition to the wrong concept of heat {Not so! the diagram shows EM radiation, not heat!} that the authors let glimpse in their articles, the recycling of heat by the atmosphere does not and cannot occur in the real world. { IPCC doesnt show the frigging recycling of heat. What they show is the radiation! - photons.}

This is the reason by which the flow of power is always transferred.

Power is the flow of energy. "the flow of power" means the flow of the flow of power. He is just like Pale in not understanding units.

I wondered what kind of doofus would say things so contrary to science, and I got my answer. He is a biologist. He no doubt has had no coursework in statistical mechanics. But to his credit, he has written papers on mosquitoes, cows, fruit flies, swallows, trees, crops, landslides, etc, and also a few erroneous articles on the greenhouse effect.

 

[palerider]

You are several decades behind in physics. It used to be an empirical law, but it is a now a law derived from the field of Statistical Mechanics.

So then you can point to an observable, repeatable experiment proving the statement of the second law incorrect?

By the way, don't you find it odd that the effort to nullify the second law is about as old as climate science as a "science"?

Right on! A photon is energy, not temperature.

Refer to the second sentence:

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Nope, the second law states is concerned with NET energy. A single photon is energy, but it's not the net energy.

I don't see the word net in the second law. I don't see anything but statements that neither heat nor energy can flow from cool to warm without work having been done to achieve the transfer. If the second law is about net energy and statistical probababilities, then it wouldn't be a law would it? Again, can you show me a single observable, repeatable experiment that proves your claim?

In the old days, yeah, but today that concept is outmoded. Like Newton's gravity is useful in many cases, but not in fundamental sense. Here is what you do not understand, that I have been trying to tell you long ago:

So which observable, repeatable experiment proved the statement wrong and caused it to be moved to the outmoded file? The fact is, that if that is what you have been taught, then you got screwed by the institution that taught it to you.

Climate science goes back to fundamental principles of the statistical mechanics of radiation flow, so you can't dismiss the statistics. If you want to reply, "Encyclopedia Britannica. chuckle," google the millions of other references to articles and books on the subject.

The only thing that I could google to change my mind would be a link to an observable, repeatable experiment that proves the statement of the second law incorrect. Got one? If you don't then you really don't have anything at all, do you?

You are making some progress, but you're not there yet.

Fun to talk like that isn't it? The problem is that when you finally get there, I will already be there looking back at you.

You said the all the radiation cancels out. Still not true. How about non-equilibrium thermodynamics:
What if one light bulb were 100 watts and the other was 99. Would 99% of the radiation cancel out? This is an important concept you need to answer in how the radiation on the earth behaves.

I already answered that. The EM field radiated by the stronger bulb would be reduced by the magnitude of the weaker bulb and the resulting field would propagate from the direction of the stronger bulb.

 

[palerider]

You and the author of that article just proved that CO2 lasers don't work. The guts of a laser is very hot, yet it still allows CO2 to absorb and reemit it's resonant energy wavelength.

Really? CO2 absorbs IR at the 2.6, 4.3, and 14.77 band. A CO2 laser produces a beam of IR light primarily at 9.7 and 10.6, either of which are its absorption bands.

By the way, Nahle isn't the first to make the statment regarding the fact that one CO2 molecule can't absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule. Here, from he US Energy Information Administration:

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.”

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_a.html

I looked at your reference, and it was quite amusing. The author gave no reference to why he thinks that CO2 radiation can't be reabsorbed. Like you, he made many errors in understanding. He thinks Statistical Mechanics is abnormal.

Feel free to prove him wrong.

I wondered what kind of doofus would say things so contrary to science, and I got my answer. He is a biologist. He no doubt has had no coursework in statistical mechanics. But to his credit, he has written papers on mosquitoes, cows, fruit flies, swallows, trees, crops, landslides, etc, and also a few erroneous articles on the greenhouse effect.

Actually, he has degrees in biology, mathematics, and physics. As to his papers on the greenhouse effect, do feel free to prove him wrong there as well. Interesting that after all this, you would turn to as tired a logical fallacy as a circumstantial ad hominem.

 

[Lagboltz]

So then you can point to an observable, repeatable experiment proving the statement of the second law incorrect?

By the way, don't you find it odd that the effort to nullify the second law is about as old as climate science as a "science"?

What on earth are you talking about. I said the laws of thermodynamics are correct and was proved by Statistical Mechanics. The existence of proof should make everyone happy. Are you not happy?

Refer to the second sentence:

That is exactly what I did. Don't you understand your equation? It says that the energy of a photon is inversely proportional to the wavelength in energy units of electron volts. You posted the equation when I asked you what temperature a specific wavelength had achieved. And you give me an energy equation. Did you think that Ep stands for temperature? It's energy not temperature, like I was telling you all along. Glad you finally agree. Now we can become friends again.

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Yer preachin to the choir. But of course we are talking about total energy flow. Right?

I don't see the word net in the second law. I don't see anything but statements that neither heat nor energy can flow from cool to warm without work having been done to achieve the transfer.

What else would the law refer to but net or total energy. Statistical mechanics tells you the details of what all that means.

If the second law is about net energy and statistical probababilities, then it wouldn't be a law would it? Again, can you show me a single observable, repeatable experiment that proves your claim?

Au contraire, heat involves total chaos of molecules, and you can only handle chaos with statistics. The second law is about statistical probabilities. Statistical Mechanics is your friend. It's fundamental. Move to the modern world and embrace it. It tells you about all the details of what is involved in the 2nd law.

So which observable, repeatable experiment proved the statement wrong and caused it to be moved to the outmoded file? The fact is, that if that is what you have been taught, then you got screwed by the institution that taught it to you.

Don't be hasty; it's your particular understanding and usage that is outmoded. The second law thrives with new depth and understanding. Conservation of energy and momentum along with quantum electrodynamics (QED) are fundamental axioms of physics. Thermodynamics is no longer axiomatic because it can be proved from the other three axioms.
Your understanding of thermodynamics is like frolicking in the equation 2+2=4 as a god-given law when it isn't. It is a result of the axioms of number theory. It is derivable. The laws of thermodynamics are derivable from the other axioms of physics, and is no longer a god-given law.

The only thing that I could google to change my mind would be a link to an observable, repeatable experiment that proves the statement of the second law incorrect. Got one? If you don't then you really don't have anything at all, do you?

There ain't one according to statistical mechanics. Please read this carefully again:

Encyclopedia Britannica on Statistical Mechanics:
The science of statistical mechanics derives bulk properties of systems from the mechanical properties of their molecular constituents, assuming molecular chaos and applying the laws of probability... Such reasoning, placed in mathematically precise form, is typical of statistical mechanics, which is capable of deriving the laws of thermodynamics but goes beyond them in describing fluctuations.

A very clear and concise overview. Do you disagree with Statistical Mechanics.

I already answered that. The EM field radiated by the stronger bulb would be reduced by the magnitude of the weaker bulb and the resulting field would propagate from the direction of the stronger bulb.

All righty, show me a link to an observable, repeatable experiment that proves the statement that one field reduces the other. You simply can't. It violates the quantum mechanics of radiating atoms. Are you now denying quantum mechanics.

It is also intuitively ludicrous that the illumination between a light bulb at 100 watts and 99 watts has the luminous intensity reduced to 1%. Totally inane. Yet you persist on believing that. I see your strategy now. Your campaign on radiation cancellation is like Romney's guy, Neil Newhouse when he said, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers"

 

[Lagboltz]

By the way, Nahle isn't the first to make the statment regarding the fact that one CO2 molecule can't absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule. Here, from he US Energy Information Administration:

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.”

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_a.html

Pale, pale, when you give a quote and a link to it, the quote should be at that link. The quote is not at that link. Gimme the right link. So now you are saying there is no resonant scattering at all. What is the wavelength of this longer wavelength? Where do you think that radiation energy goes? A longer wavelength output means it doesn't loose all it's internal energy. Where does the external photon go? What happens to the excess internal energy. So many questions and so few answers.

Actually, he has degrees in biology, mathematics, and physics. As to his papers on the greenhouse effect, do feel free to prove him wrong there as well. Interesting that after all this, you would turn to as tired a logical fallacy as a circumstantial ad hominem.

I will see your cirumstantial ad hominem and raise you an argumentum ad verecundiam. What I got trumps what you got.

 

[palerider]

What on earth are you talking about. I said the laws of thermodynamics are correct and was proved by Statistical Mechanics. The existence of proof should make everyone happy. Are you not happy?

So acknowledge the fact that neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object? Or do you hold it as an article of faith based on a mathematical model that the net flow of energy is from warm to cold even though some energy flows from cold to warm?

That is exactly what I did. Don't you understand your equation? It says that the energy of a photon is inversely proportional to the wavelength in energy units of electron volts. You posted the equation when I asked you what temperature a specific wavelength had achieved. And you give me an energy equation. Did you think that Ep stands for temperature? It's energy not temperature, like I was telling you all along. Glad you finally agree. Now we can become friends again.

Pehaps you actually did refer to the second sentence. To bad you didn't read it for comprehension. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. A photon is a unit of energy and enegy won't flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. Again, do you accept that statement or do you take, as an article of faith, based on a mathematical model, that while it is true for net flows, it is not true in the absolute sense that it is stated?

Yer preachin to the choir. But of course we are talking about total energy flow. Right?

That statement doesn't hedge its bets by even mentioning total energy flow. The statement is an absolute statement. No mention of gross, net, etc. The phrase "will not" doesn't contain any wiggle room. So once more, do you accept that energy WILL NOT flow from a cool object to a warm object or do you take it as an article of faith based on a mathematical model that some energy can flow from a cool object to a warm object?

What else would the law refer to but net or total energy. Statistical mechanics tells you the details of what all that means.

The law doesn't mention net or total energy. The law states that energy will not flow from cool to warm. Will not doesn't mean some will move from cool to warm but most will move from warm to cool. You are right that statistical mechanics "tells me" something. The problem is that it doesn't show me anything or prove anything at all. It is a mathematical model. Like the mathematical models upon which climate science is dependent to the point that their output is taken as fact and presented as evidence even though observational evidence even though it is often in direct conflict with that so called evidence.

Au contraire, heat involves total chaos of molecules, and you can only handle chaos with statistics. The second law is about statistical probabilities. Statistical Mechanics is your friend. It's fundamental. Move to the modern world and embrace it. It tells you about all the details of what is involved in the 2nd law.

You can't handle chaos at all. Belief that you can is called mental masturbation. The second law is about heat transfer, not statistical probabilities, and mathematical models are not my friend. They serve a purpose but are no more reliable than the builder of the model and a model that says a thing that can't be verified is the next thing to useless.

As to embracing the modern world, no thanks. Post modern science is a sad, pitiful, inadequate substitute for actual science as so eloquently demonstrated by climate pseudoscience.

Don't be hasty; it's your particular understanding and usage that is outmoded.

Outmoded. Interesting word, especially when used by someone trying to convince me of a thing when there exists not a shred of actual physical evidence to support that thing. Hold your faith if you like, but don't expect me to buy into it with you.

The second law thrives with new depth and understanding.

Understanding based on mathematical models that are not proveable? What sort of understanding is that exactly?

Thermodynamics is no longer axiomatic because it can be proved from the other three axioms.

Proof by postulate? Assumption of truth without the bother of actual evidence? Like I said, post modern science is a sad, pitiful, inadquate substitute for actual science.

There ain't one according to statistical mechanics.

I didn't think so.

A very clear and concise overview. Do you disagree with Statistical Mechanics.

In two words, yes and no. Mathematical models are great if they can be tested and used as a basis for actual experimentation to derive whether they are in fact true or not. Faith in a mathematical model alone, is misplaced.

All righty, show me a link to an observable, repeatable experiment that proves the statement that one field reduces the other. You simply can't. It violates the quantum mechanics of radiating atoms. Are you now denying quantum mechanics.

Every television tower, radio tower, mocrowave dish, etc, is an observable repeatable experiment proving that one field can reduce another. Why do you suppose such effort goes into their placement?

 

[palerider]

Pale, pale, when you give a quote and a link to it, the quote should be at that link. The quote is not at that link.

Actually, it is the link. I have had it archived on my favorites list for several years. Imagine my surprise to click on the link and find that not only the quote, but the entire FAQ has been removed. Wonder why? I tried the way back machine but the page isn't archived.

So now you are saying there is no resonant scattering at all.

There is scattering. The IR absorbed by a CO2 molecule doesn't necessarily exit in the same direction as it entered. There is no absorption of that emission by CO2 molecules resulting in the IR then moving in a different direction

What is the wavelength of this longer wavelength?

Guess you didn't even bother to read the paper. He gave precise frequencies as well as the method by which they were derived. For example IR absorbed by the CO2 molecule in the 4.30 μm wavelength is emitted at a wavelength of 4.31 μm. Very slightly longer, but enough to render it invisible to the next CO2 molecule. IR in the

Where do you think that radiation energy goes?

It goes to the only place it can go. It goes where the second law of thermodynamics says that it must go. It can not spontaneously move towards a warmer object (the earth) so it goes towards cooler climes wherever they may be.

A longer wavelength output means it doesn't loose all it's internal energy.

Of course not. A longer wavelength only means that it can't be reabsorbed by another CO2 molecule and have its exit to the upper atmosphere and space delayed thus causing some warming.

Where does the external photon go?

A photon is energy. Energy can't move spontaneously from cool objects towards warmer objects so it goes in the only direction it can....towards a cooler object.

What happens to the excess internal energy.

What excess interenal energy? A very small amount is lost causing the vibration within the CO2 molecule which results in the slight shift to a longer wavelength of the emission. All of the energy is accounted for.

I will see your cirumstantial ad hominem and raise you an argumentum ad verecundiam.

Except that I didn't make any such argument based on who he is. His work is either correct or it isn't and that is as far as my argument ever went. Ergo the challenge to prove him wrong.

What I got trumps what you got.

Well the challenge to prove him wrong is still laying on the table untouched by you. He shows his work in the paper. Where is he in error?

 

[Lagboltz]

Most of your post continues on with the Classical Thermodynamics idea that energy will not spontaneously flow from cold to hot and that has been covered before. Otherwise there are a few things I want to point out.

The following are excerpts on your position on Statistical Mechanics (AKA Statistical Thermodynamics)

... it doesn't show me anything or prove anything at all. It is a mathematical model.

The second law is about heat transfer, not statistical probabilities, and mathematical models are not my friend. They serve a purpose but are no more reliable than the builder of the model and a model that says a thing that can't be verified is the next thing to useless.

As to embracing the modern world, no thanks. Post modern science is a sad, pitiful, inadequate substitute for actual science ...

Understanding based on mathematical models that are not proveable? What sort of understanding is that exactly?

Proof by postulate? Assumption of truth without the bother of actual evidence? Like I said, post modern science is a sad, pitiful, inadquate substitute for actual science.

You disparage models, but in all the above, you are thinking in terms of a model of Classical Thermodynamics. Here is a reference to give you an idea of what that means:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/120309/classical-thermodynamics
"classical thermodynamics
This article covers classical thermodynamics, which does not involve the consideration of individual atoms or molecules..."

Classical Thermodynamics is a great model for understanding or designing car engines or refrigerators.

Classical Thermodynamics is an inadequate model for many computations. For example,

1. Classical Thermodynamics can't compute the specific heat in an ideal gas.
(http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node52.html)

2. Classical Thermodynamics can't compute why the specific heat in solids decreases at increasingly low temperatures.

3. Classical Thermodynamics could not predict the existence and properties of Bose-Einstein condensates, and properties of Fermi-Dirac gasses.

4. Classical Thermodynamics totally fails and creates an ultraviolet catastrophe in trying to compute the properties in thermal radiation physics. The computation leads to an infinite amount of energy being radiated. In short, classical physics completely predicts the utter failure of the second law of thermodynamics for radiation physics.

Statistical Mechanics can compute all the above properties, and what's more it can salvage the catastrophe of the second law in radiative Classical Thermodynamics.

There are many other examples than 1 - 4, where Statistical Mechanics explains known experiments and reveals new properties that are confirmed by new experiments. That is a sign of a good model.

Similarly, Classical Mechanics (ala Newton) is great and accurate for computing orbits to the moon.

But Classical Mechanics fails at the precise orbit of Mercury. A GPS systems would be very inaccurate by orders of magnitude without using General Relativity in the design.

Thermodynamics and Mechanics were undergoing a new revolution in explaining old phenomena and predicting phenomena that otherwise had no explanation and you call that "post modern".

You choose to stick with the classical science of early last century in thermodynamics. If you want to do that, you cannot use it to analyze radiation physics because the concept of backscattering does not lie within the realm of Classical Thermodynamics. Remember that it predicts infinite radiation.

Twice you say, "Post modern science is a sad, pitiful, inadequate substitute for actual science. Look, I did not invent Statistical Mechanics. I'm only the messenger here. When you mockingly disparage me, you are actually disparaging Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Wilhelm Wien, and other Nobel Prize winners. That kind of ego is a sad, pitiful, inadequate substitute for actual science.

Mathematical models are great if they can be tested and used as a basis for actual experimentation to derive whether they are in fact true or not.

That is exactly what I showed in my examples 1 - 4.

Every television tower, radio tower, mocrowave dish, etc, is an observable repeatable experiment proving that one field can reduce another. Why do you suppose such effort goes into their placement?

You are giving examples of coherent radiation and trying to apply it to incoherent thermal radiation. We went through all that before. It does not prove anything about black body incoherent radiation. Incoherent radiation simply isn't related to antennae theory.

I have asked time and again about the illumination between light bulbs. You imply a light bulb at 100 watts and 99 watts has the luminous intensity reduced to 1% between bulbs. A lack of explanation kills any argument you have about trying to explain radiation in terms of Classical Thermodynamics.

Are you afraid to address that question on incoherent radiation? It is absolutely crucial, if you want to support your argument.

 

[Lagboltz]

Actually, it is the link. I have had it archived on my favorites list for several years. Imagine my surprise to click on the link and find that not only the quote, but the entire FAQ has been removed. Wonder why? I tried the way back machine but the page isn't archived.

So you are left with only one reference by a biologist who published in a blog. Why isn't that remarkable discovery at other sites?

Where is he in error?

I only glanced at his paper. I am not interested in any details because it's a moot point since he agrees that CO2 strongly absorbs certain bands of IR radiation.

I would presume he still considers it blocked at the top of the atmosphere like everyone else does. But if there is no resonant absorption and reemission, then the only things that can happen with CO2 are (1) the energy eventually turns to heat, (2) the energy reradiates IR, and (3) some of each.

At the bottom of the atmosphere, when IR radiates from the earth and hits the nearby CO2, item (1) will cause surface temperature warming. Item (2) will exhibit some backscatter to earth and thereby cause a shielding of earth mantel energy escaping at that IR bandwidth. Item (3) will cause both.

In any case the CO2 causes a warming, or prevents a cooling.