Descending Infrared Radiation

Into the Night wrote:
The cold air is already on Earth.
So is hot air.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I guess it is a good thing to not allow "oversimplified textbook explanations" to make us blind to the greater and far more important "truth" of the universe.

According to all those oversimplified textbooks.. for starters, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the conclusion that the Earth's atmosphere is enclosed within an airtight seal made of glass.

So, if you want to arrive at the COMPLETE "objective reality", you have to ignore all those oversimplified textbooks that insist the Earth is about 4,600 million years old in a universe that has been around roughly 13,000 million years since the most recent "Big Bang".

The textbooks got it all wrong about almost everything, didn't they?

Suggesting that CO2 has some kind of greenhouse gas properties without even accounting for the impact of its weight against the glass ceiling on the atmosphere... Suggesting that petroleum formed mainly from photosynthetic organisms that lived hundreds of millions of years ago... Suggesting that chemistry and physics have anything of value to teach us.

Perhaps it is attractive to post in a forum where anyone can assert anything, with no expectation of providing support for the claim based ib anything published in the public domain.

You can have your own personal, private, and SECRET definitions for scientific terms, such as "chemical" or "science" itself.

Kind of cool to be among the handful in the whole world who know the REAL definitions for these terms that everyone else uses incorrectly.

Just for fun, consider terms such as "radiant energy" "thermal energy".. remembering that "energy" isn't just a matter of opinion. How many GigaJoules of radiant energy arrive to the top of the Earth's atmosphere every day? What percent of that radiant energy falls within the visible light spectrum?

No, it it much more fun to go back to Fabricated Feces Fallacies.

Just make shit up to support the other shit you made up.

Anyone who disagrees is just a COMMUNIST, scientifically-illiterate moron, so gullible that they came here to preach a WACKY religion...

Magic petroleum and a glass ceiling above the Earth sound like WACKY religious cult material to me.

Ya might wanna ask yourself, What causes all that cold air to fall upon Earth?

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, what causes all that cold air to fall upon Earth?

Well, first I would invoke gravity.

Then, I would more specifically invoke specific gravity.

Gravity is the force that pulls the cold air toward Earth's center of gravity.

Im a BM wrote:
Specific gravity is the property that makes cold air more dense than warm air.

Im a BM wrote:
Specific gravity, also known as "density", is the property that makes the cold air sink below the warm air, or makes the warm air float above the cold air.

[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Pure water has specific gravity of 1 gram per cubic centimeter, at sea level and room temperature. Salt water or water with any dense solutes has specific gravity greater than 1 g/cc and it sinks below pure water at the same temperature and pressure.

Was it considered to be some kind of mystery what makes cold air fall to Earth?

Im a BM wrote:
Unless that cold air is comprised of helium or hydrogen, it's not just going to escape the atmosphere and float off into outer space.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The cold air is already on Earth.
So is hot air.

While it may be technically true, the Sky is part of the Earth, they are polar opposites when it comes to their thermal energy signatures.

Spongy Iris wrote:While it may be technically true, the Sky is part of the Earth, they are polar opposites when it comes to their thermal energy signatures.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:While it may be technically true, the Sky is part of the Earth, they are polar opposites when it comes to their thermal energy signatures.

Too funny! This made me laugh. There is no such thing as a thermal energy signature, except maybe something's "temperature" which would still be a proxy.

Thank you for that.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I guess it is a good thing to not allow "oversimplified textbook explanations" to make us blind to the greater and far more important "truth" of the universe.

According to all those oversimplified textbooks.. for starters, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the conclusion that the Earth's atmosphere is enclosed within an airtight seal made of glass.

So, if you want to arrive at the COMPLETE "objective reality", you have to ignore all those oversimplified textbooks that insist the Earth is about 4,600 million years old in a universe that has been around roughly 13,000 million years since the most recent "Big Bang".

The textbooks got it all wrong about almost everything, didn't they?

Suggesting that CO2 has some kind of greenhouse gas properties without even accounting for the impact of its weight against the glass ceiling on the atmosphere... Suggesting that petroleum formed mainly from photosynthetic organisms that lived hundreds of millions of years ago... Suggesting that chemistry and physics have anything of value to teach us.

Perhaps it is attractive to post in a forum where anyone can assert anything, with no expectation of providing support for the claim based ib anything published in the public domain.

You can have your own personal, private, and SECRET definitions for scientific terms, such as "chemical" or "science" itself.

Kind of cool to be among the handful in the whole world who know the REAL definitions for these terms that everyone else uses incorrectly.

Just for fun, consider terms such as "radiant energy" "thermal energy".. remembering that "energy" isn't just a matter of opinion. How many GigaJoules of radiant energy arrive to the top of the Earth's atmosphere every day? What percent of that radiant energy falls within the visible light spectrum?

No, it it much more fun to go back to Fabricated Feces Fallacies.

Just make shit up to support the other shit you made up.

Anyone who disagrees is just a COMMUNIST, scientifically-illiterate moron, so gullible that they came here to preach a WACKY religion...

Magic petroleum and a glass ceiling above the Earth sound like WACKY religious cult material to me.

Ya might wanna ask yourself, What causes all that cold air to fall upon Earth?

Yes, what causes all that cold air to fall upon Earth?

Well, first I would invoke gravity.

Then, I would more specifically invoke specific gravity.

Gravity is the force that pulls the cold air toward Earth's center of gravity.

Specific gravity is the property that makes cold air more dense than warm air.

Specific gravity, also known as "density", is the property that makes the cold air sink below the warm air, or makes the warm air float above the cold air.

Pure water has specific gravity of 1 gram per cubic centimeter, at sea level and room temperature. Salt water or water with any dense solutes has specific gravity greater than 1 g/cc and it sinks below pure water at the same temperature and pressure.

Was it considered to be some kind of mystery what makes cold air fall to Earth?

Unless that cold air is comprised of helium or hydrogen, it's not just going to escape the atmosphere and float off into outer space.

To give you concrete numbers rather than just concepts, scientists tracking the U.S. Standard Atmosphere note that at a mid-latitude location (like the US or Europe), the air density at 7 miles high fluctuates by about 10% to 15% between the peak of summer and the dead of winter. So, if the global average baseline is 26% of surface oxygen, it might rise to around 28% in July and dip to around 24% in January.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I guess it is a good thing to not allow "oversimplified textbook explanations" to make us blind to the greater and far more important "truth" of the universe.

According to all those oversimplified textbooks.. for starters, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the conclusion that the Earth's atmosphere is enclosed within an airtight seal made of glass.

So, if you want to arrive at the COMPLETE "objective reality", you have to ignore all those oversimplified textbooks that insist the Earth is about 4,600 million years old in a universe that has been around roughly 13,000 million years since the most recent "Big Bang".

The textbooks got it all wrong about almost everything, didn't they?

Suggesting that CO2 has some kind of greenhouse gas properties without even accounting for the impact of its weight against the glass ceiling on the atmosphere... Suggesting that petroleum formed mainly from photosynthetic organisms that lived hundreds of millions of years ago... Suggesting that chemistry and physics have anything of value to teach us.

Perhaps it is attractive to post in a forum where anyone can assert anything, with no expectation of providing support for the claim based ib anything published in the public domain.

You can have your own personal, private, and SECRET definitions for scientific terms, such as "chemical" or "science" itself.

Kind of cool to be among the handful in the whole world who know the REAL definitions for these terms that everyone else uses incorrectly.

Just for fun, consider terms such as "radiant energy" "thermal energy".. remembering that "energy" isn't just a matter of opinion. How many GigaJoules of radiant energy arrive to the top of the Earth's atmosphere every day? What percent of that radiant energy falls within the visible light spectrum?

No, it it much more fun to go back to Fabricated Feces Fallacies.

Just make shit up to support the other shit you made up.

Anyone who disagrees is just a COMMUNIST, scientifically-illiterate moron, so gullible that they came here to preach a WACKY religion...

Magic petroleum and a glass ceiling above the Earth sound like WACKY religious cult material to me.

Ya might wanna ask yourself, What causes all that cold air to fall upon Earth?

Yes, what causes all that cold air to fall upon Earth?

Well, first I would invoke gravity.

Then, I would more specifically invoke specific gravity.

Gravity is the force that pulls the cold air toward Earth's center of gravity.

Specific gravity is the property that makes cold air more dense than warm air.

Specific gravity, also known as "density", is the property that makes the cold air sink below the warm air, or makes the warm air float above the cold air.

Pure water has specific gravity of 1 gram per cubic centimeter, at sea level and room temperature. Salt water or water with any dense solutes has specific gravity greater than 1 g/cc and it sinks below pure water at the same temperature and pressure.

Was it considered to be some kind of mystery what makes cold air fall to Earth?

Unless that cold air is comprised of helium or hydrogen, it's not just going to escape the atmosphere and float off into outer space.

There is way less cold air above than there is hot air on the ground.

To provide an idea of how substantially the cold air from above moves up and down, say hello to my friend Google Gemini.

To give you concrete numbers rather than just concepts, scientists tracking the U.S. Standard Atmosphere note that at a mid-latitude location (like the US or Europe), the air density at 7 miles high fluctuates by about 10% to 15% between the peak of summer and the dead of winter. So, if the global average baseline is 26% of surface oxygen, it might rise to around 28% in July and dip to around 24% in January.

This does not seem like a very extreme fluctuation to me. What do you think?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

There is way less cold air above than there is hot air on the ground.

To provide an idea of how substantially the cold air from above moves up and down, say hello to my friend Google Gemini.

To give you concrete numbers rather than just concepts, scientists tracking the U.S. Standard Atmosphere note that at a mid-latitude location (like the US or Europe), the air density at 7 miles high fluctuates by about 10% to 15% between the peak of summer and the dead of winter. So, if the global average baseline is 26% of surface oxygen, it might rise to around 28% in July and dip to around 24% in January.

This does not seem like a very extreme fluctuation to me. What do you think?

Perhaps it would be possible to make a "teachable moment" of this if I had any idea what Gemini means by "..average baseline is 26% of surface oxygen..".

It certainly doesn't means that oxygen is 26% of the air at the surface.

I could Google to see if total air pressure at 7 miles high is about 1/4 as much as air pressure at the surface... Yes, it is. 0.21 atm at that elevation.

Now, the question that has been fruitlessly discussed in multiple forums of this website before...

Is the composition (not pressure) significantly different at different altitude?

Do heavy gases sink enough below lighter gases to not be evenly mixed?

You can certainly accomplish that in a centrifuge and drive the heaviest gas molecules all to one end. But that takes very high velocity spinning.

We know that the lightest gases, hydrogen (H2) and helium (He) are light enough to float all the way to the top and escape the atmosphere into outer space. But we also know that mercury vapor, a VERY heavy gas, can be found miles high in the atmosphere. Rotating just once every 24 hours doesn't make the Earth a very good centrifuge to be driving mercury atoms to higher altitude.

Perhaps rather than try to figure out what Gemini was talking about, maybe we should take it back to the basics of what makes "heat" go up or down.

"Heat" can be transferred via a photon of infrared radiation - radiative transfer.

Radiant heat doesn't care about gravity or density or even temperature differences. When an excited gas molecule emits a photon of infrared radiation, that photon flies off in a RANDOM direction. It can go from hot to cold or from cold to hot. It doesn't care. It can go to where the air is more dense or to where it is less dense. Its trajectory couldn't care less. If that photon gets shot off toward outer space, it sends that "heat" away from Earth. If that photon's trajectory is toward the Earth's surface, it is Descending Infrared Radiation.

"Heat" can also me transferred via CONDUCTION. An excited gas molecule can simply slam into a neighbor and transfer heat directly to it. Conduction is more discriminate than radiation. Conduction will preferentially transfer heat where the hot-to-cold gradient is steepest. Put your tongue on that metal flag pole in the winter, and the heat will be conducted more off your tongue into the metal than off the tip of your tongue back down where it is warmer. Unlike radiation, conduction cannot go from cold to hot. Molecular vibration can't increase into a zone that is already hotter. It is always a one-way exchange.

NOW, what Gemini was probably referring to was the THIRD mechanism of heat transfer. CONVECTION. In the case of convection, the excited molecules don't send their heat somewhere else, they carry it with them in mass flow. Because the warmer fluid is less dense than colder fluid of the same composition, it creates CONVECTION and floats up in mass flow. It is those CONVECTION currents that account for most heat transfer within most fluids. They don't move the heat by shooting off infrared photons (radiation) or whacking into their
neighbors really hard (conduction). They move the heat by changing their location, carrying that heat with them in mass flow in a convection current.

Trolls usually botch "energy" terms, so don't get too hung up on trying to please them with proper use of the word "thermal".

Radiant energy can be infrared, but it includes many other wavelengths. Some radiant energy starts off as "heat" (i.e. infrared radiation). Other radiant energy doesn't create "heat" until it is absorbed by a dark surface (i.e. visible light).

As GasGuzzler used to love to tell new members, "You don't even know what 'heat' is."

Actually, you don't really need to know what "heat" is to understand what "heat" does.

Even though the air gets rapidly thinner (fewer total molecules), the chemical recipe—roughly 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon—stays exactly the same from the ground all the way up to about 60 miles (100 km) high

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Perhaps it would be possible to make a "teachable moment" of this if I had any idea what Gemini means by "..average baseline is 26% of surface oxygen..".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
It certainly doesn't means that oxygen is 26% of the air at the surface.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Now, the question that has been fruitlessly discussed in multiple forums of this website before...

Is the composition (not pressure) significantly different at different altitude?

Do heavy gases sink enough below lighter gases to not be evenly mixed?

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
You can certainly accomplish that in a centrifuge and drive the heaviest gas molecules all to one end. But that takes very high velocity spinning.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
We know that the lightest gases, hydrogen (H2) and helium (He) are light enough to float all the way to the top and escape the atmosphere into outer space. But we also know that mercury vapor, a VERY heavy gas, can be found miles high in the atmosphere. Rotating just once every 24 hours doesn't make the Earth a very good centrifuge to be driving mercury atoms to higher altitude.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Perhaps rather than try to figure out what Gemini was talking about, maybe we should take it back to the basics of what makes "heat" go up or down.

"Heat" can be transferred via a photon of infrared radiation - radiative transfer.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Radiant heat doesn't care about gravity or density or even temperature differences. When an excited gas molecule emits a photon of infrared radiation, that photon flies off in a RANDOM direction. It can go from hot to cold or from cold to hot. It doesn't care. It can go to where the air is more dense or to where it is less dense. Its trajectory couldn't care less. If that photon gets shot off toward outer space, it sends that "heat" away from Earth. If that photon's trajectory is toward the Earth's surface, it is Descending Infrared Radiation.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
"Heat" can also me transferred via CONDUCTION. An excited gas molecule can simply slam into a neighbor and transfer heat directly to it. Conduction is more discriminate than radiation. Conduction will preferentially transfer heat where the hot-to-cold gradient is steepest. Put your tongue on that metal flag pole in the winter, and the heat will be conducted more off your tongue into the metal than off the tip of your tongue back down where it is warmer. Unlike radiation, conduction cannot go from cold to hot. Molecular vibration can't increase into a zone that is already hotter. It is always a one-way exchange.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
NOW, what Gemini was probably referring to was the THIRD mechanism of heat transfer. CONVECTION. In the case of convection, the excited molecules don't send their heat somewhere else, they carry it with them in mass flow. Because the warmer fluid is less dense than colder fluid of the same composition, it creates CONVECTION and floats up in mass flow. It is those CONVECTION currents that account for most heat transfer within most fluids. They don't move the heat by shooting off infrared photons (radiation) or whacking into their neighbors really hard (conduction). They move the heat by changing their location, carrying that heat with them in mass flow in a convection current.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Trolls usually botch "energy" terms, so don't get too hung up on trying to please them with proper use of the word "thermal".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Radiant energy can be infrared, but it includes many other wavelengths. Some radiant energy starts off as "heat" (i.e. infrared radiation). Other radiant energy doesn't create "heat" until it is absorbed by a dark surface (i.e. visible light).

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
As GasGuzzler used to love to tell new members, "You don't even know what 'heat' is."

Actually, you don't really need to know what "heat" is to understand what "heat" does.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Evaporation loss from the ground is too slow to explain overnight radiation fog.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Heat loss from the ground is too slow to explain rapid overnight cooling. Also, because the air is colder than the ground at that time of year, that makes it even less plausible.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And convection and conduction transfer from cold air above to below is also not plausible, as a dominant explanation, because of the extreme difference in air quantities (little air above, lots of air below).

Spongy Iris wrote:
So that leaves the headline topic as the most plausible explanation IMO. Cold Descending Infrared Radiation.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I suppose it is technically correct, to address the remarks of ITN and IBdM, to say the cold descending IR does transfer thermal energy.

Into the Night wrote:

Warm moisture rising from the ground into cold air condenses and forms clouds and fog.

Into the Night wrote:
Colder air sinks. Warmer air rises. This is due to density differences. This is convection.
All storms are caused by convection. That is why the weather service calls them 'convective activity'.

Convection also occurs in the ocean.
The ocean also has 'weather' because of it. Tornado like currents, warm currents on top and cold currents at depth.

Into the Night wrote:
Electromagnetic energy has no temperature. It is neither 'hot' nor 'cold'.

Electromagnetic energy is thermal energy.
Electromagnetic energy has no temperature. It is neither 'hot' nor 'cold.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Warm moisture rising from the ground into cold air condenses and forms clouds and fog.

Again, there is not enough evaporation on a cold night, in the example shown of radiation fog.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The point is a radiating object has a temperature: as long as it is above absolute zero temperature it will emit infrared radiation, thus emitting some of its thermal energy.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Warm moisture rising from the ground into cold air condenses and forms clouds and fog.

Again, there is not enough evaporation on a cold night, in the example shown of radiation fog.

Oh? How are you measuring this?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Warm moisture rising from the ground into cold air condenses and forms clouds and fog.

Again, there is not enough evaporation on a cold night, in the example shown of radiation fog.

Oh? How are you measuring this?

Again, imagine putting a glass of tap water into the fridge upon the Sun setting. How much water would evaporate overnight from the glass? Less than 1%.

Spongy Iris wrote:
This is reasonably comparable to the overnight temperatures when I took the pic of radiation fog upon sunrise.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It may even be an exaggerated estimate for evaporation comparison because the fridge is dryer than the outdoor air where I took that pic.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Warm moisture rising from the ground into cold air condenses and forms clouds and fog.

Again, there is not enough evaporation on a cold night, in the example shown of radiation fog.

Oh? How are you measuring this?

Again, imagine putting a glass of tap water into the fridge upon the Sun setting. How much water would evaporate overnight from the glass? Less than 1%.

The land is not a refrigerator. nor a glass of water.
A swamp, lake, or river is considerably larger than a glass of water.
So you haven't measured it. You are just making up a number.
Fog requires moisture.

Spongy Iris wrote:
This is reasonably comparable to the overnight temperatures when I took the pic of radiation fog upon sunrise.

No, it's a false equilvalence.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It may even be an exaggerated estimate for evaporation comparison because the fridge is dryer than the outdoor air where I took that pic.

It isn't. A refrigerator is a sealed box. Most are combination units, with the main condensing coils in the freezer, and then a vent connects the freezer to the refrigerator section.

Freezers develop ice on the surface. That is from the moisture in the unit.
The refrigerator develops dew on it's surface. That is also from moisture in the unit.

Fog doesn't form from the glass of water because the glass of water is being chilled to the same temperature as the rest of the refrigerator. The land holds its thermal energy quite well, compared to the air (or to a glass of water in a refrigerator).

It doesn't take a lot of moisture to make fog, even some really thick fog.
But it does take warm moisture from the ground being cooled by air above it.

Dew, frost, fog, clouds, rain, and even tornadoes and hurricanes all form from warm moisture from the surface rising into cooler air and condensing out to liquid water (and possibly ice).

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
As I read the short-sentence, authoritative declarations, never citing any source other than "the theories themselves"...

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Does Into the Night really believe he is "a chemist, a scientist, or an 'expert' of any kind"?

Obviously, he is not a chemist, a scientist, or an "expert" of any kind.

That's okay. Most people are not.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
But this particular punk insists on disrespecting those who can legitimately claim to be chemists, scientists, or "experts" of some kind.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Absurd false accusations and personal attacks.. "You are a liar." "You have never set foot in a laboratory." "You have never taught science at a college." "The idiots who cite your work aren't really scientists." "You deny science." "You are ignoring the laws of thermodynamics." "You don't even know what science is." "You think science is buzzwords."

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Maybe Into the Night should learn what at least a few of those meaningless buzzwords are understood to mean by actual scientists, so INT could compose something that might plausibly appear to have been written by a competent and credible scientist.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
I have never heard an actual scientist respond to any inquiry with "RQAA".

Heck, they are even willing to answer the same question TWICE, if needed.

Please don't LIE and pretend that somewhere in your 24,000 posts you already answered this question, because you did NOT.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
As a "chemist", what is the definition you use for the term "chemical"?

If you again REFUSE to clarify this, would you PLEASE stop wasting so much forum space with the assertions that something "..is not a chemical."

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
In the absence of any revisionist DEFINITION for the term "chemical", this statement about the unique CHEMICAL known as "urea" is just absurd.

Into the Night wrote:

It doesn't take a lot of moisture to make fog, even some really thick fog.
But it does take warm moisture from the ground being cooled by air above it.

Dew, frost, fog, clouds, rain, and even tornadoes and hurricanes all form from warm moisture from the surface rising into cooler air and condensing out to liquid water (and possibly ice).

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It doesn't take a lot of moisture to make fog, even some really thick fog.
But it does take warm moisture from the ground being cooled by air above it.

Dew, frost, fog, clouds, rain, and even tornadoes and hurricanes all form from warm moisture from the surface rising into cooler air and condensing out to liquid water (and possibly ice).

You keep leaving out the top half of the reaction.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Again, overnight, the moisture at the ground is hardly rising.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It is mostly just lingering.

Spongy Iris wrote:
At this time the cold air from above dominates, and the fog reaction is caused more by cold air falling.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

It doesn't take a lot of moisture to make fog, even some really thick fog.
But it does take warm moisture from the ground being cooled by air above it.

Dew, frost, fog, clouds, rain, and even tornadoes and hurricanes all form from warm moisture from the surface rising into cooler air and condensing out to liquid water (and possibly ice).

You keep leaving out the top half of the reaction.

Not a reaction. I am not leaving out anything.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Again, overnight, the moisture at the ground is hardly rising.

It is, because warm moisture is going to rise, just like warm air.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It is mostly just lingering.

Nope. It is rising.

Spongy Iris wrote:
At this time the cold air from above dominates, and the fog reaction is caused more by cold air falling.

This causes a high pressure area, usually free of clouds and fog.

Take some time to learn about convection.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
But this particular punk insists on disrespecting those who can legitimately claim to be chemists, scientists, or "experts" of some kind.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Absurd false accusations and personal attacks.. "You are a liar." "You have never set foot in a laboratory." "You have never taught science at a college." "The idiots who cite your work aren't really scientists." "You deny science." "You are ignoring the laws of thermodynamics." "You don't even know what science is." "You think science is buzzwords."

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Maybe Into the Night should learn what at least a few of those meaningless buzzwords are understood to mean by actual scientists, so INT could compose something that might plausibly appear to have been written by a competent and credible scientist.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
I have never heard an actual scientist respond to any inquiry with "RQAA".

Heck, they are even willing to answer the same question TWICE, if needed.

Please don't LIE and pretend that somewhere in your 24,000 posts you already answered this question, because you did NOT.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
As a "chemist", what is the definition you use for the term "chemical"?

If you again REFUSE to clarify this, would you PLEASE stop wasting so much forum space with the assertions that something "..is not a chemical."

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
In the absence of any revisionist DEFINITION for the term "chemical", this statement about the unique CHEMICAL known as "urea" is just absurd.

Spongy Iris wrote:THE SUN DOES NOT EMIT INFRARED RADIATION.

Spongy Iris wrote:Relative to the Sky, the Sun is a tiny dot. It is simply not big enough to spread infrared radiation all over Earth.

Spongy Iris wrote: It is a basic logical fallacy to assume such a tiny dot could transfer that amount of heat.

Spongy Iris wrote:It seems the radiation the Sun emits is UltraViolet, a much higher frequency, though not the kind of frequency that transfers heat.

Spongy Iris wrote:When this hyper focused laser hits Earth

IBdaMann wrote:
From whence doth the infrared come that we observe that cometh from the sun?

If you direct an infrared detector at the sun, infrared certainly registers. Why?

IBdaMann wrote:
If you were to consider that the "tiny dot" you see is nonetheless 93 million miles away, wouldn't you conclude that it must be tremendously huge?

I have great news for you. Heat is not transferred from the sun to the earth! Thermal energy is what is transferred from the sun to the earth.

IBdaMann wrote:
Do you believe that plants actually live? Do you accept that plants exist through photosynthesis? Is it a logical fallacy to assume that such a tiny dot provides the sunlight necessary to keep all the global plantlife alive?

IBdaMann wrote:
Do you accept black body science and Wein's Law? The sun radiates intensely on both sides of 500nm wavelength, which covers both infrared and ultraviolet.

Wouldn't it be worth your time to learn what a laser is first? A hyper-focused laser that could generate that much temperature and cause that much radiance per Stefan-Boltzmann would, in fact, vaporize the planet. It would first cause a massive volcano at its point of incidence as it vaporized a major hole down into the magma of the mantle.

Spongy Iris wrote: That is the IR created when the Sun hits the cold Sky.

Spongy Iris wrote: The Sun has no thermal energy of its own.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Do you believe that plants actually live? Do you accept that plants exist through photosynthesis? Is it a logical fallacy to assume that such a tiny dot provides the sunlight necessary to keep all the global plantlife alive?

This is a different topic of Visible Light.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Do you accept black body science and Wein's Law? The sun radiates intensely on both sides of 500nm wavelength, which covers both infrared and ultraviolet.

Wouldn't it be worth your time to learn what a laser is first? A hyper-focused laser that could generate that much temperature and cause that much radiance per Stefan-Boltzmann would, in fact, vaporize the planet. It would first cause a massive volcano at its point of incidence as it vaporized a major hole down into the magma of the mantle.

Again, the IR is coming from the Sky.

The Sun would vaporize the Earth, were it not for the cold thick glass Sky to block most of its UV rays. That is one of the main points of the climate debate.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:When this hyper focused laser hits Earth

Wouldn't it be worth your time to learn what a laser is first? A hyper-focused laser that could generate that much temperature and cause that much radiance per Stefan-Boltzmann would, in fact, vaporize the planet. It would first cause a massive volcano at its point of incidence as it vaporized a major hole down into the magma of the mantle.

IBdaMann wrote:
The sun never hits the cold sky. The sun never hits anything. The sun remains 93 million miles away.

IBdaMann wrote:
Does the sun have no temperature? Doesn't all matter have some thermal energy?

IBdaMann wrote:
There is no cold thick glass. We can step outside and see that there is no such thing.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:When this hyper focused laser hits Earth

Wouldn't it be worth your time to learn what a laser is first? A hyper-focused laser that could generate that much temperature and cause that much radiance per Stefan-Boltzmann would, in fact, vaporize the planet. It would first cause a massive volcano at its point of incidence as it vaporized a major hole down into the magma of the mantle.

Lasers put out a single frequency as well, while the Sun puts out a wide range of frequencies. There is no white laser.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:When this hyper focused laser hits Earth

Wouldn't it be worth your time to learn what a laser is first? A hyper-focused laser that could generate that much temperature and cause that much radiance per Stefan-Boltzmann would, in fact, vaporize the planet. It would first cause a massive volcano at its point of incidence as it vaporized a major hole down into the magma of the mantle.

Lasers put out a single frequency as well, while the Sun puts out a wide range of frequencies. There is no white laser.

Maybe laser is not quite the right word, or maybe it is somewhat accurate.

I believe the Sun only emits a single frequency. When its UV rays hit the Sky, they weaken into longer wave frequencies upon passing thru the Sky. Then the Sky and Earth are what emit IR.

Spongy Iris wrote: I believe the Sun may just emit a single frequency.

Spongy Iris wrote: When its UV rays hit the Sky, they weaken into longer wave frequencies upon passing thru the Sky.

Spongy Iris wrote: Then the Sky and Earth are what emit IR.

Spongy Iris wrote: I suspect you or IBdaMann may again bring up Visible Light... anyway doesn't a laser also emit different frequencies?

Im a BM wrote: The hypothesis that the sun emits only a single frequency of electromagnetic radiation is certainly different than what mainstream scientists are claiming.

Im a BM wrote: Although they are called "rays" as if they were photons, "cosmic rays" are actually particles

Im a BM wrote: Spongy Iris, I doubt that I can convince you that most of the radiant energy from the sun that reaches the top of the atmosphere is VISIBLE light, and ultraviolet is only a small fraction of the energy reaching the Earth.

Im a BM wrote: Do you believe in PARTICLES, such as cosmic rays, emitted by the sun?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:When this hyper focused laser hits Earth

Wouldn't it be worth your time to learn what a laser is first? A hyper-focused laser that could generate that much temperature and cause that much radiance per Stefan-Boltzmann would, in fact, vaporize the planet. It would first cause a massive volcano at its point of incidence as it vaporized a major hole down into the magma of the mantle.

Lasers put out a single frequency as well, while the Sun puts out a wide range of frequencies. There is no white laser.

Maybe laser is not quite the right word, or maybe it is somewhat accurate.

I believe the Sun may just emit a single frequency. When its UV rays hit the Sky, they weaken into longer wave frequencies upon passing thru the Sky. Then the Sky and Earth are what emit IR.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I suspect you or IBdaMann may again bring up Visible Light... anyway doesn't a laser also emit different frequencies?

Spongy Iris wrote:
I just looked it up, and the answer I got was it emits UV, infrared, and visible.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:When this hyper focused laser hits Earth

Wouldn't it be worth your time to learn what a laser is first? A hyper-focused laser that could generate that much temperature and cause that much radiance per Stefan-Boltzmann would, in fact, vaporize the planet. It would first cause a massive volcano at its point of incidence as it vaporized a major hole down into the magma of the mantle.

Lasers put out a single frequency as well, while the Sun puts out a wide range of frequencies. There is no white laser.

Maybe laser is not quite the right word, or maybe it is somewhat accurate.

I believe the Sun only emits a single frequency. When its UV rays hit the Sky, they weaken into longer wave frequencies upon passing thru the Sky. Then the Sky and Earth are what emit IR.

The hypothesis that the sun emits only a single frequency of electromagnetic radiation is certainly different than what mainstream scientists are claiming.

What about PARTICLES?

Spongy Iris, do you believe that the sun emits "cosmic rays"?

Although they are called "rays" as if they were photons, "cosmic rays" are actually particles - the naked nucleus of a hydrogen, helium, or other atom. They fly at nearly the speed of light and pass through the thickest glass as if it were not there. About 90% of cosmic rays are naked hydrogen atoms, a single proton stripped of its electron. About 9% of cosmic rays are naked helium atoms. Also known as "alpha particles". And about 1% of cosmic rays are naked nuclei of heavier elements, most often iron.

Lower energy cosmic rays are constantly emitted by our sun, according to the so-called "scientists". Because cosmic rays are positively charged particles, the Earth's magnetic field deflects most of them away from... whatever is actually at the top of the atmosphere.

Spongy Iris, I doubt that I can convince you that most of the radiant energy from the sun that reaches the top of the atmosphere is VISIBLE light, and ultraviolet is only a small fraction of the energy reaching the Earth.

Do you believe in PARTICLES, such as cosmic rays, emitted by the sun?

IBdaMann wrote:

You still haven't addressed how I can point an infrared meter at the sun and have it read the infrared. No incoming UV can change to infrared, and earth-generated infrared that earth is emitting out to space cannot be detected by an infrared meter pointing at the sun.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:When this hyper focused laser hits Earth

Wouldn't it be worth your time to learn what a laser is first? A hyper-focused laser that could generate that much temperature and cause that much radiance per Stefan-Boltzmann would, in fact, vaporize the planet. It would first cause a massive volcano at its point of incidence as it vaporized a major hole down into the magma of the mantle.

Lasers put out a single frequency as well, while the Sun puts out a wide range of frequencies. There is no white laser.

Maybe laser is not quite the right word, or maybe it is somewhat accurate.

I believe the Sun only emits a single frequency. When its UV rays hit the Sky, they weaken into longer wave frequencies upon passing thru the Sky. Then the Sky and Earth are what emit IR.

The hypothesis that the sun emits only a single frequency of electromagnetic radiation is certainly different than what mainstream scientists are claiming.

What about PARTICLES?

Spongy Iris, do you believe that the sun emits "cosmic rays"?

Although they are called "rays" as if they were photons, "cosmic rays" are actually particles - the naked nucleus of a hydrogen, helium, or other atom. They fly at nearly the speed of light and pass through the thickest glass as if it were not there. About 90% of cosmic rays are naked hydrogen atoms, a single proton stripped of its electron. About 9% of cosmic rays are naked helium atoms. Also known as "alpha particles". And about 1% of cosmic rays are naked nuclei of heavier elements, most often iron.

Lower energy cosmic rays are constantly emitted by our sun, according to the so-called "scientists". Because cosmic rays are positively charged particles, the Earth's magnetic field deflects most of them away from... whatever is actually at the top of the atmosphere.

Spongy Iris, I doubt that I can convince you that most of the radiant energy from the sun that reaches the top of the atmosphere is VISIBLE light, and ultraviolet is only a small fraction of the energy reaching the Earth.

Do you believe in PARTICLES, such as cosmic rays, emitted by the sun?

I suppose I don't have to hold fast to the idea that the Sun only emits 1 type of radiation.

But I will be holding fast to the idea that the Sun does not emit infrared radiation; and the Sun is at absolute zero temperature (or very close to it)

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

You still haven't addressed how I can point an infrared meter at the sun and have it read the infrared. No incoming UV can change to infrared, and earth-generated infrared that earth is emitting out to space cannot be detected by an infrared meter pointing at the sun.

Yes I addressed it. The Sun's UV rays hit the Sky, then the Sky emits IR. I didn't say the UV changes to IR.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

You still haven't addressed how I can point an infrared meter at the sun and have it read the infrared. No incoming UV can change to infrared, and earth-generated infrared that earth is emitting out to space cannot be detected by an infrared meter pointing at the sun.

Yes I addressed it. The Sun's UV rays hit the Sky, then the Sky emits IR. I didn't say the UV changes to IR.

Ya canna' have it both ways, fella.

Spongy Iris wrote: Yes I addressed it. The Sun's UV rays hit the Sky, then the Sky emits IR.

Spongy Iris wrote: I didn't say the UV changes to IR.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Yes I addressed it. The Sun's UV rays hit the Sky, then the Sky emits IR.

Meaning ... an uber-powerful UV beam cooks all the birds in the sky and now they are all extinct?

Spongy Iris wrote: I didn't say the UV changes to IR.

Yes, you did ... or do you deny the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?