Lets Do the Math on our Atmosphere...

[Billy_Bob]

Lets Do the Math on our Atmosphere...

LWIR can not warm our atmosphere directly as it can not interact with anything except water vapor, which can use the energy to warm itself in our atmosphere. IR heaters prove this out in testing as energy in the 12um-16um setting is incapable of warming O2, N2, CO2 and other atmospheric gases. This type of energy must interact with a Black Body or a Grey Body in order to warm anything (solid surface or water).

If you do the math on what little energy can interact with atmospheric gases, the input energy would have to be >5600w/m^2 just to raise the temp 1 deg C absent water vapor.(Roughly 4 times the output of our sun, in this narrow band, at TOA-[Top Of Atmosphere])

You only need to look at the band pass graph of our atmosphere to see why we would need this much energy to warm the mass of the atmosphere.

CO2 can not hold energy long enough to warm and it loses energy by collision some 30,000 times to 1 re-emission. Thus the energy is lost a long time before it has the potential to warm the molecule or any other molecule in our atmosphere. Absent water vapor LWIR is transparent to our atmosphere.

Many times I have pointed out our deserts and places of low water content, which have a 40% larger temperature swing and far faster rates of change than other areas of high water content. Most desert areas can cool to 32 deg F at night and be 110 deg F in the day time by 10 am and areas of high water content will get to 55 deg F at night and take until 3pm to reach 90 Deg F (much slower warming due to atmospheric loss and then cool slower due to warmer water in the atmosphere).

IF you note the power curve in the above graphing (green dotted line) you will begin to understand why the atmosphere can not warm with such a small bandwidth of LWIR and what little power it represents when you take that small region into account only.

ON to the math....

 

[SSDD]

Don't guess we will see the wackos much on this thread....By the way William Happer says that only 1 in a billion CO2 molecules actually gets to emit a photon..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Don't guess we will see the wackos much on this thread....By the way William Happer says that only 1 in a billion CO2 molecules actually gets to emit a photon..

I saw that. Its from his paper on atmospheric processes and the alarmists are having a real hard time digesting it... LOL

 

[SSDD]

Don't guess we will see the wackos much on this thread....By the way William Happer says that only 1 in a billion CO2 molecules actually gets to emit a photon..

I saw that. Its from his paper on atmospheric processes and the alarmists are having a real hard time digesting it... LOL

In the end, what did you think of that paper? Was there anything in it that struck you as new?...new in so far as skepticism goes...it will probably all be new to alarmists.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Don't guess we will see the wackos much on this thread....By the way William Happer says that only 1 in a billion CO2 molecules actually gets to emit a photon..

I saw that. Its from his paper on atmospheric processes and the alarmists are having a real hard time digesting it... LOL

In the end, what did you think of that paper? Was there anything in it that struck you as new?...new in so far as skepticism goes...it will probably all be new to alarmists.

It confirmed the work we did in the atmospherics lab on CO2 and LWIR transmission (or should I say confirms that LWIR is transparent to our atmosphere absent water vapor). Our paper should be published later this year and it will be met with fierce opposition. I believe Happer is one of the physicists reviewing our work as well.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is the section of the atmosphere were talking about, where LWIR exits.

You will note that the upwelling bandwidth is 3.2um to 120um (this graphing stops at 70um) Below is a graphing from Wiki ( I hate these because of inaccuracies and changes made at a whim, but this appears to be accurate at the moment).

As you can see the energy contained in any transmission decreases with length of the wave and particle power drops as the temperature of the emitting molecule decreases. With this we now have several of the numbers we need to do the math and figure out just how much power is contained in the up-welling LWIR. We also have the percentage of the total Watts/Meter^2 from the graph above to get us a ball park figure of what energy is being sent up in the bandwidth which CO2 can interfere with.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets do the easy one first...

Total upwelling radiation is 396w/m^2

Percentage of the spectrum that CO2 can affect = 3.23%

Percentage of radiation derived by 1% at 320mev and 2.3% at 137mev = 4.261%

396 X 3.23% = 12.7908w/m^2 (low threshold)

396 x 4.261% = 16.8735w/m^2(upper limit)

Our answer must be between 12.7908w/m^2 and 16.8735w/m^2. 4.0827w/m^2 is the total possible range of CO2 affect without any enhancement or dampening affect given the energy it contains.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Don't guess we will see the wackos much on this thread...

Well, that's because you are the wackos.

 

[SSDD]

Don't guess we will see the wackos much on this thread...

Well, that's because you are the wackos.

Says the guy who by his own admission does't know enough about the science to have any idea one way or another.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets do the easy one first...

Total upwelling radiation is 396w/m^2

Percentage of the spectrum that CO2 can affect = 3.23%

Percentage of radiation derived by 1% at 320mev and 2.3% at 137mev = 4.261%

396 X 3.23% = 12.7908w/m^2 (low threshold)

396 x 4.261% = 16.8735w/m^2(upper limit)

Our answer must be between 12.7908w/m^2 and 16.8735w/m^2. 4.0827w/m^2 is the total possible range of CO2 affect without any enhancement or dampening affect given the energy it contains.

Before I go further, a couple of caveats..

1.- This is a very rough generalization of the math.
2.- The amplification and or dampening effect can push beyond upper and lower limits.
3.- The math is consistent with the LOG of CO2 and the base slowing of energy release.
4.- I will not be getting into Coriolis affects and solar input on 1/2 of the globe at any given time.
5.- Water vapor dwarfs CO2 by a factor of 22-1 and can act as a enhancer or dampener.

 

[SSDD]

4.- I will not be getting into Coriolis affects and solar input on 1/2 of the globe at any given time.

Which is a very important topic/ Climate science, with their flat earth physics averages the total solar flux per day across the entire globe at once and says that the result is the same as having the total flux directed at a rotating sphere.

This

Is simply not the same as this

While the numbers may add up to give the same answer on paper, in reality the results are very different.

According to them, having 4 weak suns on one side of the earth is the same as having one strong sun heating one side of the earth at a time.

If you look at that claim, and test it against reality, you will see how completely ridiculous the model upon which the greenhouse effect is.

A good example of a real world test of the solar flux average is to be found in cooking. You can take this bird, put it in your oven turn the heat on to 325 and in about 4 hours, have a tasty meal.

If you take that same bird and put it in the oven with the heat turned on to 81.25 degrees and cook it for 16 hours, will the physical result be the same? Answer: Of course not. Even though the same amount of energy hits the turkey over the 16 hour cooking time, it will never produce the same result as 325 degrees for 4 hours.

An empirical demonstration of the failure of the flat earth physics that climate sceince employs and bases its models on, and yet, people still believe....and that doesn't even include that "additive" nature of their temperature calculations which suggest that if you have an object at 15 degrees and place it next to another object at 15 degrees that somehow, by some magic, the radiation emitted from the two objects will equal 30 degrees.

 

[Billy_Bob]

....and that doesn't even include that "additive" nature of their temperature calculations which suggest that if you have an object at 15 degrees and place it next to another object at 15 degrees that somehow, by some magic, the radiation emitted from the two objects will equal 30 degrees.

Which leads us to the harder question because it involves the amplification or dampening of the energy available. Like the turkey in the oven, the radiation must be able to affect the objects it strikes and have the energy to create warming. You can have energy strike an object, without the power to create effect the energy does nothing.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets review what LWIR can affect at 12-16um.

1-The skin of the oceans where evaporation occurs. The energy is immediately lost to the atmosphere as the water +10mm below the skin is 1.2 deg F cooler than the surface. Thermodynamics indicates that this is a net loss and has little or no positive affect. LWIR has no ability to warm the oceans. It lacks the power to penetrate beyond the skin and evaporation removes the energy capable of creating warming.

2-Water vapor in the air. (Ranges from >5% to 100% saturation). This too absorbs the range of LWIR, but again, as in the ocean, the evaporation cools the air and the heated vapor rises and cools in the atmospheric column as it does. This is why water vapor has total absorption above 12um and emits out to 120um, a wavelength CO2 and other gases can not affect.

3-Black bodies- absorb everything. depending on mass and convection may warm near surface slightly. The power in this band is incapable of large scale warming of black bodies.

4-limited molecules- N2, O2, Methane, CO2 Less than 0.004% of earths atmosphere. If you do the math on these (mass x energy vs. mass of atmosphere, these can not warm the atmosphere and overcome escape cooling.)

And last, The energy must reside in the object long enough to warm it. CO2 loses its energy long before it can re-emit it due to the fact it collides with other molecules over 30,000 times during the time energy can reside in it. This means the energy absorbed by CO2 is lost kinetically to other molecules long before it has the chance to re-emit it. Water vapor on the other hand can accept this kinetic and radiative energy and use it to warm slightly before it cools in the atmospheric column by colliding with cooler molecules.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The AGW hypothesis tells us that they believe water vapor will increase with warming and will then hold energy in a loop in our upper troposphere, allowing much of that latent heat to be reintroduced to the surface. This is the "enhancement hypothesis" and why a hot spot must occur if it is infact true.

Observed evidence tells us a very different story. What we have observed is warming causes a slight increase in water vapor. That water vapor creates clouds reducing the incoming solar radiation hitting the surface. These clouds also spawn heat imbalance and create thunder storms or Micro Circulations which quickly remove increased energy by conduction and convection to cloud boundary and release the energy to space. Water circulation also traps and removes CO2 from the atmosphere. This is called the "Dampening Theory" as it is supported by Observed Empirical Evidence. The short term rise in temperatures results in dampening of the energy input. The loss from dampening has created just 0.6 deg C warming where over 1.3 Deg C was expected.

This can be seen clearly in the Radiosondes data and satellite data. The data shows cooling where the AGW crowd thinks there should be a hot spot.

Graph Source: The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

 

[Matted Joybeard]

I wonder if Billy_Bob is so far in the tank that he'll be spouting this crap up to the point his skull is being collected as a decorative fixture for a raider fort. Same goes for the rest of the pro-climate change ecological collapse church members.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I wonder if Billy_Bob is so far in the tank that he'll be spouting this crap up to the point his skull is being collected as a decorative fixture for a raider fort. Same goes for the rest of the pro-climate change ecological collapse church members.

Too Funny;

You went right to attack the poster and refuse to debate the facts I present... Way to go left tard.. I wonder if you will be found in an ice cube in about 100,000 years..?

 

[Billy_Bob]

What can 4 w/m^2 do at 230mev? That is the $64,000.00 question..

Here is what we expect from CO2 alone:

The expected warming from CO2 alone is 1.3 deg C with the rise from 280ppm to 400ppm. The actual warming we have seen is just 0.67 deg C or roughly half of what was expected. You can see from the graph that the AGW models expect nearly double the observed warming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So what is happening to the 2-4w/m^2 @ 230mev that should be causing warming?

We know from the "Cloud Experiment" that approximately 1w/m^2 is being lost to the upper troposphere due to increased cloud cover above the equator. We also know that another 1-2w/m^2 is being lost in the Micro Cell circulations above the equator and the resulting water vapor increase, which is sent pole ward due to the Hadley Cell circulations (another .6w/m^2 loss). This causes cooling of the mid latitudes due to increased cloud cover and Micro Cell circulations.

SO despite the increase in CO2 concentrations, the earths own systems dampen the incoming energy. They do not 'enhance' it. This is a massive predictive failure of the AGW hypothesis.

So of the potential 4w/m^2 of energy is diminished by 80% and the cloud cover retention increase of 2-5% result in a less than half of expected warming due to GHG's in the AGW hypothesis. The warming we have seen can be totally attributed to solar increase of 1.1w/m^2 over the last 100 years and the dampening effect of water vapor (-3.6w/m^2) in our atmosphere.

Note:
I had contemplated doing the math, converting the energy into Joules and showing how it all works, but I am already over the heads of about 99.9% of the people here. My apologies, but its a pointless endeavor to do so here.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why Global Warming (man induced) fails. Our atmosphere is simply carrying away the energy and emitting it in a band that CO2 and other GHG's have no ability to affect. As water vapor ascends the atmospheric column, the water vapor cools and energy is lost. The energy is released at a much longer wavelength and reduced power, where it is lost to space without further intervention. Clouds and water vapor... This is where Trenberth's missing heat is... GONE

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Scientists with education and experience are adding to the mountains of evidence for AGW with peer reviewed research every day.

Idiot deniers with no education or experience are sitting on anonymous message boards stroking each other.

Some things are still right with the world.