Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[SSDD]

Actually, I have handed you and crick your ass on the ozone thread...you are both dupes without the first bit of critical thinking capacity...it is you and the skid mark who are conspicuously absent there...not me.

Nope. You were only awed by small numbers without the critical thinking to see what part of those numbers involved inelastic collisions.

Sorry guy...your pseudoscientific appeals to complexity failed miserably.

 

[SSDD]

Neither conduction, nor convection are radiation...the greenhouse hypothesis is based on radiation...radiation is not the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere....a conductive greenhouse effect, if you must use the word greenhouse, would look quite dfferent from a radiative greenhouse effect,..and it is...which is why the greenhouse effect can't predict energy movement through the troposphere...

I never said that the radiative greenhouse effect predicted movement through the troposphere. The CO2 a few hundred meters near the earth is what captures the IR and transfers it to heat. The lapse rate concept prevails at least above that. Call it conduction if you want.

.

Doesn't mater what you said...you defend the radiative greenhouse effect and climate science says that radiation is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...sorry you didn't know what you were defending...perhaps if you read sometime for the purpose of learning something rather that simply skimming for something you can reinterpret to mean what you need it to mean.

 

[IanC]

CO2 blocks nothing...it absorbs and immediately emits whatever it has absorbed assuming that it doesn't lose the energy to collision with another molecule first...a very large assumption since so few ghg molecules actually get to emit the energy they absorbed.. The only time a ghg molecule might block IR is after it has reached its equilibrium temperature...at roughly -80F...till then, it absorbs and emits if it has the opportunity to emit...it doesn't block anything

You don't understand how blackbody radiation happens in a gas.

Molecular collisions are usually elastic but they can also convert kinetic energy into an excited molecular state, or gain kinetic energy when an excited molecule relaxes.

Even more rarely does an excited molecule actually relax by emitting a photon, which is typically immediately reabsorbed.

The amount of radiation only depends on the temperature of the gas. The percentage of the radiating gas does not matter. More GHG molecules emit more photons but they get reabsorbed faster. The Equipartition Theorum. Only when the concentration of the radiative gas is so rare that it loses the capacity to reabsorb the radiation does the gas start losing energy by escape to space.

 

[IanC]

And yes, radiation is a more efficient means of moving energy than conduction and convection...and the evidence is what convinced me...the actual observable measurable evidence as opposed to a model that can neither be observed, nor tested.

Conduction and convection are far superior and efficient means of moving energy when matter is present. It is only when energy has to be moved over empty space that radiation becomes dominant .

 

[IanC]

CO2 for example, if allowed to absorb and emit will emit everything it absorbs till such time as it reaches its equilibrium temperature..something like -80F

You and BillyBoob keep making this type of statement. Try to explain yourself. Why do you think -80F has any special meaning?

 

[IanC]

A additional gig molecules act like additional holes in the sieve...400 holes now vs 200 earlier...

Hahahahaha, are you really that stupid that you don't understand that the GHG molecules are what stops the surface radiation from simply transiting the atmosphere ?

 

[Billy_Bob]

SSDD correctly points out that most of the 15 micron radiation energy is stored as kinetic energy (temperature )....

Really? My impression is that he maintains that CO2 IR absorption cannot warm the air. Thousands of "sales brochures" and home heating engineers claim that.

Better read those pamphlets again... They warm surfaces which in turn conduct and then convects to the atmosphere.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A additional gig molecules act like additional holes in the sieve...400 holes now vs 200 earlier...

Hahahahaha, are you really that stupid that you don't understand that the GHG molecules are what stops the surface radiation from simply transiting the atmosphere ?

You truly do not understand how emisitivity works..

 

[IanC]

Doesn't mater what you said...you defend the radiative greenhouse effect and climate science says that radiation is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...sorry you didn't know what you were defending...perhaps if you read sometime for the purpose of learning something rather that simply skimming for something you

Actually, if you look at an energy budget like Trenberth's Cartoon, it shows roughly 100/165 moving by conduction and convection, 40/165 directly escaping through the atmospheric window, and only 25/165 by other radiation.

Since when has far less than half been declared the primary means?

 

[SSDD]

CO2 blocks nothing...it absorbs and immediately emits whatever it has absorbed assuming that it doesn't lose the energy to collision with another molecule first...a very large assumption since so few ghg molecules actually get to emit the energy they absorbed.. The only time a ghg molecule might block IR is after it has reached its equilibrium temperature...at roughly -80F...till then, it absorbs and emits if it has the opportunity to emit...it doesn't block anything

You don't understand how blackbody radiation happens in a gas.

Molecular collisions are usually elastic but they can also convert kinetic energy into an excited molecular state, or gain kinetic energy when an excited molecule relaxes.

Even more rarely does an excited molecule actually relax by emitting a photon, which is typically immediately reabsorbed.

The amount of radiation only depends on the temperature of the gas. The percentage of the radiating gas does not matter. More GHG molecules emit more photons but they get reabsorbed faster. The Equipartition Theorum. Only when the concentration of the radiative gas is so rare that it loses the capacity to reabsorb the radiation does the gas start losing energy by escape to space.

Again....you are assuming that radiation is the primary means of energy transport through the troposphere...it isn't...CO2 doesn't get the chance to absorb to extinction because almost all the energy absorbed by CO2 is lost via collision with other rmolecules.

 

[SSDD]

A additional gig molecules act like additional holes in the sieve...400 holes now vs 200 earlier...

Hahahahaha, are you really that stupid that you don't understand that the GHG molecules are what stops the surface radiation from simply transiting the atmosphere ?

So says your unobservable unmeasurable untestable models...reality says otherwise

 

[SSDD]

Doesn't mater what you said...you defend the radiative greenhouse effect and climate science says that radiation is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...sorry you didn't know what you were defending...perhaps if you read sometime for the purpose of learning something rather that simply skimming for something you

Actually, if you look at an energy budget like Trenberth's Cartoon, it shows roughly 100/165 moving by conduction and convection, 40/165 directly escaping through the atmospheric window, and only 25/165 by other radiation.

Since when has far less than half been declared the primary means?

Conduction is the means of transport for more than 90% of the energy from the surface to the troposphere..and that is why your models are failures...

 

[Wuwei]

Doesn't mater what you said...you defend the radiative greenhouse effect and climate science says that radiation is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...sorry you didn't know what you were defending...perhaps if you read sometime for the purpose of learning something rather that simply skimming for something you can reinterpret to mean what you need it to mean.

Back radiation exists. The GHGs a few dozen meters above the surface absorb and transfer IR to vibration. That in turn increases the atmospheric temperature via collisions. That is simple physics. You believe none of that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 doesn't get the chance to absorb to extinction because almost all the energy absorbed by CO2 is lost via collision with other rmolecules.

Correct!

You get it! Water vapor is the primary molecule that absorbs collision energy near surface. With slight warming they rise and as they rise they cool. The point where water vapor releases its energy is when it renucliates at cloud boundary where the emission is 20-100um in length. After collision, the energy is trapped until it reaches space..

Conduction and then convection to cloud boundary where it becomes LWIR..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Doesn't mater what you said...you defend the radiative greenhouse effect and climate science says that radiation is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...sorry you didn't know what you were defending...perhaps if you read sometime for the purpose of learning something rather that simply skimming for something you can reinterpret to mean what you need it to mean.

Back radiation exists. The GHGs a few dozen meters above the surface absorb and transfer IR to vibration. That in turn increases the atmospheric temperature via collisions. That is simple physics. You believe none of that.

Please provide your evidence of said warming and the science to back it up. I have just finished an experiment that disproves this hypothesis clearly showing that the atmosphere cannot do this without water vapor above 43% relative humidity.

 

[IanC]

Doesn't mater what you said...you defend the radiative greenhouse effect and climate science says that radiation is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...sorry you didn't know what you were defending...perhaps if you read sometime for the purpose of learning something rather that simply skimming for something you

Actually, if you look at an energy budget like Trenberth's Cartoon, it shows roughly 100/165 moving by conduction and convection, 40/165 directly escaping through the atmospheric window, and only 25/165 by other radiation.

Since when has far less than half been declared the primary means?

Conduction is the means of transport for more than 90% of the energy from the surface to the troposphere..and that is why your models are failures...

Conduction is the means of transport for exactly 0% of the energy leaving the surface to escape to space...and that is why your absurd claims are meaningless.

 

[SSDD]

Doesn't mater what you said...you defend the radiative greenhouse effect and climate science says that radiation is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...sorry you didn't know what you were defending...perhaps if you read sometime for the purpose of learning something rather that simply skimming for something you

Actually, if you look at an energy budget like Trenberth's Cartoon, it shows roughly 100/165 moving by conduction and convection, 40/165 directly escaping through the atmospheric window, and only 25/165 by other radiation.

Since when has far less than half been declared the primary means?

Conduction is the means of transport for more than 90% of the energy from the surface to the troposphere..and that is why your models are failures...

Conduction is the means of transport for exactly 0% of the energy leaving the surface to escape to space...and that is why your absurd claims are meaningless.

How long ago did you decide for yourself that you have it all figured out and decided to stop trying to learn anything new?

From: William Happer Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:29 AM
To: David Burton
Dear David,

Some response are entered below in square brackets and upper case. Thanks for your interest!

Will

From:David Burton
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 PM
To: William Happer
Subject: Another dumb question from Dave

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]

You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.

So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]

In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]

Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]

(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]

If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]

Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

Talk to Dr. Happer about that zero percent. I suppose he might explain to you how terribly wrong you are....In fact, the above email from him does just that.

 

[Wuwei]

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

More accurately the time between molecular collisions was measured to be about 0.2 nanoseconds.

The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

That number is way off. You should check your sources.
The relaxation time for CO2 vibration was measured to be about 6 microSec. Not 1 second.

So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon.

Likewise that number is way off.
That makes the probability of absorption directly resulting in emission:
= 0.2 ns / 6000 ns = 1 / 30,000 = 3.3 10^5 = .0033%
The probability of giving up energy by collision is 100 -0.0033% = 99.997%

That shows that GHGs warm the atmosphere.


.

 

[Wuwei]

Conduction is the means of transport for exactly 0% of the energy leaving the surface to escape to space...and that is why your absurd claims are meaningless.

Well, not exactly zero.

The thermal conductivity in air 26 mW / m °C (mW per temperature drop over a meter)

Lapse rate 9.8 °C / Km. = .0098 °C / m (temperature drop per meter)

Thermal conduction= 26 mW / m°C x 0.0098 °C / m = 0.255 mW / m².

Since the earth is radiating 400000 mW / m², 0.255 mW / m² is next to nothing. I would think convection alone would way over-power conduction.

.

 

[SSDD]

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

More accurately the time between molecular collisions was measured to be about 0.2 nanoseconds.

The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

That number is way off. You should check your sources.
The relaxation time for CO2 vibration was measured to be about 6 microSec. Not 1 second.

So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon.

Likewise that number is way off.
That makes the probability of absorption directly resulting in emission:
= 0.2 ns / 6000 ns = 1 / 30,000 = 3.3 10^5 = .0033%
The probability of giving up energy by collision is 100 -0.0033% = 99.997%

That shows that GHGs warm the atmosphere.


.

Like I said...talk to Dr. Happer. And nothing real shows that GHG warm the atmosphere since with the exception of water vapor...they don't.