Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[justoffal]

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.

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.
How did you come up with this gem? According to you CO2 can trap photons for an indefinite time like some sort of Ghostbuster containment unit.

No 15 micron radiation radiation escapes to space from 100 metres up in the atmosphere. Each and every photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule before it has returned to the surface or escapes to space. Is that what you mean by a Ghostbuster Containment Unit?

Or are you arguing that there never comes a time were the air is thin enough that some of the 15 micron radiation does not get absorbed by a CO2 molecule and escapes to space?

I have explained what I think happens with CO2 radiation and emission, with the energy that enters at the surface boundary and the energy that leaves at the 'emission height'.

Feel free to grace us with monumental knowledge and explain what really happens.

CO2 does not just absorb at 15 microns !!!! And whatever it absorbs it re-emits in all directions.
Why would it be different from any other gas that absorbs light and re-emits it..
But I don`t care what you or the other armchair experts believe, who never had any hands on experience or formal education in that field.
Feel free to grace us with monumental knowledge
Quit trying to be a smart-ass the only thing monumental here is the stupidity of your statement.

Lol...I feel your pain. I have been at the trade
For thirty years dealing directly with
Heat transfer including the aqueous
Contaiment of Co2 at various energy levels
and temperatures. From the very beginning of this debate some thirty years ago I always
Marveled at the sudden appearance of
Multiple experts pontificating about the utterly ludicrous. I have always wondered how anyone could possibly know whether
the atmospheric concentrations caused the warming or the warming caused the atmospheric concentrations since both are equally likely. Yet they always seemed to be so certain that I assumed I must simply be lacking in the appropriate knowledge of the matter. Then it occurred to me one day whilst Conversing with a Psuedo climatologist/expert about skinny Polar bears that these people aren't experts in anything but opinion, that they have an abundance of.

Regards:

Jo

 

[justoffal]

That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments. It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?

The Earth's surface absorbs a wide range of SWIR and LWIR. It re-emits it primarily in broad band LWIR. Energy in the 15 micron band and others is absorbed by CO2 within the first few meters of atmosphere and re-emits in all directions. Energy transport from that point upwards is a combination of radiative, conductive and convective. When energy gets high enough in the stratosphere, the rarity of the atmosphere allows radiated IR to escape to space.

That is my understanding of what Ian has contended. Ian may certainly correct me if I have erred. Do you believe any part of that to be in error?

You do understand that heat transfer is
Function of temperature I assume? Yes?

Jo

 

[Crick]

I have a better question: are you disputing that the mean free path of an IR photon in the Earth's atmosphere is a few tens of meters? See Mean Free Path Length of Photons in the Earth's Atmosphere

 

[Crick]

That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments. It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?

The Earth's surface absorbs a wide range of SWIR and LWIR. It re-emits it primarily in broad band LWIR. Energy in the 15 micron band and others is absorbed by CO2 within the first few meters of atmosphere and re-emits in all directions. Energy transport from that point upwards is a combination of radiative, conductive and convective. When energy gets high enough in the stratosphere, the rarity of the atmosphere allows radiated IR to escape to space.

That is my understanding of what Ian has contended. Ian may certainly correct me if I have erred. Do you believe any part of that to be in error?

You do understand that heat transfer is
Function of temperature I assume? Yes?

Jo

I have a decent understanding of heat transfer. What is your point?

 

[Crick]

Lol...I feel your pain. I have been at the trade
For thirty years dealing directly with
Heat transfer including the aqueous
Contaiment of Co2 at various energy levels
and temperatures. From the very beginning of this debate some thirty years ago I always
Marveled at the sudden appearance of
Multiple experts pontificating about the utterly ludicrous. I have always wondered how anyone could possibly know whether
the atmospheric concentrations caused the warming or the warming caused the atmospheric concentrations since both are equally likely. Yet they always seemed to be so certain that I assumed I must simply be lacking in the appropriate knowledge of the matter. Then it occurred to me one day whilst Conversing with a Psuedo climatologist/expert about skinny Polar bears that these people aren't experts in anything but opinion, that they have an abundance of.

Regards:

Jo

Might I suggest a quick review of "Summary for Policy Makers" in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be found at www.ipcc.ch

 

[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

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.

We based a good portion of our experiment on Dr Happer's findings. Energy residency time and the fact the molecules reactions to EM excitement is bending (which fails to cause warming of the molecule). Which is also why IR heaters do not warm the air.

What we found was a firm affirmation of Dr. Happer's observations.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lol...I feel your pain. I have been at the trade
For thirty years dealing directly with
Heat transfer including the aqueous
Contaiment of Co2 at various energy levels
and temperatures. From the very beginning of this debate some thirty years ago I always
Marveled at the sudden appearance of
Multiple experts pontificating about the utterly ludicrous. I have always wondered how anyone could possibly know whether
the atmospheric concentrations caused the warming or the warming caused the atmospheric concentrations since both are equally likely. Yet they always seemed to be so certain that I assumed I must simply be lacking in the appropriate knowledge of the matter. Then it occurred to me one day whilst Conversing with a Psuedo climatologist/expert about skinny Polar bears that these people aren't experts in anything but opinion, that they have an abundance of.

Regards:

Jo

Might I suggest a quick review of "Summary for Policy Makers" in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be found at www.ipcc.ch

This is your go to pile of crap. Appeal to Authority, and only the ones you think are valid, even in the face of empirical evidence showing them wrong.. Your not a scientist, your a political hack!

Definition of Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an authority.

 

[justoffal]

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.

We based a good portion of our experiment on Dr Harper's findings. Energy residency time and the fact the molecules reactions to EM excitement is bending (which fails to cause warming of the molecule). Which is also why IR heaters do not warm the air.

What we found was a firm affirmation of Dr. Harper's observations.

Precisely... Additionally in all of this bluster about complex molecular and chemical behaivior we have abandoned what is probably no more than a simple heat transfer process wherein the accumulated thermal inertia can never be greater than the following transfer process according to the second law.... The inference of some complex maze of heat retention by atmospheric gasses that spurns the second law is fascinating if not amusing.

Jo

 

[Crick]

The work to which I linked has been reviewed explicitly by hundreds, if not thousands of degreed, published scientists. Appeal to authority is valid if the reference is an ACTUAL AUTHORITY on the question under discussion. That is certainly the case with the IPCC assessments.

I have never claimed to be a scientist. I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering and have been working as one for the last 36 years.

You now claim to have empirical evidence "showing them wrong". What evidence and who is "them"?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The work to which I linked has been reviewed explicitly by hundreds, if not thousands of degreed, published scientists. Appeal to authority is valid if the reference is an ACTUAL AUTHORITY on the question under discussion. That is certainly the case with the IPCC assessments.

I have never claimed to be a scientist. I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering and have been working as one for the last 36 years.

You now claim to have empirical evidence "showing them wrong". What evidence and who is "them"?

Definition of Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an authority.

I've show this to be bull shit of the highest order and I am just a lowly Doctoral candidate in Atmospheric Physics. I am physically doing the science and the experiments your authorities refused to do, prior to pontificating... And now they are shown WRONG...

Time to wake up Crick... Your about to be thrown into the dustbin of history..

 

[Crick]

Poster justoffal, do not confuse the mean free path of a molecule prior to a collision and the mean free path of a photon prior to collision. They are not the same thing.

 

[Crick]

The work to which I linked has been reviewed explicitly by hundreds, if not thousands of degreed, published scientists. Appeal to authority is valid if the reference is an ACTUAL AUTHORITY on the question under discussion. That is certainly the case with the IPCC assessments.

I have never claimed to be a scientist. I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering and have been working as one for the last 36 years.

You now claim to have empirical evidence "showing them wrong". What evidence and who is "them"?

Definition of Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an authority.

I've show this to be bull shit of the highest order and I am just a lowly Doctoral candidate in Atmospheric Physics. I am physically doing the science and the experiments your authorities refused to do, prior to pontificating... And now they are shown WRONG...

Time to wake up Crick... Your about to be thrown into the dustbin of history..

1) Who do you believe your empirical evidence will show wrong?

2) What is your empirical evidence?

3) Claiming to be a doctoral candidate in atmospheric physics is simply an appeal to authority. You may actually be an authority, but it will require some outside verification before we are required to accept it. Like being employed as a researcher and publishing original research in a refereed science journal. And then of course there are the numbers. A great many more PhDs disagree with you than agree.

4) re Appeal to Authority

Appeal to Authority from Appeal to Authority

argumentum ad verecundiam

(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.

Emphasis mine. A great deal of evidence that these scientists are actual experts is available.

AND from Why is an appeal to authority sometimes valid?

Presumably appealing to authority is non-fallacious precisely when it makes sense to believe the person offering the information is reasonably expected to be knowledgeable on the topic. In other words, it's a question of what for us would qualify as an "authority."

In this sense, it's going to tie into more basic epistemological considerations about knowledge. A general skeptic would have to say no one is "reasonably expected" to be knowledgeable about the matter at hand.

Throwing out skepticism, one criterion appears for technical skills: objective success in matters relating to what they are also commenting on. Thus, I'd for instance take a successful carpenter to be someone I'd trust on matters of wood-working, an effective doctor on matters of medicine, etc.

For theoretical things, it's going to be harder to know whether to accept the authority or not. A further criterion might be: are they accepted as an expert (in general? in my community?).

In arguments, we can adduce a further thing: do we both agree here and now to treat this person as an authority?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

The work to which I linked has been reviewed explicitly by hundreds, if not thousands of degreed, published scientists. Appeal to authority is valid if the reference is an ACTUAL AUTHORITY on the question under discussion. That is certainly the case with the IPCC assessments.

I have never claimed to be a scientist. I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering and have been working as one for the last 36 years.

You now claim to have empirical evidence "showing them wrong". What evidence and who is "them"?

Definition of Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an authority.

I've show this to be bull shit of the highest order and I am just a lowly Doctoral candidate in Atmospheric Physics. I am physically doing the science and the experiments your authorities refused to do, prior to pontificating... And now they are shown WRONG...

Time to wake up Crick... Your about to be thrown into the dustbin of history..

1) Who do you believe your empirical evidence will show wrong?

2) What is your empirical evidence?

3) Claiming to be a doctoral candidate in atmospheric physics is simply an appeal to authority. You may actually be an authority, but it will require some outside verification before we are required to accept it. Like being employed as a researcher and publishing original research in a refereed science journal. And then of course there are the numbers. A great many more PhDs disagree with you than agree.

4) re Appeal to Authority

Appeal to Authority from Appeal to Authority

argumentum ad verecundiam

(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.

Emphasis mine. A great deal of evidence that these scientists are actual experts is available.

AND from Why is an appeal to authority sometimes valid?

Presumably appealing to authority is non-fallacious precisely when it makes sense to believe the person offering the information is reasonably expected to be knowledgeable on the topic. In other words, it's a question of what for us would qualify as an "authority."

In this sense, it's going to tie into more basic epistemological considerations about knowledge. A general skeptic would have to say no one is "reasonably expected" to be knowledgeable about the matter at hand.

Throwing out skepticism, one criterion appears for technical skills: objective success in matters relating to what they are also commenting on. Thus, I'd for instance take a successful carpenter to be someone I'd trust on matters of wood-working, an effective doctor on matters of medicine, etc.

For theoretical things, it's going to be harder to know whether to accept the authority or not. A further criterion might be: are they accepted as an expert (in general? in my community?).

In arguments, we can adduce a further thing: do we both agree here and now to treat this person as an authority?

When you can post up a cognitive rebuttal we'll talk.. Until then, I will treat you as an idiot.

 

[Crick]

Billy Boy, you aren't very good at answering questions. Let's try this again.

1) Who (or what) do you believe will be refuted by your empirical evidence?

2) What is your empirical evidence? If it is your much-discussed magic tube, please simply say so. If this is the case, I would still like to hear a clear explanation of what you believe your results refute.

 

[IanC]

CO2 does not just absorb at 15 microns !!!! And whatever it absorbs it re-emits in all directions.
Why would it be different from any other gas that absorbs light and re-emits it..

When did I ever say CO2 only absorbs at 15 microns? In fact, I believe I mention the other two main absorbance frequencies in near infrared in the last week or so. They play little part in the greenhouse effect because neither the atmosphere or the surface is warm enough to produce them in any significant quantity.

When did I ever say that CO2 molecules ever emit in something other than a random direction? We have hounded SSDD for years because he claims only certain directions are allowed. You ignore his statements, and make up false accusations against me. Or perhaps you are too stupid to understand that there are only two 'directions' that a photon can leave the atmosphere in...either to space or to the surface. Every Cartesian direction leads to both outcomes, it just depends where the starting point originated.


So far you have imparted little information, just a few pathetic ad homes and strawmen. When are you going to dazzle us with your brilliance? I've been waiting for close to a decade and most of the time you just screw up and run away back to your igloo. I expect no different this time.

 

[IanC]

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted.

As I watch many claim global warming for the current weather events, it appears it is time for some sanity and a reality check. The earth has always been a paradoxical presentation and its high time people were taught that what they see is in far to short a time span for any realistic determination to be made about what our climate is doing.

When the sun is active the flows from the sun, like wind, push against our atmosphere. As the earth rotates this pressure pushes atmosphere to the poles increasing the mass of the atmosphere above them. The NASA photo below shows how solar wind pushes against the magnetosphere and against our atmosphere.

View attachment 172129

When the wind reduces so do the pressures against our atmosphere. If you spin a partially filled balloon and apply a wind pressure against it the center will flatten and the ends round. This is what happens to earths atmosphere.

When there is high pressures against our atmosphere from the sun the depth of atmosphere above the equator decreases and above the poles increase.

View attachment 172131

This allows the polar jet to reside high in latitudes and warming of the equator will push towards the polls keeping the polar jet tightly constrained to the poles. This is a warming globe.

With cooling and low solar influence things are very different. With low pressures (as we have today) against the magnetosphere and atmosphere, the mass of the atmosphere is flung out due to earths rotation, allowing the atmosphere near the poles to be drawn to the equator.

View attachment 172132

The draw down of atmosphere causes the polar Cells to thin and widen pulling the polar jet to mid latitudes. This results in a paradoxical warming of the arctic regions and massive cooling of the mid latitudes. The thin atmosphere mass above the poles allows heat escape to accelerate.

What we see today is a natural and normal presentation of the earth entering a cooling phase. With Solar influence now slated to be very low for the next 30-60 years our cooling is just beginning.

As we near the new thermal equilibrium of the earths new energy input/output levels, the zones will return to what we have seen as normal over recent years. When that happens, the poles will freeze over rapidly and glaciation will resume. Many Northern Hemisphere glaciers have already begun to increase in size. The ice mass on Greenland has tripled in just three years.

This is just the beginning..

Excellent post...this and many other natural effect inputs are nearly impossible to
Calculate as to their cumulative influence
On our ambient eco system. Further complicating the matter is the hurclean path.
Which travels through various magnetic intensties as it winds round the galactic center every 230 million years. The are far too many mysteries for anyone to claim
Settled science.

Jo

Hahahahaha . You two deserve each other! Two bloviating Cliff Clavins.

 

[justoffal]

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.

I'm tempted to jump in but I've already done this a dozen times on a dozen forums. It generally proves to be rather fruitless. Bear in mind this one thing. The claim that the Earth's carbon cycle is no more tolerant of change than a Swiss watch over a span of Mellenia is close to being insane. Sure they can produce examples of concentration readings over that span...but what they can never know is why. No other subject in all of the fields of science that I know of is affected by so deep a hubris as this AGW
Cult who have systemstically insisted in the face of virtually infinite odds that they have eliminated all other possibilities but the one extremely narrow path to enlightenment. How dare they mock religion? They are one.

Jo

 

[polarbear]

That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments. It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?

The Earth's surface absorbs a wide range of SWIR and LWIR. It re-emits it primarily in broad band LWIR. Energy in the 15 micron band and others is absorbed by CO2 within the first few meters of atmosphere and re-emits in all directions. Energy transport from that point upwards is a combination of radiative, conductive and convective. When energy gets high enough in the stratosphere, the rarity of the atmosphere allows radiated IR to escape to space.

That is my understanding of what Ian has contended. Ian may certainly correct me if I have erred. Do you believe any part of that to be in error?

And the next idiot piles on. Which I don`t mind at all, the more the merrier. According to IanC CO2 can trap and retain photons unless it`s so rare that it can`t reabsorb them: :
"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."
I`m glad you also subscribed to this idiotic photon trap.where photons radiate into a CO2 gas cloud and nothing comes out ....and all the while the same idiots mock SSDD about a "photon dimmer switch"
There must be photons from biblical times still trapped in my CO2 fire extinguisher according to Crick and IanC

 

[IanC]

That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments. It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?

The Earth's surface absorbs a wide range of SWIR and LWIR. It re-emits it primarily in broad band LWIR. Energy in the 15 micron band and others is absorbed by CO2 within the first few meters of atmosphere and re-emits in all directions. Energy transport from that point upwards is a combination of radiative, conductive and convective. When energy gets high enough in the stratosphere, the rarity of the atmosphere allows radiated IR to escape to space.

That is my understanding of what Ian has contended. Ian may certainly correct me if I have erred. Do you believe any part of that to be in error?

Tell me moron, How much weight in mass does CO2 have and then tell me how much it warms with energy that is radiated at -80 degC. then tell how much the atmosphere will warm with the warming of CO2.. DO THE MATH RETARD!

1. CO2 does not warm by empirical experiment, so it warms NOTHING..

Hahahahaha. That is hilarious! BillyBoob calling someone else a math retard!

No, that mantle is yours, you've earned it.

 

[IanC]

There must be photons from biblical times still trapped in my CO2 fire extinguisher according to Crick and

There is a very reasonable probability that one of the molecules of air expelled in Jesus's last breath is present in the next lungful that you breathe. Matter is long-lasting under typical conditions.

Photons exist only as long as it takes to carry energy from the emitter to the absorber. Once absorbed that energy takes a different form. Out of many forms.

I don't see how you can say a packet of energy that is originally transported as a photon, then absorbed and turned into some variant of potential or kinetic energy, then transformed back and forth a few million times until perhaps it is used to create a photon that has a similar frequency as the first. Is this what you consider 'trapped photons'?