Multiple experiments confirm that CO2 lowers absorptivity & emissivity of air

[polarbear]

A large group of scientists at many different universities have repeatedly confirmed that the CO2 dragon in the sky is a political myth.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

H. C. Hottel B. Leckner M. Lapp C. B.Ludwig A. F. Sarofim
and their collaborators on this matter, the combined effect of overlapping
absorption bands causes a reduction on the total absorptivity of a mixture of gases
17 year later, B. Leckner repeated Hottel’s experiment and corrected the graphs plotted by Hottel.
However, the results of Hottel were verified and Leckner found the same extremely insignificant emissivity of the carbon dioxide below 33 °C (306 K)
The results of Hottel and Leckner have been verified by other researchers, like Marshall Lapp, C. B.Ludwig, A. F. Sarofim,who also found the same physical trend of the carbon dioxide.
The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorb
er/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity
of the mixture of gases decreases.
In consequence, the carbon dioxide and the oxygen at the overlapping absorption spectral bands act as mitigating factors of the warming of
the atmosphere, not as intensifier factors of the total absorptivity /emissivity of the atmosphere
Conclusions
This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming
caused by an increase of absorptivity of infrared radiation (IR) by
water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? Please explain that to the glaciers and ice caps.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Really? Please explain that to the glaciers and ice caps.

Ever since the 1st ice age, the glaciers and ice caps have been growing and contracting. Since 2014 new terminology has been found since artic freezes from the north(before 2014 would be called winter) now they are calling it Polar Vortex. Global Warming Scientists who were going down to the Antarctic in the middle of THEIR winter, were frozen in(stuck) by increasing ice flows but not only did that ship get stuck but the rescue ship also. Really made a great impact on that theory.

On Cinemax the had a show from 1995 where the whole ice caps had melted and completely covered the Earth. This is in 1995, and guess what? We are still here, and Florida isn't under water, Californication isn't drowned yet(damn it), and NY Mexico still is as liberal as can be, and its been over 2 years now since a Hurricane breathed down that city. All the predictions have been wrong but as typical of Sociopathic behavior, they are the ones denying science, even when it is right in front of their(liberal) faces.

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job

#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.

 

[westwall]

Really? Please explain that to the glaciers and ice caps.

Seeing as how they're not sentient they need no explaining to. However if you would care to show how glaciers and ice caps are incapable of change, that I would be interested in. You are here for less than the blinking of an eye in global age terms and you think that your fleeting life experience is somehow relevant?

Get real..

 

[usmbguest5318]

A large group of scientists at many different universities have repeatedly confirmed that the CO2 dragon in the sky is a political myth.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Excuse me? The document to which you linked indicates one author. A group requires a minimum of two elements.

A large group of scientists at many different universities have repeatedly confirmed that the CO2 dragon in the sky is a political myth.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Has the document you linked been subjected to the peer review process? If so:

• In what peer-reviewed science journal was it published?
• When was it published?

I know the answer to both questions: it was not published anywhere at any time. There's a good reason for that, and that reason is noted later in this post.

You are hardly the first person, OP, to citie "Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands" (hereafter referred to as "Determination"). Dr. Nahle has been touted by many who would love to see the global warming issue just go away.

Nahle claims to prove that an increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will result in a cooling effect on the climate system. He does this with idealized calculations of radiative properties of a mixture of gases. Before discussing whether his ideas are valid, I am compelled to point out that his paper is terribly written (I'm referring to the technical merit of Nahle's writing, not the grammar.). For anyone thinking that people can’t get published when they do work that goes against the current understanding, this is a good example of work that could never be published either way! I don’t buy the idea that one won’t get published if one proposes something “against the grain." There is no question, however, that one certainly won’t get published if one is a terrible writer.

In "Determination's" case, the technical writing is so bad, that the equations are hard to follow. [1] Some symbols are not defined, or the symbols are switched to different ones without explanation. Only individuals familiar with the type of derivation Nahle uses can make "heads or tails" of the thing, makes it possible to figure out what was done, but it really shouldn’t be this hard.

The problem with Nahle’s idea:

His whole conclusion hinges on the “correction” factor (Δε) where the emission spectra overlap:

He assumes a mixture of water vapor and CO2. With the equation above he calculates the emissivity of the mixture as...

...yet he compares the emissivity of the mixture with the correction factor for a new mixture that includes oxygen, when his original correction factor did no include (account for) the presence of oxygen in the air [2]....

...and declares the following (slightly inaccurate) conclusion: “The emissivity of the water vapor decreased by 0.0872 units.”

He really means to say that the emissivity of the mixture decreases. Why? Because he has assumed a fixed amount of mass and unintentionally decreased the amount of water vapor in the mixture, something that though it doesn't alter the invalidity of his conclusion, Nahle partially acknowledges this issue:

“The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases.”​

The substance of what he's done is replace some H2O molecules with molecules of a lower emissivity. In the case of more CO2, it makes perfect sense that the emissivity of a mixture with fixed mass would decrease, since H2O is a stronger infrared absorber than CO2. But, then he makes the incorrect inference that adding CO2 must therefore cool the planet, which is a gross misrepresentation of...and get this...his own results.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 will not lead to reduced H2O, because the mass of the atmosphere is not fixed.

Producing a more accurate version of his calculation is a bit difficult. The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is small compared to other constituents, but its effect can still be quite large. The more complicated part of the problem comes with understanding the feedbacks. Water vapor is expected to increase with increasing CO2, but it’s not straightforward to build this effect into a simple calculation like the one presented by Nahle. Doing so in a single equation would require many more dubious simplifications.

We have definitely not observed a decrease in H2O, but there has been an obvious increase in CO2. Below is a plot of globally averaged column water vapor from NCEP Reanalysis 2. As we can clearly see, the trend is positive (and statistically significant), consistent with the notion that water vapor increases with increasing CO2.

​

Mean and Trend Line Legend:​

• Monthly mean -- Grey horizontal curve
• Annual mean -- Black curve
• Linear Trend (significant at the 99% confidence level) -- Red line

Notes:

1. Almost certainly, individuals who were taught the math skills, but who don't routinely use them will struggle to follow Nahle's reasoning. I say that because that is the challenge I faced; thus I had to call an acquaintance to ask him about the paper's content. The veritable "alphabet soup" of undefined symbols made it impossible for my math-major son, whom I called first, to tell me what was going on, that even though the math itself, as math in papers of this nature goes, isn't terribly complicated.
   
   The man I called was not familiar with the paper, but he mentioned a colleague who was. What I've shared above is that researcher's analysis, not mine. (The linked CV is a little bit out of date. Dr. Hannah is currently working the Lawrence Livermore Lab working on the ACME project.)
2. Don't ask me how an ostensibly credible scientist begins an analysis such as the one Nahle attempted to preform and doesn't account for oxygen being in the air, but "sure as God made little green apples" he did not.

 

[mamooth]

That author "Nasif S.Nahle" claims to be a 'scientist' at "Biology Cabinet", but that's just his own conspiracy website. Nahle has published nothing outside of conspiracy websites. He's not a professor or scientist anywhere.

 

[SSDD]

Really? Please explain that to the glaciers and ice caps.

You might have a point if glaciers and ice caps hadn't been coming and going throughout the history of the earth....as it is, the only point you have is at the top of your wacko tin foil hat.

 

[SSDD]

A large group of scientists at many different universities have repeatedly confirmed that the CO2 dragon in the sky is a political myth.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Excuse me? The document to which you linked indicates one author. A group requires a minimum of two elements.

A large group of scientists at many different universities have repeatedly confirmed that the CO2 dragon in the sky is a political myth.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Has the document you linked been subjected to the peer review process? If so:

• In what peer-reviewed science journal was it published?
• When was it published?

I know the answer to both questions: it was not published anywhere at any time. There's a good reason for that, and that reason is noted later in this post.

You are hardly the first person, OP, to citie "Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands" (hereafter referred to as "Determination"). Dr. Nahle has been touted by many who would love to see the global warming issue just go away.

Nahle claims to prove that an increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will result in a cooling effect on the climate system. He does this with idealized calculations of radiative properties of a mixture of gases. Before discussing whether his ideas are valid, I am compelled to point out that his paper is terribly written (I'm referring to the technical merit of Nahle's writing, not the grammar.). For anyone thinking that people can’t get published when they do work that goes against the current understanding, this is a good example of work that could never be published either way! I don’t buy the idea that one won’t get published if one proposes something “against the grain." There is no question, however, that one certainly won’t get published if one is a terrible writer.

In "Determination's" case, the technical writing is so bad, that the equations are hard to follow. [1] Some symbols are not defined, or the symbols are switched to different ones without explanation. Only individuals familiar with the type of derivation Nahle uses can make "heads or tails" of the thing, makes it possible to figure out what was done, but it really shouldn’t be this hard.

The problem with Nahle’s idea:

His whole conclusion hinges on the “correction” factor (Δε) where the emission spectra overlap:

He assumes a mixture of water vapor and CO2. With the equation above he calculates the emissivity of the mixture as...

...yet he compares the emissivity of the mixture with the correction factor for a new mixture that includes oxygen, when his original correction factor did no include (account for) the presence of oxygen in the air [2]....

...and declares the following (slightly inaccurate) conclusion: “The emissivity of the water vapor decreased by 0.0872 units.”

He really means to say that the emissivity of the mixture decreases. Why? Because he has assumed a fixed amount of mass and unintentionally decreased the amount of water vapor in the mixture, something that though it doesn't alter the invalidity of his conclusion, Nahle partially acknowledges this issue:

“The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases.”​

The substance of what he's done is replace some H2O molecules with molecules of a lower emissivity. In the case of more CO2, it makes perfect sense that the emissivity of a mixture with fixed mass would decrease, since H2O is a stronger infrared absorber than CO2. But, then he makes the incorrect inference that adding CO2 must therefore cool the planet, which is a gross misrepresentation of...and get this...his own results.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 will not lead to reduced H2O, because the mass of the atmosphere is not fixed.

Producing a more accurate version of his calculation is a bit difficult. The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is small compared to other constituents, but its effect can still be quite large. The more complicated part of the problem comes with understanding the feedbacks. Water vapor is expected to increase with increasing CO2, but it’s not straightforward to build this effect into a simple calculation like the one presented by Nahle. Doing so in a single equation would require many more dubious simplifications.

We have definitely not observed a decrease in H2O, but there has been an obvious increase in CO2. Below is a plot of globally averaged column water vapor from NCEP Reanalysis 2. As we can clearly see, the trend is positive (and statistically significant), consistent with the notion that water vapor increases with increasing CO2.

​

Mean and Trend Line Legend:​

• Monthly mean -- Grey horizontal curve
• Annual mean -- Black curve
• Linear Trend (significant at the 99% confidence level) -- Red line

Notes:

1. Almost certainly, individuals who were taught the math skills, but who don't routinely use them will struggle to follow Nahle's reasoning. I say that because that is the challenge I faced; thus I had to call an acquaintance to ask him about the paper's content. The veritable "alphabet soup" of undefined symbols made it impossible for my math-major son, whom I called first, to tell me what was going on, that even though the math itself, as math in papers of this nature goes, isn't terribly complicated.
   
   The man I called was not familiar with the paper, but he mentioned a colleague who was. What I've shared above is that researcher's analysis, not mine. (The linked CV is a little bit out of date. Dr. Hannah is currently working the Lawrence Livermore Lab working on the ACME project.)
2. Don't ask me how an ostensibly credible scientist begins an analysis such as the one Nahle attempted to preform and doesn't account for oxygen being in the air, but "sure as God made little green apples" he did not.

Assuming that radiation plays anything more than a very minor bit part in the transfer of energy through the troposphere is always a mistake...the time between collisions of the various molecules that make up the atmosphere is about a billion times shorter than the time it takes a so called greenhouse gas molecule that has absorbed some IR to actually emit it as radiation...that CO2 molecule is a billion times more likely to simply transfer the energy it absorbed via convection...

 

[PredFan]

Whatever. thank God that Trump got us out of the Parasite Accord.

 

[mamooth]

...the time between collisions of the various molecules that make up the atmosphere is about a billion times shorter than the time it takes a so called greenhouse gas molecule that has absorbed some IR to actually emit it as radiation..

And since that energy is stored as vibrational energy as opposed to kinetic energy, it is almost never transferred in such collisions.

You mean your cult didn't see fit to tell you that in the daily sermons, being they wanted you kept ignorant? They succeeded.

 

[SSDD]

...the time between collisions of the various molecules that make up the atmosphere is about a billion times shorter than the time it takes a so called greenhouse gas molecule that has absorbed some IR to actually emit it as radiation..

And since that energy is stored as vibrational energy as opposed to kinetic energy, it is almost never transferred in such collisions.

You mean your cult didn't see fit to tell you that in the daily sermons, being they wanted you kept ignorant? They succeeded.

And once again the hairball proves beyond any reasonable doubt that she doesn't have a f'ing clue.

HEAT DISTRIBUTION IN THE TROPOSPHERE

clip:
The temperature of the earth's surface will have a significant influence on the surface air temperature due to the conduction process. The bulk of heat energy transferred in the troposphere is done by convection. Convection does not only mean thunderstorm clouds but means any mixing of air.

Introduction to the Atmosphere: Background Material

clip:

• The sun's heat that warms the earth's surface is transported upwards largely by convection and is mixed by updrafts and downdrafts.

https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...netsFS2016/160422_exop2016_chapter4_part2.pdf

clip:
4.4.3 Tropospheric Convection

Convection is the energy transport by gas flows and it is a dominant energy transport process in the troposphere. Convection will occur if the following conditions are fulfilled

• – a gas parcel, which is slightly hotter, and therefore slightly less dense and lighter than its surroundings will start to rise,
  
  
• – the ambient pressure decreases and the parcel expands, and cools adiabatically (heat transfer to the surroundings can be neglected),
  
  
• – if the parcel is, after some upwards motion and adiabatic expansion (and cooling), still hotter and less dense than the surroundings then it will continue to rise in a convective flow.
  
  

Convection - AMS Glossary

clip: In the atmosphere, convection is the dominant vertical transport process in convective boundary layers,


Convective heat transfer - Wikipedia

Convective heat transfer, often referred to simply as convection, is the transfer of heat from one place to another by the movement of fluids. Convection is usually the dominant form of heat transfer in liquids and gases.


The fact is that very little energy is transferred via radiation precisely because there are so many collisions hairball....once again your dogma loses out to fact. Guess you have managed to remain blissfully unaware that most tropical weather is dominated by convection currents...

You keep trying hairball..the law of averages says that sooner or later you simply have to get something right.

 

[Crick]

the time between collisions of the various molecules that make up the atmosphere is about a billion times shorter than the time it takes a so called greenhouse gas molecule that has absorbed some IR to actually emit it as radiation

I find the time to emit is roughly 8 nS.

The average velocity of molecules in the atmosphere is 1866 km/hr or 51,883 cm/s. The mean free path is approximately 70 nanometers. That gives a mean time between collisions of 1.35057e-10 seconds or 0.135057 nanoseconds. Thus collisions occur about 60 times as frequently as spontaneous emissions, not billions of times.

 

[ScienceRocks]

That author "Nasif S.Nahle" claims to be a 'scientist' at "Biology Cabinet", but that's just his own conspiracy website. Nahle has published nothing outside of conspiracy websites. He's not a professor or scientist anywhere.

All the loserterians have are fakes and lies...It works of course as most people don't understand basic science or much of anything but it is very harmful to this country and science.

 

[IanC]

...the time between collisions of the various molecules that make up the atmosphere is about a billion times shorter than the time it takes a so called greenhouse gas molecule that has absorbed some IR to actually emit it as radiation..

And since that energy is stored as vibrational energy as opposed to kinetic energy, it is almost never transferred in such collisions.

You mean your cult didn't see fit to tell you that in the daily sermons, being they wanted you kept ignorant? They succeeded.

And once again the hairball proves beyond any reasonable doubt that she doesn't have a f'ing clue.

HEAT DISTRIBUTION IN THE TROPOSPHERE

clip:
The temperature of the earth's surface will have a significant influence on the surface air temperature due to the conduction process. The bulk of heat energy transferred in the troposphere is done by convection. Convection does not only mean thunderstorm clouds but means any mixing of air.

Introduction to the Atmosphere: Background Material

clip:

• The sun's heat that warms the earth's surface is transported upwards largely by convection and is mixed by updrafts and downdrafts.

https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...netsFS2016/160422_exop2016_chapter4_part2.pdf

clip:
4.4.3 Tropospheric Convection

Convection is the energy transport by gas flows and it is a dominant energy transport process in the troposphere. Convection will occur if the following conditions are fulfilled

• – a gas parcel, which is slightly hotter, and therefore slightly less dense and lighter than its surroundings will start to rise,
  
  
• – the ambient pressure decreases and the parcel expands, and cools adiabatically (heat transfer to the surroundings can be neglected),
  
  
• – if the parcel is, after some upwards motion and adiabatic expansion (and cooling), still hotter and less dense than the surroundings then it will continue to rise in a convective flow.
  

Convection - AMS Glossary

clip: In the atmosphere, convection is the dominant vertical transport process in convective boundary layers,


Convective heat transfer - Wikipedia

Convective heat transfer, often referred to simply as convection, is the transfer of heat from one place to another by the movement of fluids. Convection is usually the dominant form of heat transfer in liquids and gases.


The fact is that very little energy is transferred via radiation precisely because there are so many collisions hairball....once again your dogma loses out to fact. Guess you have managed to remain blissfully unaware that most tropical weather is dominated by convection currents...

You keep trying hairball..the law of averages says that sooner or later you simply have to get something right.

I concur that convection is a major mode of energy transfer, especially between the surface and the cloudtops, where convection is enhanced by water vapour which is lighter than most of the other molecules in the atmosphere. Roughly 60% convection, 25% direct escape through the radiation atmospheric window, and less than 15% other radiation.

 

[IanC]

the time between collisions of the various molecules that make up the atmosphere is about a billion times shorter than the time it takes a so called greenhouse gas molecule that has absorbed some IR to actually emit it as radiation

I find the time to emit is roughly 8 nS.

The average velocity of molecules in the atmosphere is 1866 km/hr or 51,883 cm/s. The mean free path is approximately 70 nanometers. That gives a mean time between collisions of 1.35057e-10 seconds or 0.135057 nanoseconds. Thus collisions occur about 60 times as frequently as spontaneous emissions, not billions of times.

I concur that emissions happen about one order of magnitude less often than collisions but certainly more often than SSDDs claim of one in a billion.

Obviously the percentage of excited molecules actually emitting increases the further up into the atmosphere you go, due to less density and fewer collisions.

 

[SSDD]

the time between collisions of the various molecules that make up the atmosphere is about a billion times shorter than the time it takes a so called greenhouse gas molecule that has absorbed some IR to actually emit it as radiation

I find the time to emit is roughly 8 nS.

The average velocity of molecules in the atmosphere is 1866 km/hr or 51,883 cm/s. The mean free path is approximately 70 nanometers. That gives a mean time between collisions of 1.35057e-10 seconds or 0.135057 nanoseconds. Thus collisions occur about 60 times as frequently as spontaneous emissions, not billions of times.

Here you go:

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:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

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. ]

 

[SSDD]

the time between collisions of the various molecules that make up the atmosphere is about a billion times shorter than the time it takes a so called greenhouse gas molecule that has absorbed some IR to actually emit it as radiation

I find the time to emit is roughly 8 nS.

The average velocity of molecules in the atmosphere is 1866 km/hr or 51,883 cm/s. The mean free path is approximately 70 nanometers. That gives a mean time between collisions of 1.35057e-10 seconds or 0.135057 nanoseconds. Thus collisions occur about 60 times as frequently as spontaneous emissions, not billions of times.

I concur that emissions happen about one order of magnitude less often than collisions but certainly more often than SSDDs claim of one in a billion.

Obviously the percentage of excited molecules actually emitting increases the further up into the atmosphere you go, due to less density and fewer collisions.

Email Dr Happer...Most of those guys are easily accessible and more than willing to answer questions....I certainly would be more likely to accept a statement by someone of the stature of Dr Happer than any of our local warmer wackos...including yourself.

 

[SSDD]

That author "Nasif S.Nahle" claims to be a 'scientist' at "Biology Cabinet", but that's just his own conspiracy website. Nahle has published nothing outside of conspiracy websites. He's not a professor or scientist anywhere.

All the loserterians have are fakes and lies...It works of course as most people don't understand basic science or much of anything but it is very harmful to this country and science.

If you are supporting the hairball on this point, then it becomes clear that you don't understand basic science or much of anything else...the hairball was just about as wrong as a single individual could be regarding the way energy moves through the lower atmosphere...but thanks for speaking up to let everyone know exactly how much you don't know.

 

[IanC]

the time between collisions of the various molecules that make up the atmosphere is about a billion times shorter than the time it takes a so called greenhouse gas molecule that has absorbed some IR to actually emit it as radiation

I find the time to emit is roughly 8 nS.

The average velocity of molecules in the atmosphere is 1866 km/hr or 51,883 cm/s. The mean free path is approximately 70 nanometers. That gives a mean time between collisions of 1.35057e-10 seconds or 0.135057 nanoseconds. Thus collisions occur about 60 times as frequently as spontaneous emissions, not billions of times.

I concur that emissions happen about one order of magnitude less often than collisions but certainly more often than SSDDs claim of one in a billion.

Obviously the percentage of excited molecules actually emitting increases the further up into the atmosphere you go, due to less density and fewer collisions.

Email Dr Happer...Most of those guys are easily accessible and more than willing to answer questions....I certainly would be more likely to accept a statement by someone of the stature of Dr Happer than any of our local warmer wackos...including yourself.

I have a problem with Happer's comments in as much as he is giving the odds of an individual CO2 molecule absorbing and then emitting a photon. The vast majority of excited CO2 molecules become excited by collision not absorption.

Let us turn to a slightly different area. You have claimed repeatedly that "absorption and emission does not equal warming". How do you reconcile that statement with Happer's comments that 99.99% of the radiation absorbed by CO2 does get added to the total energy of the atmosphere, some of which would be expressed as kinetic energy, measured as temperature?

 

[SSDD]

the time between collisions of the various molecules that make up the atmosphere is about a billion times shorter than the time it takes a so called greenhouse gas molecule that has absorbed some IR to actually emit it as radiation

I find the time to emit is roughly 8 nS.

The average velocity of molecules in the atmosphere is 1866 km/hr or 51,883 cm/s. The mean free path is approximately 70 nanometers. That gives a mean time between collisions of 1.35057e-10 seconds or 0.135057 nanoseconds. Thus collisions occur about 60 times as frequently as spontaneous emissions, not billions of times.

I concur that emissions happen about one order of magnitude less often than collisions but certainly more often than SSDDs claim of one in a billion.

Obviously the percentage of excited molecules actually emitting increases the further up into the atmosphere you go, due to less density and fewer collisions.

Email Dr Happer...Most of those guys are easily accessible and more than willing to answer questions....I certainly would be more likely to accept a statement by someone of the stature of Dr Happer than any of our local warmer wackos...including yourself.

I have a problem with Happer's comments in as much as he is giving the odds of an individual CO2 molecule absorbing and then emitting a photon. The vast majority of excited CO2 molecules become excited by collision not absorption.

Let us turn to a slightly different area. You have claimed repeatedly that "absorption and emission does not equal warming". How do you reconcile that statement with Happer's comments that 99.99% of the radiation absorbed by CO2 does get added to the total energy of the atmosphere, some of which would be expressed as kinetic energy, measured as temperature?

Energy absorbed by CO2 does not get "added" it is just part of the energy radiating from the earth...Just because CO2 absorbs a bit of IR does not mean that it gets "added" to the total energy...it was already there....why would it get added?