Multiple experiments confirm that CO2 lowers absorptivity & emissivity of air

[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?

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?

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?

The source of the IR is the surface. The surface is shedding energy by producing radiation. Some of the IR escapes directly to space.

But some of this IR radiation energy is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere (all within the first 10 meters for 15 micron).

This energy has been removed from the surface and added to the atmosphere. My comment explicitly said "added to the total energy of the atmosphere". I further explained that part of this energy would be expressed as kinetic energy (as opposed to potential energy), which by definition means a warmer temperature.

Where are you confused about this simple explanation? Be specific, maybe I can help clear it up.

 

[SSDD]

The source of the IR is the surface. The surface is shedding energy by producing radiation. Some of the IR escapes directly to space.

But some of this IR radiation energy is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere (all within the first 10 meters for 15 micron).

This energy has been removed from the surface and added to the atmosphere. My comment explicitly said "added to the total energy of the atmosphere". I further explained that part of this energy would be expressed as kinetic energy (as opposed to potential energy), which by definition means a warmer temperature.

Where are you confused about this simple explanation? Be specific, maybe I can help clear it up.

If you take a dollar from your left pocket and put it in your right pocket, have you added anything to the total wealth you are carrying around...these additions and multipliers are part of the magic you believe in...sorry, but your argument is magical thinking...

 

[polarbear]

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?

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?

The source of the IR is the surface. The surface is shedding energy by producing radiation. Some of the IR escapes directly to space.

But some of this IR radiation energy is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere (all within the first 10 meters for 15 micron).

This energy has been removed from the surface and added to the atmosphere. My comment explicitly said "added to the total energy of the atmosphere". I further explained that part of this energy would be expressed as kinetic energy (as opposed to potential energy), which by definition means a warmer temperature.

Where are you confused about this simple explanation? Be specific, maybe I can help clear it up.

1.)"But some of this IR radiation energy is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere (all within the first 10 meters for 15 micron).
2.)This energy has been removed from the surface and added to the atmosphere. My comment explicitly said "added to the total energy of the atmosphere". I further explained that part of this energy would be expressed as kinetic energy (as opposed to potential energy), which by definition means a warmer temperature."
To point1.) The question is how much is "some"...as by direct measurement not as per theories that have not been verified other than using the StB equation in ways that are not applicable to a gas mixture such as air and "arguments" challenging skeptics with "prove that isn`t so".
The burden of proof rests with those who make the claim, not on those who insist on hard evidence directly related to heating via "back radiation"....for which those who make this claim resort to melting ice caps or anomalies which are nothing more than statistical artifacts.
And every easily reproducible experiment that proved otherwise is dismissed as corrupted by the oil-illuminati conspiracy, thus leaving us only with the M.Mann group-think crap.
It is quite the challenge to directly heat air with infrared radiation as anyone in the industry who makes IR heaters knows and bases all their engineering decisions on.
Just try and measure any increase in air temperature in front of a radiative heater in the no convection zone and if you succeed in doing so then you have the hard data that the AGW group think lobby refuses to explore...because they know full well that there are no anomalies to be had.
To point 2.) The energy that flows from the surface through the air is not "additional" energy while it flows through the air. The argument that it is additional energy is the same as claiming that the oil in the pipeline is "additional energy" over and above what the oil well is pumping.
That pipeline is no more than a temporary storage much the same as the atmosphere we live in.
If you add a tracer to whatever flows through the line it takes longer for it to emerge at the other end the longer the pipeline is, but in no way is there any "additional energy" at any point in that pipeline. Makes no difference if that pipeline is air and the energy going through the pipe are photons.
Everything on this message board is transmitted through "photon pipelines" aka fiber-optics and at no place in that pipeline is there "additional" energy over and above what is injected at the source

 

[IanC]

In response to both SSDD and polarbear above.

It takes energy to put the molecules of air into the gravity field above the surface. A lot of it.

Where did this energy come from? It is energy stored in the atmosphere rather than immediately lost to space. It is 'borrowed', and would be returned if the input was turned off.

Like an oven or a toaster. Neither 'work' until they have come up to temperature. The initial energy is stored, a higher local temperature is achieved at equilibrium, then it releases the stored energy when the power is turned off.

The mass of the atmosphere would have no effect on temperature if it was a solid crust on the surface. Only after it has stored enough energy to turn into a gas and be held aloft in the gravity field does it start to have a warming effect.

Looking at a storage system only after it has reached equilibrium does not tell the whole story. The atmosphere is not as simple as polarbear's pipeline. Air molecules are crashing into the surface, returning energy that originally came from the surface. GHGs add to the total energy of the atmosphere, warming the atmosphere and increasing the return of energy.

This is not rocket science. The mechanisms are clear, even if the actual figures are disputed. I don't care if someone claims the effect of CO2 is smaller than the concensus's claim. I due care if someone denies that the mechanisms exist in the first place.

 

[IanC]

Additionally, the surface has an emissivity of close to one so the S-B laws can be used. It is radiating at approximately 400w. The measured solar input is less than 200w. Where does the deficit come from if not from energy returning from the stored energy of the atmosphere?

 

[IanC]

This is a good version because it identifies the type of molecules that take chunks out of the Planck curve.

The missing chunks are the amount of surface radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, there by warming it.

The warmer atmosphere in turn warms the surface. This process continues until the surface warms enough to equal the output of the solar input. A full Planck curve at a lower temperature outputs the same amount of energy as does a Planck curve with missing chunks but at a higher temperature. The GHGs raise the temperature of both the atmosphere and surface by blocking certain bands of radiation and retaining it in the atmosphere until the surface warms enough to again release the equivalent amount of solar energy through the available bands.

ie 75% of 400w equals 100% of 300w. That would correspond to roughly 17C and -3C. I have no idea how much is blocked by GHGs but it is likely more than 25% because my example only produced a 20C greenhouse effect whereas 33C is the typical amount claimed.

There are other factors involved which I have chosen to ignore. I am only interested in the basic mechanism, the direction, and a rough estimate of the size.

 

[polarbear]

In response to both SSDD and polarbear above.

It takes energy to put the molecules of air into the gravity field above the surface. A lot of it.

Where did this energy come from? It is energy stored in the atmosphere rather than immediately lost to space. It is 'borrowed', and would be returned if the input was turned off.

Like an oven or a toaster. Neither 'work' until they have come up to temperature. The initial energy is stored, a higher local temperature is achieved at equilibrium, then it releases the stored energy when the power is turned off.

The mass of the atmosphere would have no effect on temperature if it was a solid crust on the surface. Only after it has stored enough energy to turn into a gas and be held aloft in the gravity field does it start to have a warming effect.

Looking at a storage system only after it has reached equilibrium does not tell the whole story. The atmosphere is not as simple as polarbear's pipeline. Air molecules are crashing into the surface, returning energy that originally came from the surface. GHGs add to the total energy of the atmosphere, warming the atmosphere and increasing the return of energy.

This is not rocket science. The mechanisms are clear, even if the actual figures are disputed. I don't care if someone claims the effect of CO2 is smaller than the concensus's claim. I due care if someone denies that the mechanisms exist in the first place.

What?
It takes energy to put the molecules of air into the gravity field above the surface. A lot of it.
1.) there is no such thing as an "air molecule". A molecule is the smallest part of a specific substance comprised of more than 1 atom. There are N2 O2 H2O etc molecules in air but no "air molecules".
2.) All the above gases are lighter than the surface material...."it takes energy..a lot of it to put air into the gravity field above the surface"....Wow I never expected you of all people to come up with that one!
Suppose you uncork a bottle of air at the bottom of a swimming pool...it takes energy to bring that lighter than water/volume bottle down there but no energy to get the air back up and the only reason why it does go up is gravity
According to you the air would plunge into the ocean if you don`t prevent it from doing so with energy and a lot of it.
I am starting to have serious doubts about your knowledge of physics and almost wish I had not seen this reply of your`s
Let me guess...next thing you come up with is that "air-gas molecules" only exist above 0 Kelvin and that is the "lot of energy" that keeps them in the gravity field above the surface.

 

[IanC]

1.) there is no such thing as an "air molecule". A molecule is the smallest part of a specific substance comprised of more than 1 atom. There are N2 O2 H2O etc molecules in air but no "air molecules".

That's your #1 argument? That you don't like my terminology? Hahahaha, what an anal retentive retard.

Hahahaha. "There are molecules of air but no air molecules". Hahahaha. I laughed so hard I spilled my drink.

 

[IanC]

Suppose you uncork a bottle of air at the bottom of a swimming pool...it takes energy to bring that lighter than water/volume bottle down there but no energy to get the air back up and the only reason why it does go up is gravity
According to you the air would plunge into the ocean if you don`t prevent it from doing so with energy and a lot of it.

Non sequitur. What does that have to do with energy being the cause of air molecules to be held aloft in the gravity field? And why the strawman argument by saying I claim air would plunge into the ocean? Quote my statement that led you to that conclusion.

 

[IanC]

2.) All the above gases are lighter than the surface material...."it takes energy..a lot of it to put air into the gravity field above the surface"....Wow I never expected you of all people to come up with that one!

I don't quite understand what your point is. I suppose you don't either. Surely not the trivial fact that gases are lighter than solids and liquids?

I can only make my point easily visible by describing journey towards equilibrium. If the Sun were to suddenly start sending 10% more energy towards the Earth, what would happen to the surface and atmosphere?

First the surface would start to warm, but then the temperature differential would be wider and some of the additional solar input would be used to warm the atmosphere instead of the surface. The radiation loss from the surface would increase but only slowly, most of the extra solar input would be used to increase the temperature of both the surface and the atmosphere.

As the atmosphere warms it also increases in height, stored potential energy to go along with the increased kinetic energy (temperature), constantly being switched back and forth between the two forms by molecular collisions.

When the new equilibrium it reached for the new solar input, the radiation loss to space will once again be equal to the input. But in all the time it took to reach equilibrium the radiation loss was less than the input. Energy was stored in the surface to bring it to a warmer temperature. Energy was stored in the atmosphere to both warm it and increase its height.

Now suddenly revert the solar input to the original level. Everything runs in reverse. The surface/atmosphere will be losing more radiation than it is receiving. The surface will cool, less energy will be sent to the atmosphere because the temperature differential will be smaller (the atmosphere would even start sending energy towards the surface if there were no GHGs to shed energy). The atmosphere would shrink to its original height.

And the gain in energy moving to the new equilibrium would match the loss of energy when it returned to the original equilibrium.

 

[SSDD]

It takes energy to put the molecules of air into the gravity field above the surface. A lot of it.

The only rational response to that statement is just "wow"...I mean..."wow". have you fallen off your meds? Air is not surface because it is lighter than surface. Now if you wanted to push all the air down to the surface, that would take energy. And in so far as air movement goes, that is simply the product of convection of energy through the troposphere combined with the rotation of the earth.

Magical thinking combined with some really wacked out crazy notion of physics has apparently pushed you over the edge. Maybe you are a bit covetous of those first class seats on the AGW crazy train that crick, rocks, and the hairball are occupying.

 

[SSDD]

Additionally, the surface has an emissivity of close to one so the S-B laws can be used. It is radiating at approximately 400w. The measured solar input is less than 200w. Where does the deficit come from if not from energy returning from the stored energy of the atmosphere?

It is inappropriate to use the SB law for a gas. Period. Again...terrribly flawed understanding of physics. magic.

 

[SSDD]

The missing chunks are the amount of surface radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, there by warming it.

No ian...absorption and emission don't equal warming...the only "chunk" taken out that constitutes actual warming due to absorption is that absorbed by water...and not even all of that because of convection.

The warmer atmosphere in turn warms the surface.

You really are a climate crazy...the surface warms the atmosphere..the sun warms the surface...the surface warms the atmosphere...now repeat that till it sinks in. The atmosphere does not warm the surface except in the case of rare temperature inversions.

 

[SSDD]

That's your #1 argument? That you don't like my terminology? Hahahaha, what an anal retentive retard.{/quote]

It isn't the terminology...it is the sheer craziness of believing that it takes energy to make lighter than air molecules remain above the surface.

Once again...it would take a great deal of energy to force the atmosphere down to the surface, but it doesn't take any to keep it up there....

 

[IanC]

Additionally, the surface has an emissivity of close to one so the S-B laws can be used. It is radiating at approximately 400w. The measured solar input is less than 200w. Where does the deficit come from if not from energy returning from the stored energy of the atmosphere?

It is inappropriate to use the SB law for a gas. Period. Again...terrribly flawed understanding of physics. magic.

I am not using the S-B equation for the atmosphere, I am using it for the surface.

Solar input alone cannot support a 400w radiating surface.

The easiest way to shut me up is to tell me where you think the extra energy is coming from. You have ducked the question a hundred times in the past, so it is obvious that you don't have an answer.

If you don't like my answer, simply give a better one.

 

[IanC]

It takes energy to put the molecules of air into the gravity field above the surface. A lot of it.

The only rational response to that statement is just "wow"...I mean..."wow". have you fallen off your meds? Air is not surface because it is lighter than surface. Now if you wanted to push all the air down to the surface, that would take energy. And in so far as air movement goes, that is simply the product of convection of energy through the troposphere combined with the rotation of the earth.

Magical thinking combined with some really wacked out crazy notion of physics has apparently pushed you over the edge. Maybe you are a bit covetous of those first class seats on the AGW crazy train that crick, rocks, and the hairball are occupying.

The height of an atmosphere is dependent on its total energy.

A block of dry ice, or container of liquid nitrogen takes energy from it environment to turn into a gaseous form. The more energy you put into it, the more it expands.

Surely this basic physics is not beyond your ken.

An atmosphere with twice the total energy is much higher, with half the energy it is much lower. In all three cases it obeys the Ideal Gas Laws. (within reason, where the necessary assumptions are valid)

 

[IanC]

No ian...absorption and emission don't equal warming...the only "chunk" taken out that constitutes actual warming due to absorption is that absorbed by water...and not even all of that because of convection

Again, simply explain where you think the energy goes. If the surface is radiating 400w into the atmosphere but only half comes out the other side of the atmosphere, where did the missing half go?

A simple question, do you have a simple answer?

 

[IanC]

You really are a climate crazy...the surface warms the atmosphere..the sun warms the surface...the surface warms the atmosphere...now repeat that till it sinks in. The atmosphere does not warm the surface except in the case of rare temperature inversions

I have no problem with your statement. It just doesn't go far enough.

You mentioned inversions. What is happening then? The air molecules are conducting energy into the surface by molecular collision.

There are three basic conditions between the surface/atmosphere. Warmer cooler or equal. The amount of conduction energy flowing is a function of temperature differential. When there only a small differential most of the solar input goes into warming the surface and producing radiation. When there is a large differential more of the solar input goes into atmospheric storage.

 

[IanC]

That's your #1 argument? That you don't like my terminology? Hahahaha, what an anal retentive retard.

It isn't the terminology...it is the sheer craziness of believing that it takes energy to make lighter than air molecules remain above the surface.

Once again...it would take a great deal of energy to force the atmosphere down to the surface, but it doesn't take any to keep it up there....

Actually, it takes removal of energy to lower the air molecules. Once they have lower total energy gravity pulls them closer to the surface.

I thought you knew the basics. You keep claiming that mass suspended in the gravity field is the only factor in surface temperature.

 

[SSDD]

No ian...absorption and emission don't equal warming...the only "chunk" taken out that constitutes actual warming due to absorption is that absorbed by water...and not even all of that because of convection

Again, simply explain where you think the energy goes. If the surface is radiating 400w into the atmosphere but only half comes out the other side of the atmosphere, where did the missing half go?

A simple question, do you have a simple answer?

How much geothermal energy do you think leaves the surface of the earth?