Atmospheric CO2 radiation

[Wuwei]

What is the old saying, sound and fury signifying nothing. Even the warming alarmists acknowledge that CO2 in and of itself cannot support the alarmist agenda. The alarmist view requires feedbacks that have yet to be shown.

I am not a warming alarmist. The physics used by many here is just plain wrong. If they want to make a point I would like to see them do it honestly.

 

[percysunshine]

It would probably help your thesis if the empirical data were treated with a consistent number of significant figures.

Yes, that would be nice, but not all empirical data has the same number of significant figures. I tried to use what was published.

Then the fewest number of significant figures should be used for everything.

 

[Wuwei]

It's not debatable that molecules almost never lose vibrational energy in collisions.

Wrong....

Its so wrong that its worse than wrong.. But you would have to do the math properly to see the error..

Mamooth is right. You are wrong.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Damn Billy! You’re killing them!

Billy was killed, but he doesn't realize it.

 

[Wuwei]

No one with a brain can understand your OP. It is so divorced from well known reality.

Your last name isn't trenberth by any chance? He does this sort of shoddy work

What aspect is divorced from reality?
Trenberth is concerned with the dynamics of the entire atmosphere. The OP is only concerned with the radiation properties of CO2, and not the ramifications of the full complexity of the atmosphere.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your post tells us that the original temperature of the air mass is 288K (58.73 Deg F). This indicates that you are using DOWN-WELLING RADIATION as an input. You are using total energy input, through the air mass, of the sun to obtain your output.

Non sequitur. I'm not assuming any input radiation. The OP is about equilibrium dynamics of CO2 in air.

A Joule is a Watt Second (NOT Watts per second)

NO NO NO. Look up the units of watts. It is definitely watts per second!

With that number of collisions the energy contained is removed KINETICALLY, not by emission.

Elastic collisions do not remove energy. Look it up.

The JPL (Air force Jet Propulsion Laboratory) indicted that they did not know CO2's bend blunting rate and were unable to determine it;

I presume by "Bending blunt rate" you mean the "lifetime of the bending vibration mode". The two paragraphs you cite by Jay Blaur have nothing to do with that.

Worse still you are using rates found at the temperature of 1500K;

No, you show table III b. That is the wrong table. My citation referred to table V in my OP.

A wild assumption not supported by your posted data.

Not a wild assumption. It came from the next paragraph with reference to, “On Vibrational Relaxations in Carbon Dioxide”

IE: water vapor is not an Elastic collision thus it will consume energy. This is also an item you chose not to address..

Non sequitur. The OP only addresses properties of CO2.

From table V;

JPL found just one spontaneous emission every 2.98 seconds in the 14.98um band, in 1m^2. Now this flies in the face of your conclusion.. What is happening to all those other emissions?

You highlighted the wrong thing. Einstein's A coefficient does not directly give the lifetime of the bending vibration mode. Even the units are wrong. You should NOT have highlighted the A coefficient. You should have highlighted the LIFETIME(ms) column with the 335 value.

Your posts are replete with empty feigned bluster that does not make your point. You don't understand units for emission lifetimes or watts, which is absolutely amazing. And you simply didn't understand my OP.

.

No one with a brain can understand your OP. It is so divorced from well known reality.

Your last name isn't trenberth by any chance? He does this sort of shoddy work

He doesn't recognize the obvious errors he is making, that alone makes clear he is not one to rely for this level of science.

He doesn't know when to quit on it either, I hardly reply to this stuff anymore since it is a lot like wrestling with a pig in the mud.

Now I will sit back and watch the latest carnage of Wooooo Weeeeee errors come boiling out of the coffee pot.

 

[Third Party]

Some people, including the infamous Dr. Happer say that CO2 cannot radiate due to a plethora of molecular collisions that abort almost all of the ability to radiate15 micron photons. Why are they wrong?

The short answer:
A molecule vibrating in the15 micron radiation mode can hold that energy for 0.335 seconds.
The number of molecular collisions during that time is over a billion. However the vast majority of those collisions will simply bounce off without changing the molecular vibration state. Because of that, almost all CO2 molecules will keep their energy until they emit 15 micron radiation into the atmosphere.

The long answer:
These are the details of the short answer:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/771554.pdf from Table V
The average lifetime of a CO2 molecule in a bending vibration mode (15 micron radiation wavelength)
is 0.335 seconds.

Frequency of Molecular Collisions
The average atmospheric molecular collision frequency is 3.25×10⁹ collisions/second.

If just one of those billions of collisions were able to quench the CO2 vibrations, the probability of a CO2 radiating would be roughly 1 / 3.25×10⁹x0.335 which is 1 in 1.09 billion.

At first sight it would seem that the collision rate is so high that, for practical purposes all radiation vanishes. However inelastic collisions that would quench a CO2 vibration state are rare. Elastic collisions simply bounce off without changing any internal energy and are predominant.

https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3478579/109243.pdf “On Vibrational Relaxations in Carbon Dioxide”
TABLE III Translational Transition Probabilities Page 33.
This table gives the probabilities that a collision will quench a CO2 molecule in a 15 micron bending mode. The second column shows the probability is Pd² = 2.0 10⁻¹³ at 300 K. An extrapolation to the global average temperature of 288 K temperature gives a quenching collision probability = 1.7×10⁻¹³. That probability is very small.

Number of CO2 molecules per m³ @ 400ppm = 1.01×10²².
The number of atmospheric CO2 molecules in a 15 micron excitation state is
1.01×10²² x 2/9 = 0.244×10²² (2/9 comes from Equipartition Principle)

The probability that a single collision will quench that excited state = 1.7×10⁻¹³
The probability that a single collision does not quench the excited state = (1- 1.7×10⁻¹³)
The probability that none of the 1.09 billion collisions quenches the excited state =
(1 − 1.7×10⁻¹³)^1.09×10⁶ ≅ 1 − 1.7×10⁻¹³ × 1.09×10⁶ = 1 − 1.853×10⁻⁷ = 0.999999815
The approximation after the first term comes from eliminating very small polynomial higher order terms.

The number of excited CO2 not quenched by collision is 0.244×10²²x0.999999815
That is almost a certainty that all CO2 molecules in a “bending” vibration state will radiate 15 microns.

The radiation density is the energy of a 15 micron photon times the number of radiating CO2 molecules. The energy of a 15 micron photon = 1.3 10⁻²⁰ J
The total radiation energy of all 15 micron photons in a cubic meter
= 0.244×10²² x 1.3 10⁻²⁰ Joules = 0.317 x 10² J
The average radiation energy per cubic meter per second is
31.7 J / 0.335 s = 95 Watts.

Conclusion:
The resulting radiation density at atmospheric pressure and 15℃ is around 95 Watts radiating isotropically within a cubic meter at 15℃ . Radiation is a far faster mode of energy transfer than conduction. The role of GHG radiation in the atmosphere energy transfer should not be underestimated.

So, should we worry or not?

 

[Wuwei]

NO NO NO. Look up the units of watts. It is definitely watts per second

OOPs! Correction: a watt is joules per second.

.

 

[Wuwei]

He doesn't recognize the obvious errors he is making, that alone makes clear he is not one to rely for this level of science.

What are the errors I'm making? Billy sure hasn't found any.

.

 

[Wuwei]

So, should we worry or not?

I have no idea what the future holds. The subject is far more complex than my OP. But when deniers here use fake physics it does not help in finding out the truth.
.

 

[Billy_Bob]

He doesn't recognize the obvious errors he is making, that alone makes clear he is not one to rely for this level of science.

What are the errors I'm making? Billy sure hasn't found any.

.

You cant even correctly convert Joules to Watts..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your post tells us that the original temperature of the air mass is 288K (58.73 Deg F). This indicates that you are using DOWN-WELLING RADIATION as an input. You are using total energy input, through the air mass, of the sun to obtain your output.

Non sequitur. I'm not assuming any input radiation. The OP is about equilibrium dynamics of CO2 in air.

A Joule is a Watt Second (NOT Watts per second)

NO NO NO. Look up the units of watts. It is definitely watts per second!

With that number of collisions the energy contained is removed KINETICALLY, not by emission.

Elastic collisions do not remove energy. Look it up.

The JPL (Air force Jet Propulsion Laboratory) indicted that they did not know CO2's bend blunting rate and were unable to determine it;

I presume by "Bending blunt rate" you mean the "lifetime of the bending vibration mode". The two paragraphs you cite by Jay Blaur have nothing to do with that.

Worse still you are using rates found at the temperature of 1500K;

No, you show table III b. That is the wrong table. My citation referred to table V in my OP.

A wild assumption not supported by your posted data.

Not a wild assumption. It came from the next paragraph with reference to, “On Vibrational Relaxations in Carbon Dioxide”

IE: water vapor is not an Elastic collision thus it will consume energy. This is also an item you chose not to address..

Non sequitur. The OP only addresses properties of CO2.

From table V;

JPL found just one spontaneous emission every 2.98 seconds in the 14.98um band, in 1m^2. Now this flies in the face of your conclusion.. What is happening to all those other emissions?

You highlighted the wrong thing. Einstein's A coefficient does not directly give the lifetime of the bending vibration mode. Even the units are wrong. You should NOT have highlighted the A coefficient. You should have highlighted the LIFETIME(ms) column with the 335 value.

Your posts are replete with empty feigned bluster that does not make your point. You don't understand units for emission lifetimes or watts, which is absolutely amazing. And you simply didn't understand my OP.

.

No one with a brain can understand your OP. It is so divorced from well known reality.

Your last name isn't trenberth by any chance? He does this sort of shoddy work

We have now devolved into shear lunacy and grasping at broken straws. In the paper HE CITED JPL and Dr Blauer show, by empirical experiment that CO2 was only emitting 1 in 300,000,000 photons in the 14.98um band.

That killed his own premise dead... 1 emission in 2.98 seconds... And he wants us to only accept the parts of the paper that support his fantasy but then wants us to ignore the portion that clearly show his fantasy false..

I'm baffled by this monumental pile of BS...

 

[Wuwei]

He doesn't recognize the obvious errors he is making, that alone makes clear he is not one to rely for this level of science.

What are the errors I'm making? Billy sure hasn't found any.

.

You cant even correctly convert Joules to Watts..

I made a typo and owned up to it in post #28. That is the only error you found so far. But I did not make that error in the OP.

.

 

[Wuwei]

We have now devolved into shear lunacy and grasping at broken straws. In the paper HE CITED JPL and Dr Blauer show, by empirical experiment that CO2 was only emitting 1 in 300,000,000 photons in the 14.98um band.

Either you are lying or are confused. Which page does Blauer say CO2 was emitting 1 in 300 million photons?

1 emission in 2.98 seconds... And he wants us to only accept the parts of the paper that support his fantasy but then wants us to ignore the portion that clearly show his fantasy false..

Billy, look closely at this excerpt again from the paper I referenced.

You are quoting Einsteins "A coefficient" which is a decay probability. Notice that its units are 1/seconds. That is not a time, and hardly a life time. The actual decay is a falling exponential curve. The RMS value of that curve gives a lifetime which is quoted as 335 ms. This is shorter than you would expect because RMS average of a falling exponential is highly skewed toward zero.

The irony is that if you want to insist that A(1/second) is a life time even though the units are inverted you will not change the result that elastic collisions are still dominant.

Actually I think you are a troll. You don't understand physics yet you try to impress your friends with nothing but bluster.

.

 

[PredFan]

Damn Billy! You’re killing them!

Billy was killed, but he doesn't realize it.

That's easy for you to say. It's laziness. Billy has destroyed the argument, your lies mean nothing.

 

[Wuwei]

Damn Billy! You’re killing them!

Billy was killed, but he doesn't realize it.

That's easy for you to say. It's laziness. Billy has destroyed the argument, your lies mean nothing.

Really? I don't think Billy understood the physics. What do you think my argument was and how did Billy destroy it?

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

We have now devolved into shear lunacy and grasping at broken straws. In the paper HE CITED JPL and Dr Blauer show, by empirical experiment that CO2 was only emitting 1 in 300,000,000 photons in the 14.98um band.

Either you are lying or are confused. Which page does Blauer say CO2 was emitting 1 in 300 million photons?

1 emission in 2.98 seconds... And he wants us to only accept the parts of the paper that support his fantasy but then wants us to ignore the portion that clearly show his fantasy false..

Billy, look closely at this excerpt again from the paper I referenced.

You are quoting Einsteins "A coefficient" which is a decay probability. Notice that its units are 1/seconds. That is not a time, and hardly a life time. The actual decay is a falling exponential curve. The RMS value of that curve gives a lifetime which is quoted as 335 ms. This is shorter than you would expect because RMS average of a falling exponential is highly skewed toward zero.

The irony is that if you want to insist that A(1/second) is a life time even though the units are inverted you will not change the result that elastic collisions are still dominant.

Actually I think you are a troll. You don't understand physics yeOTt you try to impress your friends with nothing but bluster.

.

Your not half as smart as you think you are and Einstein's coefficient is proven by Empirical Experiment. JPL demonstrated that and proved your LWIR was not doing what you purport.

Enjoy ignorance.. I am no longer going to correct it.

 

[Wuwei]

We have now devolved into shear lunacy and grasping at broken straws. In the paper HE CITED JPL and Dr Blauer show, by empirical experiment that CO2 was only emitting 1 in 300,000,000 photons in the 14.98um band.

Either you are lying or are confused. Which page does Blauer say CO2 was emitting 1 in 300 million photons?

1 emission in 2.98 seconds... And he wants us to only accept the parts of the paper that support his fantasy but then wants us to ignore the portion that clearly show his fantasy false..

Billy, look closely at this excerpt again from the paper I referenced.

You are quoting Einsteins "A coefficient" which is a decay probability. Notice that its units are 1/seconds. That is not a time, and hardly a life time. The actual decay is a falling exponential curve. The RMS value of that curve gives a lifetime which is quoted as 335 ms. This is shorter than you would expect because RMS average of a falling exponential is highly skewed toward zero.

The irony is that if you want to insist that A(1/second) is a life time even though the units are inverted you will not change the result that elastic collisions are still dominant.

Actually I think you are a troll. You don't understand physics yeOTt you try to impress your friends with nothing but bluster.

.

Your not half as smart as you think you are and Einstein's coefficient is proven by Empirical Experiment. JPL demonstrated that and proved your LWIR was not doing what you purport.

Enjoy ignorance.. I am no longer going to correct it.

So you give up? Look at that table again.
Einsteins coefficient is 2.98 sec⁻¹
Look at the lifetime: 0.335 sec
Take the reciprocal of 2.98 and see what you get.

The answer is 0.335 sec

That shows exactly how to calculate the lifetime from Einstein's probability.

That kind of shoots down your argument. How can you fail on such basic arithmetic???

.

 

[Wuwei]

Ruh-roh. You just debunked one of SSDD's favorite pseudoscience rants.

Not that it will have any effect on him.

BBBWWWAAAHHHHAAAHHAAAAHHAAA

No hairball...he just tricked you into believing yet more bullshit...how does it feel to be a useful idiot....

BS? It would be helpful if you pointed out exactly where you think the BS is.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Some people, including the infamous Dr. Happer say that CO2 cannot radiate due to a plethora of molecular collisions that abort almost all of the ability to radiate15 micron photons. Why are they wrong?

The short answer:
A molecule vibrating in the15 micron radiation mode can hold that energy for 0.335 seconds.
The number of molecular collisions during that time is over a billion. However the vast majority of those collisions will simply bounce off without changing the molecular vibration state. Because of that, almost all CO2 molecules will keep their energy until they emit 15 micron radiation into the atmosphere.

The long answer:
These are the details of the short answer:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/771554.pdf from Table V
The average lifetime of a CO2 molecule in a bending vibration mode (15 micron radiation wavelength)
is 0.335 seconds.

Frequency of Molecular Collisions
The average atmospheric molecular collision frequency is 3.25×10⁹ collisions/second.

If just one of those billions of collisions were able to quench the CO2 vibrations, the probability of a CO2 radiating would be roughly 1 / 3.25×10⁹x0.335 which is 1 in 1.09 billion.

At first sight it would seem that the collision rate is so high that, for practical purposes all radiation vanishes. However inelastic collisions that would quench a CO2 vibration state are rare. Elastic collisions simply bounce off without changing any internal energy and are predominant.

https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3478579/109243.pdf “On Vibrational Relaxations in Carbon Dioxide”
TABLE III Translational Transition Probabilities Page 33.
This table gives the probabilities that a collision will quench a CO2 molecule in a 15 micron bending mode. The second column shows the probability is Pd² = 2.0 10⁻¹³ at 300 K. An extrapolation to the global average temperature of 288 K temperature gives a quenching collision probability = 1.7×10⁻¹³. That probability is very small.

Number of CO2 molecules per m³ @ 400ppm = 1.01×10²².
The number of atmospheric CO2 molecules in a 15 micron excitation state is
1.01×10²² x 2/9 = 0.244×10²² (2/9 comes from Equipartition Principle)

The probability that a single collision will quench that excited state = 1.7×10⁻¹³
The probability that a single collision does not quench the excited state = (1- 1.7×10⁻¹³)
The probability that none of the 1.09 billion collisions quenches the excited state =
(1 − 1.7×10⁻¹³)^1.09×10⁶ ≅ 1 − 1.7×10⁻¹³ × 1.09×10⁶ = 1 − 1.853×10⁻⁷ = 0.999999815
The approximation after the first term comes from eliminating very small polynomial higher order terms.

The number of excited CO2 not quenched by collision is 0.244×10²²x0.999999815
That is almost a certainty that all CO2 molecules in a “bending” vibration state will radiate 15 microns.

The radiation density is the energy of a 15 micron photon times the number of radiating CO2 molecules. The energy of a 15 micron photon = 1.3 10⁻²⁰ J
The total radiation energy of all 15 micron photons in a cubic meter
= 0.244×10²² x 1.3 10⁻²⁰ Joules = 0.317 x 10² J
The average radiation energy per cubic meter per second is
31.7 J / 0.335 s = 95 Watts.

Conclusion:
The resulting radiation density at atmospheric pressure and 15℃ is around 95 Watts radiating isotropically within a cubic meter at 15℃ . Radiation is a far faster mode of energy transfer than conduction. The role of GHG radiation in the atmosphere energy transfer should not be underestimated.

So why don't we make internal combustion engine that run on the heat trapped by CO2? Why isn't there one single , repeatable lab experiment that replicates your "theory"?

When NASA finds an exoplanet, why don't they describer the atmospheric CO2 cuz, yanno the "peer reviewed 'science'" claim an additional wisp of CO2 can make a planet uninhabitable.