Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

[threegoofs]

You have a knack, either intentionally or through some bizarre variation of acute ignorance, of coming up with insane interpretations of facts which you try to use to reject widely accepted and scientific processes (see SSDD and radiative heat transfer, photons and quantum mechanics). Heat transfer off the planet depends on radiative transfer, particularly in the thinner upper atmosphere where your collisions fall to a rarity and where the radiation has its first chance at actually departing. A little tricky to do a convective transfer to a vacuum, isn't it Sid.

I am afraid that it is you, crick, who seems sadly unable to grasp the obvious. AGW isn't concerned with what happens in the upper atmosphere....AGW is concerned with CO2 molecules absorbing and emitting IR photons either back to the surface to actually warm it, or simply to delay the escape of the energy to the upper atmosphere and subsequently out into space, depending on which hypothesis you believe...the IPCC says it radiates back to the surface and actually warms the surface...

If the vast vast vast majority of energy is convecting to the upper atmosphere, and those IR photons being radiated by CO2 molecules (so important to all versions of the AGW hypothesis) are, in fact, a rarity, it is certainly just one more thing that calls the validity of the hypothesis into question.....as if the lack of a hot spot weren't enough.

The Greenhouse effect is quite real. It is universally accepted among anyone that's passed 7th grade science. Your arguments against it are a waste of time for all and indicative only that you have no valid argument. That's what happens when you choose to argue for a falsehood.

An atmospheric thermal effect is real. It is interesting that the temperature was predicted quite well by the Standard Atmosphere way back in 1976 with no radiative effect at all....

Takes physics class.

Pretends he understands more than his teachers. Or his teacher's teachers.

Classic Dunning Kruger.

 

[IanC]

You guys are finally getting to the crux of the matter. GHGs do have an effect, especially at the surface and for the first few tens of meters. But that retarded energy is shunted into convection mostly via the water cycle. A small change in evaporation and cloud formation easily overwhelms the radiative effect, although some small portion must go into warming the surface otherwise it would already be happening.

SSDD is wrong about the relative numbers of collisions versus emissions. It is only around one order of magnitude rather than the approximately ten he is claiming. W is wrong about the partition theory because the assumptions made for the general principle ignores the fact that energy is in fact moving through atmosphere even though at any one point it is very close to equilibrium.

 

[Wuwei]

What you are saying is well understood. What is not well understood is why you think that shows that radiation is such a small part of the physics of atmospheric gasses. Your conclusion is very myopic.

It is well known that radiation plays a very small part in the movement of energy from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere.

That response has nothing to do with the point I was making. I was talking about radiation physics, not atmospherics.

So where is the hot spot in the lower troposphere which would necessarily exist if the "blanket" effect you claim were actually in operation? A million plus direct measurements say that it does not exist. The hot spot is predicted by the hypothesis and it would supposedly be the smoking gun proving the AGW hypothesis...except it doesn't exist...the lack of said hot spot should be enough to falsify the AGW hypothesis if the scientific method were actually in practice in climate science.

Again you misunderstood my point: your statement about the quick extinction of vibratory energy has absolutely no impact on the ability of CO2 to back-radiate LW energy. I was not saying it is important in AGW.

Again back-radiation does not mean that the CO2 molecule that absorbs IR is the same one that emits it. It is the entire ensemble of CO2 molecules that absorbs IR and the ensemble also emits IR. That emitted radiation is isotropic, meaning it includes back-radiation.

 

[Wuwei]

SSDD is wrong about the relative numbers of collisions versus emissions. It is only around one order of magnitude rather than the approximately ten he is claiming. W is wrong about the partition theory because the assumptions made for the general principle ignores the fact that energy is in fact moving through atmosphere even though at any one point it is very close to equilibrium.

As I told SSDD, I wasn't referring to atmospherics. I was referring to the physics where there is equilibrium. Of course that would be local. Although each locality as you move around in the atmosphere has different equilibrium conditions, the equipartition concepts still hold for each small locality when it comes to the radiation aspects of energy flow. For the lifetime of radiation events quasi-equilibrium would generally exist.

 

[SSDD]

Takes physics class.

Pretends he understands more than his teachers. Or his teacher's teachers.

Classic Dunning Kruger.

This may come as a surprise to you, but much of the physics used to explain the so called greenhouse effect are not taught in classical physics courses...One must take physics for the soft sciences to be taught back radiation.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD is wrong about the relative numbers of collisions versus emissions.

I am correct about the numbers of collisions....sorry. Make whatever your faith demands that you make of it, but I am correct.

 

[SSDD]

Again you misunderstood my point: your statement about the quick extinction of vibratory energy has absolutely no impact on the ability of CO2 to back-radiate LW energy. I was not saying it is important in AGW.

If the vast majority of energy absorbed by CO2 molecules is transferred via collisions with other molecules....exactly how important do you think so called back radiation is?

Again back-radiation does not mean that the CO2 molecule that absorbs IR is the same one that emits it. It is the entire ensemble of CO2 molecules that absorbs IR and the ensemble also emits IR. That emitted radiation is isotropic, meaning it includes back-radiation.

How often do you think that a CO2 molecule collides with another CO2 molecule? It is, after all, merely a trace gas in the atmosphere. The energy is most often transferred to an N2 molecule.

 

[Wuwei]

If the vast majority of energy absorbed by CO2 molecules is transferred via collisions with other molecules....exactly how important do you think so called back radiation is?

The fact that the vast majority of energy is transferred via collisions has nothing to do with the amount of back-radiation. It is only a small piece of the picture. It's the total population of CO2 in an excited state that matters.

How often do you think that a CO2 molecule collides with another CO2 molecule? It is, after all, merely a trace gas in the atmosphere. The energy is most often transferred to an N2 molecule.

Exactly. Also equally important is that the N2 molecule is transferring energy to the vibratory states of CO2 to replenish the population of vibratory energy. As long as the total population of vibratory excitation is high (which it is via equipartition) then there will be significant isotropic IR radiation from the ensemble of vibratory excited states.

 

[IanC]

Yap-yap from a proven fool. Smart photons, remember?

Nothing smart about obeying the laws of nature...photons that don't move towards warmer objects are no more smart than rocks that fall down rather than up....just following the rules. To bad you believe there must be some sort of intelligence...or maybe magic involved.

Not that it matters much insofar as the myth of CO2 warming goes.

Tell me rocks do you have any idea what the mean time between molecular collisions through which a CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom (usually N2) is in the open atmosphere?

Now can you tell me what the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is?

Can you tell me how many times longer the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is than the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom?

Now can you tell me what the ramifications of the difference between those times is for the idea of CO2 molecules absorbing and emitting IR photons in all directions?

You claim to be educated...so prove it.

Thanks for being so predictable rocks....you never disappoint. Since you clearly don't have any idea of what I was talking about let me give you the answers and then see if you can draw any conclusions from them...my bet is that you will be able to muster much more than an ad hominem or two, but what the hell, I'll give you a chance anyway.

Q: What is the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom (usually N2) out in the open atmosphere?

A: About 1 nanosecond

Q: Can you tell me how many times longer the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is than the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom?

A: The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is around 1 second....how much longer is that than the mean time between molecular collisions through which unexcited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom...why its about a billion times as long.

Q: Ccan you tell me what the ramifications of the difference between those times is for the idea of CO2 molecules absorbing and emitting IR photons in all directions?

A: Well, since the mean time between molecular collisions is so much shorter than the decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon, the CO2 molecule will transfer its energy to another atom or molecule 99.9999999% of the time... This means that the popular mental image of a CO2 molecules emitting IR photons off in all directions which is the basis for the AGW hypothesis only happens once in every billion energy exchanges...Direct energy exchange between the CO2 and another atom or molecule happens the other 999,999,999 times. In other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.

So here's your big change rocks...What conclusions do you draw from those facts regarding the AGW hypothesis as described by climate science?

SSDD- your estimates for the number of molecular collisions at STP is markedly high and reemission time for excited CO2 is markedly longer. More realistic estimates put the emission time as about ten times longer than the time between collisions. It is still more likely that the energy will be transferred by kinetics than emission but not the unbelievably rare event that you are claiming.

 

[IanC]

If the vast majority of energy absorbed by CO2 molecules is transferred via collisions with other molecules....exactly how important do you think so called back radiation is?

The fact that the vast majority of energy is transferred via collisions has nothing to do with the amount of back-radiation. It is only a small piece of the picture. It's the total population of CO2 in an excited state that matters.

How often do you think that a CO2 molecule collides with another CO2 molecule? It is, after all, merely a trace gas in the atmosphere. The energy is most often transferred to an N2 molecule.

Exactly. Also equally important is that the N2 molecule is transferring energy to the vibratory states of CO2 to replenish the population of vibratory energy. As long as the total population of vibratory excitation is high (which it is via equipartition) then there will be significant isotropic IR radiation from the ensemble of vibratory excited states.

Exactly. It is not so much that CO2 absorbs and re-emits a photon back to earth half the time. The CO2 absorbs the energy which then becomes part of the atmospheric cohort, and the atmosphere produces blackbody radiation which returns to the earth half the time.

 

[Wuwei]

SSDD- your estimates for the number of molecular collisions at STP is markedly high and reemission time for excited CO2 is markedly longer. More realistic estimates put the emission time as about ten times longer than the time between collisions. It is still more likely that the energy will be transferred by kinetics than emission but not the unbelievably rare event that you are claiming.

I agree "his" estimates are high but they are not his estimates. There is a blog where posters are reinforcing each other in believing in that one in a gazillion probability. To me it was immaterial to the other unsupportable ideas he was posing.

 

[mamooth]

SSDD- your estimates for the number of molecular collisions at STP is markedly high and reemission time for excited CO2 is markedly longer. More realistic estimates put the emission time as about ten times longer than the time between collisions. It is still more likely that the energy will be transferred by kinetics than emission but not the unbelievably rare event that you are claiming.

The key is that the CO2 is storing absorbed energy as internal vibrational energy, not as kinetic energy. While molecules bumping each other will freely transfer kinetic energy, only a tiny fraction of such collisions will manage to transfer the vibrational energy.

On top of that, the path length of the emitted IR photon is much longer than the path length of a molecule has before it hits another molecule, so the photon can carry energy further.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD- your estimates for the number of molecular collisions at STP is markedly high and reemission time for excited CO2 is markedly longer. More realistic estimates put the emission time as about ten times longer than the time between collisions. It is still more likely that the energy will be transferred by kinetics than emission but not the unbelievably rare event that you are claiming.

Sorry Ian, but again, I am not wrong. My numbers come from Dr William Happer...
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University.

Here is a link to an exchange between himself and Dr David Burton.

Gmail - Another dumb question from Dave

Note the last comment on the page from Dr Happer where he corrects his statement of the time between collisions from about a nanosecond to .05 nanoseconds making the emission of a photon by a CO2 molecule all the more rare.

 

[SSDD]

The key is that the CO2 is storing absorbed energy as internal vibrational energy, not as kinetic energy. While molecules bumping each other will freely transfer kinetic energy, only a tiny fraction of such collisions will manage to transfer the vibrational energy.

CO2 has no mechanism by which to store energy....of any type.

 

[flacaltenn]

SSDD- your estimates for the number of molecular collisions at STP is markedly high and reemission time for excited CO2 is markedly longer. More realistic estimates put the emission time as about ten times longer than the time between collisions. It is still more likely that the energy will be transferred by kinetics than emission but not the unbelievably rare event that you are claiming.

Sorry Ian, but again, I am not wrong. My numbers come from Dr William Happer...
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University.

Here is a link to an exchange between himself and Dr David Burton.

Gmail - Another dumb question from Dave

Note the last comment on the page from Dr Happer where he corrects his statement of the time between collisions from about a nanosecond to .05 nanoseconds making the emission of a photon by a CO2 molecule all the more rare.

Interesting.. There was never a doubt in MY mind that CO2 or any molecule is NOT OBLIGATED to immediately re-radiate an equal photon. But your interpretation of what this MEANS is wrong. Here's the pertinent quote..

[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.]

That bolded part is where you went off the rails. That's the EXACT description of a CO2 "storing and distributing heat" thru acquired kinetic energy between each other and to other gases in the mix...

Not NECESSARY that the entire GreenHouse "insulation" is done by Radiative transfer. The GHouse gases merely have to intercept and absorb the Earth blackbody radiation and reduce the loss to space. When the atmos layer WARMS -- the overall radiative transfer back to the surface will increase by a tad. There is always shown in Radiative balance diagrams a component of the Earth's surface IR leaking to space. It's ALWAYS a net loss of surface heat.

If you've heated the lower troposphere by restraining IR emissions -- you've heated it.
How the SURFACE is warmed by that action is another matter. The radiative balance was never looked at as tho it is a mirror with a certain reflectivity. It was ALWAYS a thermal transfer in the first place.

 

[SSDD]

Interesting.. There was never a doubt in MY mind that CO2 or any molecule is NOT OBLIGATED to immediately re-radiate an equal photon. But your interpretation of what this MEANS is wrong. Here's the pertinent quote..

[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.]

That bolded part is where you went off the rails. That's the EXACT description of a CO2 "storing and distributing heat" thru acquired kinetic energy between each other and to other gases in the mix...

Not NECESSARY that the entire GreenHouse "insulation" is done by Radiative transfer. The GHouse gases merely have to intercept and absorb the Earth blackbody radiation and reduce the loss to space. When the atmos layer WARMS -- the overall radiative transfer back to the surface will increase by a tad. There is always shown in Radiative balance diagrams a component of the Earth's surface IR leaking to space. It's ALWAYS a net loss of surface heat.

If you've heated the lower troposphere by restraining IR emissions -- you've heated it.
How the SURFACE is warmed by that action is another matter. The radiative balance was never looked at as tho it is a mirror with a certain reflectivity. It was ALWAYS a thermal transfer in the first place.

What we are talking about here is an actual gravito-thermal effect as described by Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzman, Feynman, Hemboltz, et all, not a hypothetical radiative greenhouse effect as described by Arrhenius, the IPCC and modern climate science.

 

[mamooth]

Sorry Ian, but again, I am not wrong. My numbers come from Dr William Happer... Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University.

No wonder you screwed up. You're listening to “The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler” William Happer, one of Exxon's most prized paid shills.

So, SSDD doesn't believe in vibrational modes. We can add that to the long list of mainstream physics which he denies.

Vibrational Modes - Chemwiki

 

[threegoofs]

Takes physics class.

Pretends he understands more than his teachers. Or his teacher's teachers.

Classic Dunning Kruger.

This may come as a surprise to you, but much of the physics used to explain the so called greenhouse effect are not taught in classical physics courses...One must take physics for the soft sciences to be taught back radiation.

Not surprised, however, that you ignored the Dunning Kruger reference.

 

[flacaltenn]

Interesting.. There was never a doubt in MY mind that CO2 or any molecule is NOT OBLIGATED to immediately re-radiate an equal photon. But your interpretation of what this MEANS is wrong. Here's the pertinent quote..

[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.]

That bolded part is where you went off the rails. That's the EXACT description of a CO2 "storing and distributing heat" thru acquired kinetic energy between each other and to other gases in the mix...

Not NECESSARY that the entire GreenHouse "insulation" is done by Radiative transfer. The GHouse gases merely have to intercept and absorb the Earth blackbody radiation and reduce the loss to space. When the atmos layer WARMS -- the overall radiative transfer back to the surface will increase by a tad. There is always shown in Radiative balance diagrams a component of the Earth's surface IR leaking to space. It's ALWAYS a net loss of surface heat.

If you've heated the lower troposphere by restraining IR emissions -- you've heated it.
How the SURFACE is warmed by that action is another matter. The radiative balance was never looked at as tho it is a mirror with a certain reflectivity. It was ALWAYS a thermal transfer in the first place.

What we are talking about here is an actual gravito-thermal effect as described by Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzman, Feynman, Hemboltz, et all, not a hypothetical radiative greenhouse effect as described by Arrhenius, the IPCC and modern climate science.

That's right -- all that energy from the sun?? Doesn't matter if or how IT balances --- because it's all gravito-thermal..


This physicist you found is playing loose and fast with some factoids. The fact that CO2 molecule doesn't chuck out a photon for a full second -- really doesn't have anything to do with predicting the GAIN or LOSS of heat energy during kinetic interactions. Doesn't mean "one bump" relieves all the heat energy ACQUIRED from the last incoming photon. So comparing the RAW statistic of one photon every Billion collisions tells you NOTHING about heat gain or loss. He's toying with people.. Because he can. Very common amongst the primadonna crowd in academe..

 

[Wuwei]

What we are talking about here is an actual gravito-thermal effect as described by Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzman, Feynman, Hemboltz, et all, not a hypothetical radiative greenhouse effect as described by Arrhenius, the IPCC and modern climate science.

I have never heard of the gravito-thermal effect. A web search largely shows a bunch of blogs.

One summary says that,

“Loschmidt [in 1870's] claimed that the equilibrium temperature of a gas column subject to gravity should be lower at the top of the column and higher at its base.”​

However Feynman says,

“Let us begin with an example: the distribution of the molecules in an atmosphere like our own, but without the winds and other kinds of disturbance. Suppose that we have a column of gas extending to a great height, and at thermal equilibrium—unlike our atmosphere, which as we know gets colder as we go up. We could remark that if the temperature differed at different heights, we could demonstrate lack of equilibrium. So, ultimately, of course, the temperature becomes the same at all heights in a gravitational field.“​

They disagree with each other on temperature, but both do require equilibrium conditions. However the atmosphere is hardly in equilibrium with the sun pumping energy in, etc. So I don't see how any of this is relevant to atmospheric physics.

What is your take on this?