Correlation between temperature and CO2

[SSDD]

Any of the humps on the component's line that do not reach 100% mean that some of that wavelength is transmitted rather than completely absorbed.g

That is assuming...and it is a bit assumption that the energy doesn't get transferred to another molecule via collision and move on in the form of convection...it is a billion to one shot of any given molecule actually radiating anything .

On the other hand, any hump that reaches 100% absorbs all the radiation but doesn't limit how much it is capable of absorbing.

Again, assuming that the energy isn't moved on by convection.

The fact is ian, that the notion of a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere so completely dominated by convection is ludicrous.

 

[SSDD]

More BS from Ian...Your forgetting that emissions do not represent absorption. Your making an assumption not based in the facts. Why do you omit black bodies on earth which actually do over 99% of the emissions?

Ian is big on making assumptions based on nothing more than his faith in models. He don't need no stinking evideidence.

 

[SSDD]

This diagram contains a lot of information. It is well worth studying.

And it is virtually meaningless in an atmosphere so completely dominated by convection.

 

[IanC]

That is assuming...and it is a big assumption that the energy doesn't get transferred to another molecule via collision and move on in the form of convection...it is a billion to one shot of any given molecule actually radiating anything

Thanks for actually saying something. It makes dialogue much easier.

Let's get convection tidied up a bit first. Convection is a parcel of gas (sometimes liquid) that is lighter than the surrounding gas because it is 1. warmer or 2. different composition, ie contains more water vapour.

This whole parcel moves upwards, powered by gravity, taking its energy with it. Cooler drier air rushes in to replace it. This is a primarily a gravity effect not radiation or the analogue of conduction for gases.


Now back to surface emitted radiation being absorbed by the atmosphere. Let's use surface emitted 15 micron IR, and atmospheric CO2 as the example because it is the least complicated.

All the emitted energy is absorbed quickly, within a few handfuls of metres. Once absorbed it is passed around by molecular collisions, transformed into kinetic and potential energies. Above this height all 15 micron IR is produced by the atmosphere, none by the surface.

At, say, one kilometre of altitude, what is happening? There are still molecular collisions spreading energy around, transforming it into different combinations of kinetic and potential energies. What about the CO2?

The CO2 is still absorbing all the 15 micron IR it encounters, mostly passing it off by collision but occasionally re-emitting a photon. Sometimes it gets the energy from a collision and radiates a photon.

The Equipartition Theorum states a volume of gas will emit the same amount of radiation it absorbs if it is at a steady temperature.

Sorry GTG. TBC

 

[IanC]

The fact is ian, that the notion of a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere so completely dominated by convection is ludicrous.

I'm tired of doing the explaining, why don't you elaborate on your claim.

Convection does move a lot of energy past the bottleneck at the surface, up to the cloudtop. Trenberth and others put the amount at about 60% of the solar input, or about 25% of the radiating power of the surface. Is this what you mean by dominating? Or do you have some different figures?

Once the energy gets to the cloudtop what happens next? Does it just keep rising by convection? Energy can only escape by radiation, so where does this energy transport by convection flip over to energy loss by radiation?

Thanks in advance. I am sure there are a lot of us waiting on pins and needles to be finally told the 'truth'.

 

[IanC]

More BS from Ian...Your forgetting that emissions do not represent absorption. Your making an assumption not based in the facts. Why do you omit black bodies on earth which actually do over 99% of the emissions?

Ian is big on making assumptions based on nothing more than his faith in models. He don't need no stinking evideidence.

You have stated in the past that the N&Z model for planetary temperature is all that is needed to explain our present surface temperature. How is all this convection incorporated into their model? Do the other planets also have similar convection? By what mechanism?

Thanks in advance for clearing up this confusing aspect to planetary temperature.

 

[IanC]

This diagram contains a lot of information. It is well worth studying.

And it is virtually meaningless in an atmosphere so completely dominated by convection.

By meaningless do you mean negligible? Surely the free escape of radiation through the atmospheric window counts for something. How much energy do you think it accounts for? Is it such a small amount that it can be ignored?

Where does the outgoing radiation come from then?

Thanks in advance for clearing up this issue.

 

[IanC]

Just as I thought. SSDD has no answers to even the simplest criticisms of his claims.

He paints himself into a corner and then runs away.

But he'll be back on another thread, spouting the same indefensible nonsense. And after his initial bluster he'll run away again.

 

[SSDD]

Once it gets to the top of the troposphere, it is all radiated away... Water vapor accounts for most of the radiation that gets absorbed from the surface, and water vapor like all the other so called greenhouse gases is a billion times more likely to pass on the energy via convection than via radiation. In the troposphere, convection is so dominant that the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect is ludicrous on its face.

 

[IanC]

Once it gets to the top of the troposphere, it is all radiated away... Water vapor accounts for most of the radiation that gets absorbed from the surface, and water vapor like all the other so called greenhouse gases is a billion times more likely to pass on the energy via convection than via radiation. In the troposphere, convection is so dominant that the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect is ludicrous on its face.

convection con·vec·tion (kən-věk'shən) n. Heat transfer in a gas or liquid by the circulation of currents from one region to another. Fluid motion caused by an external force such as gravity.

Do you have a different definition of convection that you are using?

Convection is a macroscopic elevator ride that transports energy past the surface radiation bottleneck up to the cloudtops, and it is powered by gravity. Like I have said countless times before, and which you disagreed with, scoffed at. Apparently you have changed your mind.

What is this billion to one nonsense in favour of convection? 10% of the surface radiating power (25% of the Sun's surface input) escapes directly through the atmospheric window band.

Now you say the top of the troposphere is where all the radiation is generated from. What is the temperature there? Minus 60C? Hasn't most of the water vapour already given up its latent heat far below that, close to the freezing point of water? I think you need to fill in some more details.

Gravity moves the parcels of lighter air upwards. What causes the the lighter air in the first place? Conduction from the surface causes thermals. Evaporation increases the amount of water vapour, which lowers the molecular weight of a mole of air, absorption of surface radiation by GHGs warms the air making it less dense. Am I missing any other mechanisms? Probably but those three constitute the main pathways to initiate convection. Two of them are the result of greenhouse gases. Yet you reject that they have any influence.

 

[jc456]

When did "dead" come to mean "sensitivity"?

The amount of CO2 we can live with is vert exact. Go higher than that amount and you die. That is not up for debate.

We all learned that fact in 6th grade General Science class along with the process called "photosynthesis".

Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

I disagree.

The numbers aren't exact. We didn't learn it in elementary school. CO2 isn't toxic, although it does have side effects in concentrations much, much higher than 400 ppm. There is no LD50, except as an asphyxiant by displacing oxygen.

On the other hand, concentrations of less than about 180 ppm CO2 WOULD kill off most plant life, which in turn would kill off the animals who eat them.

Are you thankful for the increased crop yields and greening of the Earth due to CO2?

CO2 is plant food

 

[SSDD]

Convection is a macroscopic elevator ride that transports energy past the surface radiation bottleneck up to the cloudtops, and it is powered by gravity. Like I have said countless times before, and which you disagreed with, scoffed at. Apparently you have changed your mind.

There is no radiation bottleneck until you reach the top of the troposphere.....convection is so dominant in the troposphere that radiation is barely a bit player.

What is this billion to one nonsense in favour of convection? 10% of the surface radiating power (25% of the Sun's surface input) escapes directly through the atmospheric window band.[/uote]

Talk to Dr Happer about the billion to one "nonsense"...compare credentials and lifetime achievements regarding the topic and you two decide between yourselves who is spouting nonsense.

He is readily available via email and he will even answer questions from a magical thinker such as yourself.

 

[IanC]

Convection is a macroscopic elevator ride that transports energy past the surface radiation bottleneck up to the cloudtops, and it is powered by gravity. Like I have said countless times before, and which you disagreed with, scoffed at. Apparently you have changed your mind.

There is no radiation bottleneck until you reach the top of the troposphere.....convection is so dominant in the troposphere that radiation is barely a bit player.

What is this billion to one nonsense in favour of convection? 10% of the surface radiating power (25% of the Sun's surface input) escapes directly through the atmospheric window band.[/uote]

Talk to Dr Happer about the billion to one "nonsense"...compare credentials and lifetime achievements regarding the topic and you two decide between yourselves who is spouting nonsense.

He is readily available via email and he will even answer questions from a magical thinker such as yourself.

I have seen the conversation between Happer and the journalist. Why didn't you cut and paste it again?

Because it doesn't mention convection! SSDD is confused about what convection actually is. Convection is a macroscopic movement of a volume of mass that takes its energy with it as it moves.

Radiation and molecular collision are atomic scale processes that redistribute energy between molecules.

Hey SSDD, why didn't you address any of my points above? Is it because you don't have any answers or explanations?

Are you going to continue your blustering and stonewalling? Are you going to admit you screwed up with the meaning of convection?

 

[SSDD]

I have seen the conversation between Happer and the journalist. Why didn't you cut and paste it again?

Because it doesn't mention convection! SSDD is confused about what convection actually is. Convection is a macroscopic movement of a volume of mass that takes its energy with it as it moves.

Once again ian, for all of your high opinion of yourself, you prove that you know just enough to think that you don' need to look any further...and once again, it doesn't serve you well.

Here, from Heat and Thermodynamics: Oakes pp 82

Heat transfer through condition requires the physical transfer of energy through molecular collisions. CONVECTION IS A COMBINATION OF HEAT TRANSFER THROUGH DIFUSSION, WHICH HAS THE SAME MECHANISM AS CONDUCTION, AND THE MASS TRANSFER OF GASOUS MOLECULES.[./quote]

And the reason I didn't address any of your points is because they are all bullshit. Products of your magical thinking. More mental experiments which just happen to not have an analog in the real world or mental experiments which can not be conducted out here in the real world....Take your talisman, and your bags rat bones and chicken feet and confer with other magical thinkers...and let me know when you get some actual physical evidence in the form of observation and measurement to support your beliefs.

 

[SSDD]

You surprise me ian...I thought at least you would jump on the spelling error or the formatting mistake.

 

[IanC]

You surprise me ian...I thought at least you would jump on the spelling error or the formatting mistake.

Yes, I did notice the spell checker insertion of condition for convection, and the double s instead of double f. I figured you were copying something that you couldn't cut and paste.

That still left an idea that couldn't be ignored, even if you didn't add the context.

I re-examined my understanding of the concept of convection, and found it to be too simplistic, too general. There are other mechanisms that can power convection besides gravity, or that focusing on the rising bolus of energetic mass ignores the descending fluid and the reconditioning of the fluid as it turns the corner between rising and falling.

It gives me pleasure to re-think old topics in a deeper fashion, and for that I thank you.

Next, I wanted to find outside corroboration. Convection is too general a term, convective transfer of heat brings better and more specific information.

"
Convective heat transfer is one of the major types of heat transfer, and convection is also a major mode of mass transfer in fluids. Convective heat and mass transfer take place both by diffusion – the random Brownian motion of individual particles in the fluid – and by advection, in which matter or heat is transported by the larger-scale motion of currents in the fluid. In the context of heat and mass transfer, the term "convection" is used to refer to the sum of advective and diffusive transfer.[1] In common use the term "convection" may refer loosely to heat transfer by convection, as opposed to mass transfer by convection, or the convection process in general. Sometimes "convection" is even used to refer specifically to "free heat convection" (natural heat convection) as opposed to forced heat convection. However, in mechanics the correct use of the word is the general sense, and different types of convection should be qualified for clarity
"

As usual, physics is a complicated subject that is governed by simple Laws, but those laws can seldom be totally separated out from the complexity of reality.

In the case of the Earth's sun/surface/atmosphere/space flow of energy the three components of radiation/conduction/convection cannot be fully compartmentalized because they are all happening at the same time. You can however make general estimates of the amounts following any of the three pathways.

Your description of convection seems to include all three of the pathways. That is the opposite of informative. You have again taken a statement out of context and imbued it with your own interpretation.

The generally accepted meanings for the three modes of heat transfer are-

Conduction, energy passed along by physical contact.

Radiation, energy passed along via emitted packets of energy with no contact necessary.

Convection, energy passed along by bulk movement of the mass containing the energy.

 

[SSDD]

[/QUOTE]

Your description of convection seems to include all three of the pathways. That is the opposite of informative. You have again taken a statement out of context and imbued it with your own interpretation.

No ian...I have only applied reality...look it up...take it for a test drive sometime.

 

[mamooth]

Once it gets to the top of the troposphere, it is all radiated away...

The military would be very surprised to learn how all the time they spent defining the IR absorption characteristics of the atmosphere were wasted. It seems they just could have had SSDD tell them that the stratosphere is totally transparent to all IR, as he did there, and then base all their technology off of that claim.

Of course, our IR-seeker missiles then wouldn't work, but crippling our defense would be a small price to pay to support SSDD's ideological purity.

 

[SSDD]

The military would be very surprised to learn how all the time they spent defining the IR absorption characteristics of the atmosphere were wasted. It seems they just could have had SSDD tell them that the stratosphere is totally transparent to all IR, as he did there, and then base all their technology off of that claim.

So your claim is that IR gets conducted and convected into space? Is that your claim hairball?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Convection is a macroscopic elevator ride that transports energy past the surface radiation bottleneck up to the cloudtops, and it is powered by gravity. Like I have said countless times before, and which you disagreed with, scoffed at. Apparently you have changed your mind.

There is no radiation bottleneck until you reach the top of the troposphere.....convection is so dominant in the troposphere that radiation is barely a bit player.

What is this billion to one nonsense in favour of convection? 10% of the surface radiating power (25% of the Sun's surface input) escapes directly through the atmospheric window band.[/uote]

Talk to Dr Happer about the billion to one "nonsense"...compare credentials and lifetime achievements regarding the topic and you two decide between yourselves who is spouting nonsense.

He is readily available via email and he will even answer questions from a magical thinker such as yourself.

I have seen the conversation between Happer and the journalist. Why didn't you cut and paste it again?

Because it doesn't mention convection! SSDD is confused about what convection actually is. Convection is a macroscopic movement of a volume of mass that takes its energy with it as it moves.

Radiation and molecular collision are atomic scale processes that redistribute energy between molecules.

Hey SSDD, why didn't you address any of my points above? Is it because you don't have any answers or explanations?

Are you going to continue your blustering and stonewalling? Are you going to admit you screwed up with the meaning of convection?

So you believe that molecular collision doesn't happen in the mass? You don't believe that the mass will receive incoming radiation or give it off?

Well; this explains why you still believe in the 'atmospheric bottle neck" that has NEVER manifested itself...

Come on Ian use your damn head!

All three processes are part of the Convection flow and they can not be separated. This is precisely why the "Atmospheric bottle neck" is fallacy.