Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, not exactly zero.Conduction is the means of transport for exactly 0% of the energy leaving the surface to escape to space...and that is why your absurd claims are meaningless.
The thermal conductivity in air 26 mW / m °C (mW per temperature drop over a meter)
Lapse rate 9.8 °C / Km. = .0098 °C / m (temperature drop per meter)
Thermal conduction= 26 mW / m°C x 0.0098 °C / m = 0.255 mW / m².
Since the earth is radiating 400000 mW / m², 0.255 mW / m² is next to nothing. I would think convection alone would way over-power conduction.
.
That is quite obvious, but the convection speed way out paces conduction at 0.26 mW per meter.Convection can only move energy that is in the process of conduction. Conduction is the result of molecules being in direct contact with each other...energy transfer via collision...convection in the atmosphere is the result of air movement.
That is quite obvious, but the convection speed way out paces conduction at 0.26 mW per meter.Convection can only move energy that is in the process of conduction. Conduction is the result of molecules being in direct contact with each other...energy transfer via collision...convection in the atmosphere is the result of air movement.
Then maybe you can tell me where the 15,700 W/m² radiation from the surface of Venus goes.Radiation is barely a bit player in energy movement through the troposphere.
Then maybe you can tell me where the 15,700 W/m² radiation from the surface of Venus goes.Radiation is barely a bit player in energy movement through the troposphere.
Look in a textbook for that digression, and distraction. You don't know where the 15,700 W/m² radiation from the surface of Venus goes, do you.Then maybe you can tell me where the 15,700 W/m² radiation from the surface of Venus goes.Radiation is barely a bit player in energy movement through the troposphere.
Sure...soon as you state in plain English what this equation says...
Look in a textbook for that digression, and distraction. You don't know where the 15,700 W/m² radiation from the surface of Venus goes, do you.Then maybe you can tell me where the 15,700 W/m² radiation from the surface of Venus goes.Radiation is barely a bit player in energy movement through the troposphere.
Sure...soon as you state in plain English what this equation says...
If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY.
Well, not exactly zero.Conduction is the means of transport for exactly 0% of the energy leaving the surface to escape to space...and that is why your absurd claims are meaningless.
The thermal conductivity in air 26 mW / m °C (mW per temperature drop over a meter)
Lapse rate 9.8 °C / Km. = .0098 °C / m (temperature drop per meter)
Thermal conduction= 26 mW / m°C x 0.0098 °C / m = 0.255 mW / m².
Since the earth is radiating 400000 mW / m², 0.255 mW / m² is next to nothing. I would think convection alone would way over-power conduction.
.
Only when the concentration of the radiative gas is so rare that it loses the capacity to reabsorb the radiation does the gas start losing energy by escape to space.CO2 blocks nothing...it absorbs and immediately emits whatever it has absorbed assuming that it doesn't lose the energy to collision with another molecule first...a very large assumption since so few ghg molecules actually get to emit the energy they absorbed.. The only time a ghg molecule might block IR is after it has reached its equilibrium temperature...at roughly -80F...till then, it absorbs and emits if it has the opportunity to emit...it doesn't block anything
You don't understand how blackbody radiation happens in a gas.
Molecular collisions are usually elastic but they can also convert kinetic energy into an excited molecular state, or gain kinetic energy when an excited molecule relaxes.
Even more rarely does an excited molecule actually relax by emitting a photon, which is typically immediately reabsorbed.
The amount of radiation only depends on the temperature of the gas. The percentage of the radiating gas does not matter. More GHG molecules emit more photons but they get reabsorbed faster. The Equipartition Theorum. Only when the concentration of the radiative gas is so rare that it loses the capacity to reabsorb the radiation does the gas start losing energy by escape to space.
Only when the concentration of the radiative gas is so rare that it loses the capacity to reabsorb the radiation does the gas start losing energy by escape to space.CO2 blocks nothing...it absorbs and immediately emits whatever it has absorbed assuming that it doesn't lose the energy to collision with another molecule first...a very large assumption since so few ghg molecules actually get to emit the energy they absorbed.. The only time a ghg molecule might block IR is after it has reached its equilibrium temperature...at roughly -80F...till then, it absorbs and emits if it has the opportunity to emit...it doesn't block anything
You don't understand how blackbody radiation happens in a gas.
Molecular collisions are usually elastic but they can also convert kinetic energy into an excited molecular state, or gain kinetic energy when an excited molecule relaxes.
Even more rarely does an excited molecule actually relax by emitting a photon, which is typically immediately reabsorbed.
The amount of radiation only depends on the temperature of the gas. The percentage of the radiating gas does not matter. More GHG molecules emit more photons but they get reabsorbed faster. The Equipartition Theorum. Only when the concentration of the radiative gas is so rare that it loses the capacity to reabsorb the radiation does the gas start losing energy by escape to space.
How did you come up with this gem? According to you CO2 can trap photons for an indefinite time like some sort of Ghostbuster containment unit.
How does adding more CO2 to an atmosphere that already contains CO2 going to change the emissivity? Which wavelengths are you talking about, and in which region of the atmosphere?Every CO2 molecule is an opportunity to move a packet of IR on to space at the speed of light...add more CO2 and you get more opportunity to move energy more rapidly on to space...
The rest doesn't warrant discussion...it is your personal model and it does not reflect reality...
You seldom say anything pertinent . This line of discussion started with you saying that more CO2 increases the emissivity . I asked you which wavelengths and where it happens. Since then you have ducked the question.
I seldom say anything that agrees with your flawed ideas of how energy moves through the atmosphere...that is unlikely to change...
Which wavelengths are irrelevant...Any wavelength that presents an opportunity to bypass the cumbersome movement of conduction and convection is, by definition, an increase in emissivity...
Of course the original addition of a GHG changes the emissivity. But you said adding more of the same GHG will increase the emissivity even more. How?
Since conduction and convection take over as the primary means of energy movement long before CO2 has absorbed to extinction...again, any increased possibility of bypassing conduction and convection is an increase in emissivity....you are clearly laboring under the belief in back radiation even though you can provide no physical evidence of it...it doesn't happen outside of your models...
A additional gig molecules act like additional holes in the sieve...400 holes now vs 200 earlier...A GHG acts like a sieve, albeit in 3 dimensions. More of the GHG shrinks the grid size, less widens it.
CO2 blocks nothing...it absorbs and immediately emits whatever it has absorbed assuming that it doesn't lose the energy to collision with another molecule first...a very large assumption since so few ghg molecules actually get to emit the energy they absorbed.. The only time a ghg molecule might block IR is after it has reached its equilibrium temperature...at roughly -80F...till then, it absorbs and emits if it has the opportunity to emit...it doesn't block anything.CO2 already blocks 1/2 of 15 micron radiation in just 2 metres at sea level. The grid pattern is very fine.
It is only very high up in the atmosphere where the CO2 molecules are spread apart that 15 micron radiation can finally find a way through the sieve and escape to space. The grid pattern is coarse.
Your belief that CO2 blocks anything is a glaring flaw in your belief...it doesn't..
There are two boundaries here. High up where energy escapes, and at the surface where energy enters the atmosphere. Adding more CO2 means that the surface radiation is absorbed even sooner but the level where the 15 micron radiation escapes moves outward to an even colder height. There has been no change in emissivity, just in balance points.
Again...that rests on the premise that radiation is the primary means of movement of energy through the troposphere...it isn't even close...it is barely a player at all..conduction and convection are the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...
We are waiting.I can explain the 16,000 W/m2 easily enough.
Why do you keep lying about that. I stated exactly that well over half a dozen times...you, on the other hand can't even state what a simple equation says..
Well, not exactly zero.Conduction is the means of transport for exactly 0% of the energy leaving the surface to escape to space...and that is why your absurd claims are meaningless.
The thermal conductivity in air 26 mW / m °C (mW per temperature drop over a meter)
Lapse rate 9.8 °C / Km. = .0098 °C / m (temperature drop per meter)
Thermal conduction= 26 mW / m°C x 0.0098 °C / m = 0.255 mW / m².
Since the earth is radiating 400000 mW / m², 0.255 mW / m² is next to nothing. I would think convection alone would way over-power conduction.
.
You didn't read my comment with comprehension. All energy leaving the earth/atmosphere system exits as radiation. The only exception I can think of is low molecular weight gases that migrate to the top of the atmosphere and leave if they manage to achieve escape velocity.
Your point about the lapse rate and slowness of thermal conductivity is an advanced topic that may cause more confusion than understanding. The same goes for the wet lapse rate and the ŕelease of heat from phase change.
CO2 does not just absorb at 15 microns !!!! And whatever it absorbs it re-emits in all directions.Only when the concentration of the radiative gas is so rare that it loses the capacity to reabsorb the radiation does the gas start losing energy by escape to space.CO2 blocks nothing...it absorbs and immediately emits whatever it has absorbed assuming that it doesn't lose the energy to collision with another molecule first...a very large assumption since so few ghg molecules actually get to emit the energy they absorbed.. The only time a ghg molecule might block IR is after it has reached its equilibrium temperature...at roughly -80F...till then, it absorbs and emits if it has the opportunity to emit...it doesn't block anything
You don't understand how blackbody radiation happens in a gas.
Molecular collisions are usually elastic but they can also convert kinetic energy into an excited molecular state, or gain kinetic energy when an excited molecule relaxes.
Even more rarely does an excited molecule actually relax by emitting a photon, which is typically immediately reabsorbed.
The amount of radiation only depends on the temperature of the gas. The percentage of the radiating gas does not matter. More GHG molecules emit more photons but they get reabsorbed faster. The Equipartition Theorum. Only when the concentration of the radiative gas is so rare that it loses the capacity to reabsorb the radiation does the gas start losing energy by escape to space.
How did you come up with this gem? According to you CO2 can trap photons for an indefinite time like some sort of Ghostbuster containment unit.
No 15 micron radiation radiation escapes to space from 100 metres up in the atmosphere. Each and every photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule before it has returned to the surface or escapes to space. Is that what you mean by a Ghostbuster Containment Unit?
Or are you arguing that there never comes a time were the air is thin enough that some of the 15 micron radiation does not get absorbed by a CO2 molecule and escapes to space?
I have explained what I think happens with CO2 radiation and emission, with the energy that enters at the surface boundary and the energy that leaves at the 'emission height'.
Feel free to grace us with monumental knowledge and explain what really happens.
Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted.
As I watch many claim global warming for the current weather events, it appears it is time for some sanity and a reality check. The earth has always been a paradoxical presentation and its high time people were taught that what they see is in far to short a time span for any realistic determination to be made about what our climate is doing.
When the sun is active the flows from the sun, like wind, push against our atmosphere. As the earth rotates this pressure pushes atmosphere to the poles increasing the mass of the atmosphere above them. The NASA photo below shows how solar wind pushes against the magnetosphere and against our atmosphere.
View attachment 172129
When the wind reduces so do the pressures against our atmosphere. If you spin a partially filled balloon and apply a wind pressure against it the center will flatten and the ends round. This is what happens to earths atmosphere.
When there is high pressures against our atmosphere from the sun the depth of atmosphere above the equator decreases and above the poles increase.
View attachment 172131
This allows the polar jet to reside high in latitudes and warming of the equator will push towards the polls keeping the polar jet tightly constrained to the poles. This is a warming globe.
With cooling and low solar influence things are very different. With low pressures (as we have today) against the magnetosphere and atmosphere, the mass of the atmosphere is flung out due to earths rotation, allowing the atmosphere near the poles to be drawn to the equator.
View attachment 172132
The draw down of atmosphere causes the polar Cells to thin and widen pulling the polar jet to mid latitudes. This results in a paradoxical warming of the arctic regions and massive cooling of the mid latitudes. The thin atmosphere mass above the poles allows heat escape to accelerate.
What we see today is a natural and normal presentation of the earth entering a cooling phase. With Solar influence now slated to be very low for the next 30-60 years our cooling is just beginning.
As we near the new thermal equilibrium of the earths new energy input/output levels, the zones will return to what we have seen as normal over recent years. When that happens, the poles will freeze over rapidly and glaciation will resume. Many Northern Hemisphere glaciers have already begun to increase in size. The ice mass on Greenland has tripled in just three years.
This is just the beginning..
Tell me moron, How much weight in mass does CO2 have and then tell me how much it warms with energy that is radiated at -80 degC. then tell how much the atmosphere will warm with the warming of CO2.. DO THE MATH RETARD!That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments. It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?
The Earth's surface absorbs a wide range of SWIR and LWIR. It re-emits it primarily in broad band LWIR. Energy in the 15 micron band and others is absorbed by CO2 within the first few meters of atmosphere and re-emits in all directions. Energy transport from that point upwards is a combination of radiative, conductive and convective. When energy gets high enough in the stratosphere, the rarity of the atmosphere allows radiated IR to escape to space.
That is my understanding of what Ian has contended. Ian may certainly correct me if I have erred. Do you believe any part of that to be in error?
