Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[IanC]

Venus would appear to be a poor choice to compare to the Earth. The mechanism for heating the atmosphere is different. Very little sunlight reaches the surface, so it is not the surface warming the air.

We seem to know that very little visible sunlight reaches the surface. What really do we know about even shorter wavelengths? Methinks it isn't all that much. My reading suggests there is just speculation on "unknown UV absorbers" in some layer of the atmosphere or the other.

Large, non-spherical cloud particles have also been detected in the cloud decks. In 2012, abundance and vertical distribution of these unknown ultraviolet absorber in the Venusian atmosphere has been investigated from analysis of Venus Monitoring Camera images.[57] But their composition is still unknown.[51] In 2016, disulfur dioxide has been identified as a possible candidate for causing the so far unknown UV absorption of the Venusian atmosphere.[58]​

But yes, the "greenhouse effect" on Venus may differ markedly from the one on earth.

And then, you learn a thing every day, like ...

The density of the air at the surface is 67 kg/m3, which is 6.5% that of liquid water on Earth.[1] The pressure found on Venus's surface is high enough that the carbon dioxide is technically no longer a gas, but a supercritical fluid. This supercritical carbon dioxide forms a kind of sea that covers the entire surface of Venus. This sea of supercritical carbon dioxide transfers heat very efficiently, buffering the temperature changes between night and day (which last 56 terrestrial days).​

____________________________

The daylight portion is sinusoidal. The diurnal cycle is not a "sine curve".

Heads up:

"For any point on Earth the solar power input is a sine curve followed by zero input, then repeats."​

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science on venus...or anywhere else...there are gravitothermal atmospheric effects on any planet with an atmosphere...the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant beyond its total mass.

I still haven't been able to succinctly form a rebuttal to your IGL comment on deriving surface temps.

The main problem is that you are using a specific volume in an existing atmosphere. The specific quantity is not universal to the quality of the system as a whole.

The proper measurement would be density caused by the known gravity. This would be a universal quality, that would describe the amount of stored energy, regardless of the solar input (as long as there IS some, otherwise no atmosphere).

If you used the IGL on three Earth's, one at 0C, one at 15C and one at 30C, the IGL would give you the right answer for volume in each case. Circular reasoning.

 

[SSDD]

dude, I don't believe in back radiation. I'm merely commenting on a graphic that shows something that doesn't add up. Sums up the entire greenhouse nonsense. so where did that 77.1 go?

Are you purposely trying to be useless? There are four paths of energy transfer into the atmosphere. Three paths of transfer out of the atmosphere. Adding up the two sides and comparing them should be about 3rd grade math. Show us what you get.

And radiation is the smallest...so small, in fact, that it is damned near insignificant till you reach the top of the atmosphere...

 

[Olde Europe]

The proper measurement would be density caused by the known gravity. This would be a universal quality, that would describe the amount of stored energy, regardless of the solar input (as long as there IS some, otherwise no atmosphere).

I fear, you are being unclear again. The proper measurement for what? Of course, the density isn't "caused by" gravity (a function of gravity alone), as we can easily see comparing earth to Venus. And density would denote just a small part of the amount of energy stored, presumably, in the atmosphere.

[...] regardless of the solar input (as long as there IS some, otherwise no atmosphere).

You probably think that rogue planets' temperatures are close enough to 0°K, and thus all "gas" would occur in liquefied or frozen form. That's certainly not true in all cases.

 

[Olde Europe]

And radiation is the smallest...so small, in fact, that it is damned near insignificant till you reach the top of the atmosphere...

Show us your math, SSDD.

 

[SSDD]

And radiation is the smallest...so small, in fact, that it is damned near insignificant till you reach the top of the atmosphere...

Show us your math, SSDD.

The bulk of the energy, once radiated from the surface, and doesn't get radiated again till it is near the top of the atmosphere...it gets passed along to an oxygen or nitrogen molecule via convection..explanation via the conversation below:

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: 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?

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.

 

[polarbear]

You're a numbers guy and I'm a concept guy. I am not going to make excuses for the shoddy university work.

The basic concept is right. Input from the Sun must match the output from the Earth, whether it is directly from the surface, or a step further from an atmosphere.

The atmosphere will have an insulating effect with or without GHGs. That means the surface must be warmer.

The numbers they produced are obviously flawed, and to claim all atmospheric warming is due to GHGs is atrocious. But the basic mechanism is there. I should read the text that goes along with the graph but I couldn't be bothered.

I know that you are focusing on the concept, but I also know from what you posted in the past that you disagree with the numbers the IPCC cranked out so far.
For example the serious discrepancies in the proxy series you exposed a couple of years ago.
It turned out that the concept using tree ring proxies is not any better than using what the groundhog did on groundhog day as a climate proxy.
Overall I do not disagree with the concept as you lay it out, but somewhere along the line that has to be expressed in numbers.
If we use empirical data then we have to rely on the tree ring proxy and M.Mann speaking as the master of ceremony for the Yamal tree instead of the groundhog.
So the best way would be as you suggested as a step#1 to start out with a sphere that has no atmosphere and hash it out what kind of numbers we get with the numbers we picked for the factors that determine the outcome for step #1.
There is no way to avoid picking some numbers like for example the albedo.
There is also no way to short circuit the thermal property and the mass that has to be warmed during a 12/24 hour exposure cycle using the StB equation....and proceed by using an average value between the maximum and the minimum for that cycle.
I`m looking forward to see what you and others who wish to discuss the step by step concept you suggested have to say regarding step#1.
One thing is for sure the way the U of Washington "solved" step #1 is ridiculous.

Yes, the whole dim flat disc assumption is bogus. Especially when you consider that most of the things that make Earth habitable happen around the daily maximum.

I still haven't figured out a good way to get people here to realize a watt of highly ordered, short wavelength solar input is much more capable of doing work than a watt of diffuse IR. The two are not interchangeable but they are assumed to be.

Wow...! Your reply got buried under a pile of verbal fist-fighting in this thread.
I am sorry I`m taking so long to respond while you wind up having to fight multiple battles during that time. It`s not even possible for SSDD to discuss your concept with us in the order you suggested because he gets dog-piled with arguments that do not even come to play yet at step#1 & a sphere with no atmosphere. The 2 points you mentioned here are a good example of how some of the most basic physics have become stumbling blocks instead of building blocks.
"Yes, the whole dim flat disc assumption is bogus. Especially when you consider that most of the things that make Earth habitable happen around the daily maximum."
Which is exactly where I also would have continued at step#1.
For convenience`s sake I decided to use a typical RC charge/discharge curve to illustrate this:

The temperature curve approaching the daily maximum would look quite similar to a capacitor being charged with a limited output power supply. The power supply being the incident solar radiation being distributed over 1/2 the sphere while the capacitance simulates the mass of the spherical shell that is being warmed during the (12 hour) "charging" cycle.
Assuming a situation where we begin with the very first charging cycle it would be unreasonable to think that we already arrived the temperature plateau we will reach after that cycle has been repeated many times over. I say that because during each cycle the mass being warmed will increase by the amount of heat that penetrates to a slightly greater depth of that shell.
We can observe this with the temperature/depth gradient on land and in a body of water.
That will affect what happens next when the warmed portion of the shell rotates into the discharge portion of each cycle. As the number of cycles progresses the charge (or heat) which is retained to the end of the discharge cycle and the beginning of the next charge cycle will not be the same as it was at the start when we "booted" this system...but will have increased by a small amount.
However eventually we will reach a plateau for both, the charge and the discharge cycle.
I`m looking forwards to see what your thoughts are regarding this up to this point are.

Sorry, but your example does not resonate with me.

For any point on Earth the solar power input is a sine curve followed by zero input, then repeats.

The output from the surface is relative to T^4, that is why it warms up faster in the morning and cools down faster in the evening and at a slower and more even pace as the night wears down.

The atmosphere fluffs up during the daytime as it stores energy from the Sun and surface, only to shrink again during nighttime as it loses that extra bolus of energy, roughly half to the surface.

That`s okay with me, but consider that the wave form portions of that RC curve matches a sine wave that has the top chopped off. And that is only because that particular RC circuit is paused for an arbitrary time between the end of the charging phase and the beginning of the discharge.
If you don`t pause it then you get the sine wave oscillations you are looking for.
So far so good keep going on with your concept. Anything is better than this rather crude averaging concept and these attempts to make a straight line function out of an empirical scatter plot would you not say so also?

 

[IanC]

The proper measurement would be density caused by the known gravity. This would be a universal quality, that would describe the amount of stored energy, regardless of the solar input (as long as there IS some, otherwise no atmosphere).

I fear, you are being unclear again. The proper measurement for what? Of course, the density isn't "caused by" gravity (a function of gravity alone), as we can easily see comparing earth to Venus. And density would denote just a small part of the amount of energy stored, presumably, in the atmosphere.

[...] regardless of the solar input (as long as there IS some, otherwise no atmosphere).

You probably think that rogue planets' temperatures are close enough to 0°K, and thus all "gas" would occur in liquefied or frozen form. That's certainly not true in all cases.

I thought I made it clear that my understanding was incomplete in the first sentence of my post.

SSDD reiterated the claim that mass is the only determining factor in surface temperature. He produced calculations based on the Ideal Gas Law for several planets.

I instinctively disagree with that but find it difficult to pinpoint the actual error and propose a better method.

I called it circular reasoning, Wuwei called it tautology. It is simply restating the IGL.

Why? Because using a specific volume at one bar is a local property defined by the IGL. Using density is a universal property of the whole atmosphere. The IGW would give the correct answer for Earth over a range of possible surface temperatures. We are not getting any extra information from his method.

Energy input to the system is easily derived by measuring the output to space. The real question is how much energy is stored in the atmosphere, as that will determine how much is being returned towards the surface.

The amount of energy stored is a function of composition. GHGs absorb IR and it is converted to potential and kinetic energies via molecular collisions. More energy leads to a higher atmosphere, therefore less dense. Density would be a good indicator of atmospheric composition and surface temperature, at least on Earth.

Does this method apply to other planets? Questionable. Gas planets have no surface to transform solar input to IR at a specific boundary. Venus has surface but solar input does not reach it in appreciable amounts.

To me it is a conondrum that I cannot solve. I cannot find generalities that work for all cases.

In the end I find SSDD'S method unsatisfactory because it only restates the IGL but cannot replace it with something better except for Earth.

Your comment on a rogue planet is a non sequitur because we are dealing with energy flowing through a system.

 

[IanC]

And radiation is the smallest...so small, in fact, that it is damned near insignificant till you reach the top of the atmosphere...

Show us your math, SSDD.

The bulk of the energy, once radiated from the surface, and doesn't get radiated again till it is near the top of the atmosphere...it gets passed along to an oxygen or nitrogen molecule via convection..explanation via the conversation below:

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: 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?

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.

I don't agree with the numbers but the concept is correct.

You still haven't explained where you think the energy deficit goes when you compare the amount of energy inputted at the surface compared to the amount leaving at the TOA.

 

[IanC]

You're a numbers guy and I'm a concept guy. I am not going to make excuses for the shoddy university work.

The basic concept is right. Input from the Sun must match the output from the Earth, whether it is directly from the surface, or a step further from an atmosphere.

The atmosphere will have an insulating effect with or without GHGs. That means the surface must be warmer.

The numbers they produced are obviously flawed, and to claim all atmospheric warming is due to GHGs is atrocious. But the basic mechanism is there. I should read the text that goes along with the graph but I couldn't be bothered.

I know that you are focusing on the concept, but I also know from what you posted in the past that you disagree with the numbers the IPCC cranked out so far.
For example the serious discrepancies in the proxy series you exposed a couple of years ago.
It turned out that the concept using tree ring proxies is not any better than using what the groundhog did on groundhog day as a climate proxy.
Overall I do not disagree with the concept as you lay it out, but somewhere along the line that has to be expressed in numbers.
If we use empirical data then we have to rely on the tree ring proxy and M.Mann speaking as the master of ceremony for the Yamal tree instead of the groundhog.
So the best way would be as you suggested as a step#1 to start out with a sphere that has no atmosphere and hash it out what kind of numbers we get with the numbers we picked for the factors that determine the outcome for step #1.
There is no way to avoid picking some numbers like for example the albedo.
There is also no way to short circuit the thermal property and the mass that has to be warmed during a 12/24 hour exposure cycle using the StB equation....and proceed by using an average value between the maximum and the minimum for that cycle.
I`m looking forward to see what you and others who wish to discuss the step by step concept you suggested have to say regarding step#1.
One thing is for sure the way the U of Washington "solved" step #1 is ridiculous.

Yes, the whole dim flat disc assumption is bogus. Especially when you consider that most of the things that make Earth habitable happen around the daily maximum.

I still haven't figured out a good way to get people here to realize a watt of highly ordered, short wavelength solar input is much more capable of doing work than a watt of diffuse IR. The two are not interchangeable but they are assumed to be.

Wow...! Your reply got buried under a pile of verbal fist-fighting in this thread.
I am sorry I`m taking so long to respond while you wind up having to fight multiple battles during that time. It`s not even possible for SSDD to discuss your concept with us in the order you suggested because he gets dog-piled with arguments that do not even come to play yet at step#1 & a sphere with no atmosphere. The 2 points you mentioned here are a good example of how some of the most basic physics have become stumbling blocks instead of building blocks.
"Yes, the whole dim flat disc assumption is bogus. Especially when you consider that most of the things that make Earth habitable happen around the daily maximum."
Which is exactly where I also would have continued at step#1.
For convenience`s sake I decided to use a typical RC charge/discharge curve to illustrate this:

The temperature curve approaching the daily maximum would look quite similar to a capacitor being charged with a limited output power supply. The power supply being the incident solar radiation being distributed over 1/2 the sphere while the capacitance simulates the mass of the spherical shell that is being warmed during the (12 hour) "charging" cycle.
Assuming a situation where we begin with the very first charging cycle it would be unreasonable to think that we already arrived the temperature plateau we will reach after that cycle has been repeated many times over. I say that because during each cycle the mass being warmed will increase by the amount of heat that penetrates to a slightly greater depth of that shell.
We can observe this with the temperature/depth gradient on land and in a body of water.
That will affect what happens next when the warmed portion of the shell rotates into the discharge portion of each cycle. As the number of cycles progresses the charge (or heat) which is retained to the end of the discharge cycle and the beginning of the next charge cycle will not be the same as it was at the start when we "booted" this system...but will have increased by a small amount.
However eventually we will reach a plateau for both, the charge and the discharge cycle.
I`m looking forwards to see what your thoughts are regarding this up to this point are.

Sorry, but your example does not resonate with me.

For any point on Earth the solar power input is a sine curve followed by zero input, then repeats.

The output from the surface is relative to T^4, that is why it warms up faster in the morning and cools down faster in the evening and at a slower and more even pace as the night wears down.

The atmosphere fluffs up during the daytime as it stores energy from the Sun and surface, only to shrink again during nighttime as it loses that extra bolus of energy, roughly half to the surface.

That`s okay with me, but consider that the wave form portions of that RC curve matches a sine wave that has the top chopped off. And that is only because that particular RC circuit is paused for an arbitrary time between the end of the charging phase and the beginning of the discharge.
If you don`t pause it then you get the sine wave oscillations you are looking for.
So far so good keep going on with your concept. Anything is better than this rather crude averaging concept and these attempts to make a straight line function out of an empirical scatter plot would you not say so also?

Hey polarbear, why don't you jump into the discussion on whether solar input is equivalent to a body at -18C. I would be interested to see how you interpret it. My explanations don't seem to be convincing anyone on the other side.

 

[Olde Europe]

The bulk of the energy, once radiated from the surface, and doesn't get radiated again till it is near the top of the atmosphere...it gets passed along to an oxygen or nitrogen molecule via convection..explanation via the conversation below:

Ah, radiation (photon emission by GHGs) is basically a nonevent, other than molecules at the very top of the atmosphere that - all of a sudden - decide that it's now time to radiate. Those GHG molecules are smart that way, which probably explains why their photons are also very smart.

Other than that, of course, as Wuwei has already explained to you, there are gazillions of excited oxygen or nitrogen molecules (as your unlinked source describes, accounting for a warming atmosphere) bumping into GHG molecules, and these GHG molecules excited by collisions will emit most of the radiation, at all layers, and downward as much as upward.

Obviously, you're too ashamed of your source to provide a link. One of the Mods should look into that possible copyright violation.

 

[Olde Europe]

Your comment on a rogue planet is a non sequitur because we are dealing with energy flowing through a system.

SSDD's IGL "argument" is a denialist hoax, in effect stating that a gas upon compression will heat up, and then, in that compressed state, keep that temperature indefinitely. It's not worth anybody's time.

If my comment on the rogue planet is a "non sequitur", please explain that statement of yours:

"solar input (as long as there IS some, otherwise no atmosphere)."​

In my understanding: A planet without solar input cannot have an atmosphere. Why is that?

TIA.

 

[jc456]

Your comment on a rogue planet is a non sequitur because we are dealing with energy flowing through a system.

SSDD's IGL "argument" is a denialist hoax, in effect stating that a gas upon compression will heat up, and then, in that compressed state, keep that temperature indefinitely. It's not worth anybody's time.

If my comment on the rogue planet is a "non sequitur", please explain that statement of yours:

"solar input (as long as there IS some, otherwise no atmosphere)."​

In my understanding: A planet without solar input cannot have an atmosphere. Why is that?

TIA.

so does Venus get solar input to the surface? Doesn't Venus have an atmosphere? D'OH!

 

[Wuwei]

The bulk of the energy, once radiated from the surface, and doesn't get radiated again till it is near the top of the atmosphere...it gets passed along to an oxygen or nitrogen molecule via convection..explanation via the conversation below:

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: 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?

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.

That dialog is correct for the one narrow aspect of it covered. Yes, a CO2 molecule will probably loose its excited vibration state through a collision rather than an emission.

What the dialog didn't cover is the equipartition theorem as it involves the energy states of CO2 and H2O and other GHGs. For a simple explanation see
Equipartition of Energy

There will be equal amounts of energy divided among all the GHG vibration states, rotation states and kinetic energy. Most of the vibration states will arise from the churning energy of the atmospheric molecules hitting the GHGs and not from the earth's upward LWIR. The upward IR will increase the population of the GHG vibration part of the total energy, and that energy will dissipate through collisions and some LWIR in arbitrary directions.

One way of looking at it is that CO2 can absorb IR, but CO2 excited by collisions will emit most of the IR.

In short, a single CO2 molecule absorbing IR and emitting the same energy is rare. In reality an large statistical ensemble CO2 molecules will absorb IR and the statistical ensemble will emit IR, although an individual molecule most likely won't do both in a small time window. Remember through the equipartition theorm there is a tremendous amount of energy in the vibrational states that scatter the LWIR.

Edit: Oops, I see Olde Europe already stated the same thing above.

.

 

[IanC]

The bulk of the energy, once radiated from the surface, and doesn't get radiated again till it is near the top of the atmosphere...it gets passed along to an oxygen or nitrogen molecule via convection..explanation via the conversation below:

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: 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?

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.

That dialog is correct for the one narrow aspect of it covered. Yes, a CO2 molecule will probably loose its excited vibration state through a collision rather than an emission.

What the dialog didn't cover is the equipartition theorem as it involves the energy states of CO2 and H2O and other GHGs. For a simple explanation see
Equipartition of Energy

There will be equal amounts of energy divided among all the GHG vibration states, rotation states and kinetic energy. Most of the vibration states will arise from the churning energy of the atmospheric molecules hitting the GHGs and not from the earth's upward LWIR. The upward IR will increase the population of the GHG vibration part of the total energy, and that energy will dissipate through collisions and some LWIR in arbitrary directions.

One way of looking at it is that CO2 can absorb IR, but CO2 excited by collisions will emit most of the IR.

In short, a single CO2 molecule absorbing IR and emitting the same energy is rare. In reality an large statistical ensemble CO2 molecules will absorb IR and the statistical ensemble will emit IR, although an individual molecule most likely won't do both in a small time window. Remember through the equipartition theorm there is a tremendous amount of energy in the vibrational states that scatter the LWIR.

Edit: Oops, I see Olde Europe already stated the same thing above.

.

How is your invoking of the ET any different than what SSDD did? A narrow aspect, applicable only to a local condition.

The atmosphere has temperature and density gradients that overwhelm your point although it IS good to keep in mind.

 

[Wuwei]

How is your invoking of the ET any different than what SSDD did? A narrow aspect, applicable only to a local condition.

The atmosphere has temperature and density gradients that overwhelm your point although it IS good to keep in mind.

SSDD cited a process that has a very low probability of happening. I'm looking at a general process of collisions at the molecular level. It doesn't matter what the temperature or gradient is. The ET shows that there are lots of excited and ground state GHG molecules that can absorb or radiate EM energy anywhere in the atmosphere. The fact that a single GHG molecule can't absorb and re-radiate is overwhelmed by the sheer number and high probability in the ET process.

 

[IanC]

Your comment on a rogue planet is a non sequitur because we are dealing with energy flowing through a system.

SSDD's IGL "argument" is a denialist hoax, in effect stating that a gas upon compression will heat up, and then, in that compressed state, keep that temperature indefinitely. It's not worth anybody's time.

If my comment on the rogue planet is a "non sequitur", please explain that statement of yours:

"solar input (as long as there IS some, otherwise no atmosphere)."​

In my understanding: A planet without solar input cannot have an atmosphere. Why is that?

TIA.

I don't like typing. My comment in parentheses was aimed at those who scoffed at extracting temperature estimates without explicitly using solar inputs.

Your example of a rogue planet is just a conglomerate of matter bound by gravity that is berift of any of the radiation transfer problems that is the basis of this discussion.

I am starting to get annoyed at your tendency to nitpick rather than discuss the topic. Why don't you start expressing your own ideas rather than criticizing other people's ideas written down in less than exact and comprehensive fashion.

 

[Olde Europe]

I am starting to get annoyed at your tendency to nitpick rather than discuss the topic. Why don't you start expressing your own ideas rather than criticizing other people's ideas written down in less than exact and comprehensive fashion.

I am sorry you see it that way. If I may suggest, see it as an interest in your thinking, which occasionally comes with some questions so as to clarify some of your argument's steps, so that I can follow.

I don't like typing. My comment in parentheses was aimed at those who scoffed at extracting temperature estimates without explicitly using solar inputs.

Okay. Good to see we're on the same page then.

 

[IanC]

How is your invoking of the ET any different than what SSDD did? A narrow aspect, applicable only to a local condition.

The atmosphere has temperature and density gradients that overwhelm your point although it IS good to keep in mind.

SSDD cited a process that has a very low probability of happening. I'm looking at a general process of collisions at the molecular level. It doesn't matter what the temperature or gradient is. The ET shows that there are lots of excited and ground state GHG molecules that can absorb or radiate EM energy anywhere in the atmosphere. The fact that a single GHG molecule can't absorb and re-radiate is overwhelmed by the sheer number and high probability in the ET process.

Temperature/density control the rate of molecular collisions. ET does nothing to explain how we go from a state of absorption at the bottom to released radiation at the top. It is the change that matters, not equality of local partitions. A CO2 specific IR photon has almost zero chance of escape near the surface and near 100% chance of escape at the TOA if moving towards space.

I better put in a codicil of about 100 metres from the surface or OE will nipick that they can 'escape' back to the surface.

 

[Wuwei]

Temperature/density control the rate of molecular collisions. ET does nothing to explain how we go from a state of absorption at the bottom to released radiation at the top. It is the change that matters, not equality of local partitions. A CO2 specific IR photon has almost zero chance of escape near the surface and near 100% chance of escape at the TOA if moving towards space.

I better put in a codicil of about 100 metres from the surface or OE will nipick that they can 'escape' back to the surface.

I understand. My comment was aimed at his "dialog" post 545, where I focused on ET minimizing the importance of the improbability of CO2 emitting a photon just after absorption. He claims that the improbability makes the AGW assumption that CO2 scatters photons unlikely.

.

 

[Olde Europe]

I understand. My comment was aimed at his "dialog" post 545, where I focused on ET minimizing the importance of the improbability of CO2 emitting a photon just after absorption. He claims that the improbability makes the AGW assumption that CO2 scatters photons unlikely.

Let me add a thought to that.

Whatever IR radiation is being absorbed by GHG, would travel, or so that "dialog" would suggest, through the rest of the atmosphere "upward" by conduction, probably tens of kilometers, in a medium of very low conductivity. Think a kilometers-thick insulation layer. The consequences would be huge. Heat would essentially be trapped at the lower ranges of the atmosphere, as there's no reason why an "excited" GHG molecule should transfer its energy by collision exclusively "upward", when downward an O2 or N2 molecule is hit first. Moreover, for the heat to escape to space in the end, according to this model, the atmosphere needs to be heated up right to the top. However, what we actually see is the stratosphere cooling. A cooler stratosphere is not consistent with a warming earth and exclusively conductive heat transfer. It is, however, consistent with more radiation absorbed and trapped at lower levels due to higher GHG concentrations, and consequently less energy transfered to higher levels to heat up the stratosphere.

So, I'd say that so-called "dialog" is yet another denialist fraud, not worth the electrons used for posting it. Small wonder it doesn't come with a link.