Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Orator on 13 Sep 2006 08:45 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <XzOMg.26528$rP1.1438(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, > Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >>>And even IR radiated upwards is >>>going to encounter other CO2 molecules unless the molecule emitting is at >>>the top of the atmosphere. >>> >> **** >>BRAVO! Now that you have figured that out that above the molecule >>radiation "upward" there is another molecule. Then it is bleeding >>obvious that it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is >>encountered and it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is >>encountered and it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is >>encountered and it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is >>encountered....... **** > > > Only a small portion of the surface area of a sphere points "upward." Most > point sideways or downwards. The surface that radiates to earth is the minor portion no matter what. > > >>Get the picture yet? Each and every one of them radiates more out into >>space than they do to earth. > > > That is totally false. Are you really serious? > Even spheres at the top of the atmosphere don't have > the majority of their area pointing out to space. > Ahh, another nice one for the Lloyd collection of clangers :-) If you place a ping-pong ball, touching on top of an inflated beach ball, the majority of the ping-pong ball will face away from the beach ball. The further away from the beach ball the ping-pong ball is, the less of the surface will point to the beach ball. This is childishly simple and if you can't even get this right, how the hell can anyone expect, or believe, you can get anything right that is slightly more complex? > >>As there are massive amounts of these (but >>an amount nobody can agree on) each radiates on average 6% more out into >>space than back to earth, then there has to be a cumulative effect of >>more being radiated OUT than IN. > > The 6% is made up and totally false. Really? It was calculated by one of the GW High Priests right here in this group! It was in a vain attempt to show me to be wrong. > ..... >>> >>>How do you visualize a sphere in which every direction leads away from the >>>atmosphere? >> >>I don't and have never ever suggested anything as foolish as that! It is >>another figment of your imagination. > > That's exactly what you've been arguing for. Didn't you understand the part above marked with ****? >> >>>Visualize a sphere surrounded by atmosphere. How can the >>>majority of directions lead away from the atmosphere? >> >>There should be a law against being allowed to be that dense! That >>"sphere" IS the "atmosphere"! > > No, the sphere is a CO2 molecule. > Your ability to grasp the abstract is woeful to non existent! It is well demonstrated with your passage below. >>>It radiates in all directions, most of which consist of more atmosphere. >> >>How the hell do you even manage to get a job as a janitor or gardener at >>an .edu with such a serious handicap? >> >>> >>>>>>Please explain why you claim "narrow angle" for the major portion of the >>>>>>surface. What would you call the 6% smaller or minor portion? >>>> >>>>Was that question too hard for you as well? >>> >>> >>>You're claiming a sphere embedded in the atmosphere has most of its surface >>>exposed not to atmosphere but space? >>> >> >>You are not answering the question put! Can't answer it can you. You >>are restoring to that imagination of your again. Your inability to respond speaks volumes more than any words of yours could :-)
From: Lloyd Parker on 13 Sep 2006 07:07 In article <t8ueg2lducp2vc83fr5cdffaqesti05va1(a)4ax.com>, Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 11 Sep 06 11:40:45 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >>>>Only CO2 at the top of the atmosphere can re-radiate IR out into space. >>> >>>Lloyd again answers in his usual erroneous absolutes... >>> >>>Absorption is a probabilistic process. While you may wish to claim >>>that the number of photons directly exiting the atmosphere become >>>vanishingly small, as the last emission location goes deeper and >>>deeper into the atmosphere, to claim that it "doesn't happen" and >>>"cannot happen" is false. >> >>The probability of a photon emitted at ground level not encountering a >>molecule which can absorb it before it leaves the atmosphere is quite small, >>would you not agree? > >That's what I just said, Lloyd. I took exception to your "it can't >happen elsewhere" style answer. > >For example, when you say "Only CO2 at the top of the atmosphere can >re-radiate IR out into space.", what about CO2 10 meters lower? How >about 1 km lower? 10 km lower? (things are pretty sparse up there) > Photons emitted lower are more likely to encounter another molecule on their way, no? >>>However, I have noticed that you didn't post your mathematical >>>algorithm for calculating this process... >>> >>>>No, imagine a sphere. It's surrounded on all sides by the atmosphere; only >>>>the top leads directly out of the atmosphere. >>> >>>And that solid angle which is not impeded by the disk of the Earth >>>becomes quite large, as the altitude increases (though the path length >>>through the atmosphere will be quite long in certain directions). >> >>Yes, it will be through the atmosphere, where other CO2 molecules are. > >I can see that you didn't do your homework. A CO2 sitting on the >surface of the Earth will have 1/2 of its solid angle occupied by the >Earth, the other half will be the atmosphere. Yes, so a photon emitted will encounter some other molecule which can absorb it. >A CO2 sitting at the >very top of the atmosphere will have nothing between it and space -- >thus essentially no other CO2 molecules (in more than just the "up" >direction). And what fraction of CO2 is at the very top of the atmosphere? > The probability that a given molecule can emit a photon, >unimpeded, directly into space increases as its altitutude increases. > Yes, and what fraction of CO2 molecules have no atmosphere above them? >These are different. Why you insist on these erroneous "one size fits >all" answers, I'll never understand. > >>>> And even IR radiated upwards is >>>>going to encounter other CO2 molecules unless the molecule emitting is at >>the >>> >>>But in Lloyd's World (tm), they won't encounter H2O... >> >>Sure they will. They'll encounter lots of molecules which can absorb them. > >Until the atmosphere becomes sparse enough that many photons escape >unimpeded. > Again, because the atmosphere is so sparse there, it represents a tiny fraction of the CO2 molecules. >>>>It radiates in all directions, most of which consist of more atmosphere. >>> >>>But also much of it heads towards less atmosphere. >> >>Not "much" until you get higher in the atmosphere. > >So if a molecule is sitting on the surface of the Earth, "much" of >this radiation is _not_ directed in an vector that will not strike the >Earth? (i.e. away from the Earth) > >If a molecule is sitting half-way up in the atmosphere, much of this >radiation is not directed in a vector towards less atmosphere, and >away from the Earth? > >> But even then, the path seldom leads out of the atmosphere. > >So you claim that the photon energy is permanently trapped, and then >we have the runaway "hotter than hell" scenario I pointed out >earlier... > >Retief Eventually it will hit something that might cause a reaction. Or eventually it will make its way out. Yes. But so will all the photons emitted by a real greenhouse. Even though a GH heats up due to other effects, if every photon which makes it into a greenhouse gets re-emitted and makes it out, why does a GH heat up?
From: Lloyd Parker on 13 Sep 2006 07:11 In article <5ameg2ppdrib5rsqdvt3fboofopde8f42i(a)4ax.com>, Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 11 Sep 2006 12:05:28 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: > >>> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7/1/pwten3%5F05%2D03 >>> Shows the Earth blackbody emission centered at about 10 microns. >> >>That's just a cartoon > >Do you wish to claim that the "cartoon" was grossly in error? > >>if you want to talk about the science use >>something like MODTRAN. > >And why would I want to resort to MODTRAN in order to discuss the >simple emission black body curve? The black body emission curve is >described by a simple equation, and was quite clearly visible in the >graphic that I linked. But it is this sort of supercilious "rebuttal" >that I've come to expect from global warmists, particularly if the >data in question is contrary to the AGW religion... > >Of course, I could have simply assumed that you understood the curve >shape, and not bothered linking a graphic at all... But there are >other readers, who may not be familiar with the shape and spectrum. > >>> This graph shows you that CO2 has little or no optical thickness at >>> this primary wavelength: >>> >>> http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/ >>> Water vapor is the blue curve (band), CO2 is the black curve. >> >>The water curve is of no use for comparison unless we know for what >>concentration it is calculated, is it for saturated air, at what >>temperature, how about a comparison with dry air (over the Sahara or >>poles in winter?) > >It served perfectly fine for the purpose. > >But if you want to read more: >http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/ >http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/rec/ >http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/species/h2o.html > >It seems that you want to do a detailed, region by region analysis of >the atmospheric absorption -- feel free to do so... Do get back to us >with your results... > >>> Going back to the first graph, most of the energy lies in the (say) >>> 5-18 um range (just eyeballing the half-height region): >>> >>> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7/1/pwten3%5F05%2D03 >>> >>> CO2's only strong band is at the 18 um band. The rest of this >>> spectrum is strongly covered by water vapor absorption bands. >> >>In moist air yes, what would you say the situation would be at an >>altitude of 3000m? > >Red herring. > >We're talking about the full depth of the atmosphere, not some small >region. But if you want to discuss your detailed volumetric and >regional calculations, feel free to post them. > >The claim (from Lloyd Parker) in question is whether any (all) given >IR photon(s) will automatically be captured if CO2 is in the >atmosphere, and will completely fail to interact with the atmosphere >without CO2 present. > >>> Ah, but this is not true if you had already absorbed all of the IR for >>> a given IR band (which is what I wrote, and to which you responded). >> >>Which is not the case for much of the Earth's surface. > >Doesn't matter. Lloyd Parker stated the ill-defined premise, I merely >drove it to its natural (however absurd it might be) conclusion. Thus: > >>> And Lloyd claimed without that CO2, the IR would escape into space >>> (i.e. none of these photons would interact). > >;-) > >>> >Unlike CO2 the H2O concentration is not homogeneous and in particular >>> >decreases with altitude. >>> >>> And your point is? >> >>The part of the atmosphere that is in radiative equilibrium with outer >>space is rather dry and CO2 has a large role there. > >Non sequitur. > >Whatever gas may be present, will play the required role in emission >to space. And if no gas were present at this altitude, there would be >no energy absorption in this region (and then the lower layers of >atmosphere would emit energy directly into space instead). > >And if there were no atmosphere, the rock surface would emit directly >into space. The physics of the system will not be denied... > >Interestingly, stratospheric cooling indicates that the stratosphere >has become _more_ transparent (i.e. less energy is being absorbed by >the gases in this region). And apparently the increasing CO2 at this >altitude is not offsetting those changes. > >>> And if CO2 is the RESPONSE to the warming, then that would mean that >>> something else is the ultimate cause. Recall, for example, that CO2 >>> dissolves less easily in warm water than cold water. Thus heating the >>> lakes and oceans could cause a rise in atmospheric CO2. >>> >>> To put it more simply, correlation does not mean causation. Wet >>> pavement does not cause rain. >> >>We know fairly accurately how much CO2 has been produced from fossil >>fuels over the last 100+yrs and that corresponds well with the observed >>increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over that time (also carbon isotope >>studies show that the extra CO2 is not from organic sources). > >You have failed to prove that increasing CO2 is the _cause_ of global >warming. How do you know it's not Methane? Because methane hasn't increased enough to be the cause. >Or something else? Well, it could be magic or the gods being angry... >What >_true_ experiment did you perform to show this _causality_, as opposed >to simple correlation. This is a common problem (and error) in many >of the sciences... Yeah, thanks for telling us. Gee, science never thought of that. That's why science says things in terms of probability, something you didn't understand in the NAS statement. > >>The optical characteristics of the extra CO2 would lead to an increase >>in the GH effect consistent with observations. Amplification of that >>signal by H2O vapor is expected. > >Apparently the amplification due to H2O was "expected", but not >accounted for... See: > >http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/wcollins/papers/newrad.pdf > >This page indicates that the AGW forcing is in the 2-3 W/m^2 range: >http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20020114/ > >I'm guessing that a 3-4 W/m^2 error (underestimating the contribution >of H2O) could throw your whole energy balance model off. Like if the earth is 10,000 miles in diameter, planes really aren't arriving at their destinations. >If the >"anthropogenic contribution" is asserted as 2-3 W/m^2, then an extra >3-4 W/m^2 (unaccounted) coming from water vapor suddenly appears, you >have a problem. Yo
From: Lloyd Parker on 13 Sep 2006 07:34 In article <D3TNg.28287$rP1.8461(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <XzOMg.26528$rP1.1438(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, >> Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >> >>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>> >>>>And even IR radiated upwards is >>>>going to encounter other CO2 molecules unless the molecule emitting is at >>>>the top of the atmosphere. >>>> >>> >**** >>>BRAVO! Now that you have figured that out that above the molecule >>>radiation "upward" there is another molecule. Then it is bleeding >>>obvious that it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is >>>encountered and it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is >>>encountered and it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is >>>encountered and it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is >>>encountered....... >**** >> >> >> Only a small portion of the surface area of a sphere points "upward." Most >> point sideways or downwards. > >The surface that radiates to earth is the minor portion no matter what. >> >> The surface which radiates to the _atmosphere_ is the major portion. Are you claiming only photons which hit the earth's surface cause warming? >>>Get the picture yet? Each and every one of them radiates more out into >>>space than they do to earth. >> >> >> That is totally false. > >Are you really serious? By "earth" we mean the earth's atmosphere too. "Earth" doesn't just mean the solid part, you know. > >> Even spheres at the top of the atmosphere don't have >> the majority of their area pointing out to space. >> >Ahh, another nice one for the Lloyd collection of clangers :-) > >If you place a ping-pong ball, touching on top of an inflated beach >ball, the majority of the ping-pong ball will face away from the beach >ball. Are you claiming all CO2 molecules sit on top of the atmosphere? >The further away from the beach ball the ping-pong ball is, the >less of the surface will point to the beach ball. > >This is childishly simple and if you can't even get this right, how the >hell can anyone expect, or believe, you can get anything right that is >slightly more complex? >> >>>As there are massive amounts of these (but >>>an amount nobody can agree on) each radiates on average 6% more out into >>>space than back to earth, then there has to be a cumulative effect of >>>more being radiated OUT than IN. >> >> The 6% is made up and totally false. > >Really? It was calculated by one of the GW High Priests right here in >this group! It was in a vain attempt to show me to be wrong. >> >..... >>>> >>>>How do you visualize a sphere in which every direction leads away from the >>>>atmosphere? >>> >>>I don't and have never ever suggested anything as foolish as that! It is >>>another figment of your imagination. >> >> That's exactly what you've been arguing for. > >Didn't you understand the part above marked with ****? > >>> >>>>Visualize a sphere surrounded by atmosphere. How can the >>>>majority of directions lead away from the atmosphere? >>> >>>There should be a law against being allowed to be that dense! That >>>"sphere" IS the "atmosphere"! >> >> No, the sphere is a CO2 molecule. >> >Your ability to grasp the abstract is woeful to non existent! It is well >demonstrated with your passage below. > >>>>It radiates in all directions, most of which consist of more atmosphere. >>> >>>How the hell do you even manage to get a job as a janitor or gardener at >>>an .edu with such a serious handicap? >>> >>>> >>>>>>>Please explain why you claim "narrow angle" for the major portion of the >>>>>>>surface. What would you call the 6% smaller or minor portion? >>>>> >>>>>Was that question too hard for you as well? >>>> >>>> >>>>You're claiming a sphere embedded in the atmosphere has most of its surface >>>>exposed not to atmosphere but space? >>>> >>> >>>You are not answering the question put! Can't answer it can you. You >>>are restoring to that imagination of your again. > >Your inability to respond speaks volumes more than any words of yours >could :-) > >
From: Phil. on 13 Sep 2006 13:17
Retief wrote: > On 11 Sep 2006 12:05:28 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: > > >> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7/1/pwten3%5F05%2D03 > >> Shows the Earth blackbody emission centered at about 10 microns. > > > >That's just a cartoon > > Do you wish to claim that the "cartoon" was grossly in error? For what it doesn't say as much as anything else, what conditions does it refer to, particularly the outgoing IR curve. Is it from a satellite view, is it for the whole earth or part, if the latter what part and season? Let's take the outgoing curve and assume that it shows a global view from a satellite 100km up or so. What does the curve show, it shows emissions from a colder region than the surface with most absorption due to CO2 and very little due to H2O. > > >if you want to talk about the science use > >something like MODTRAN. > > And why would I want to resort to MODTRAN in order to discuss the > simple emission black body curve? The black body emission curve is > described by a simple equation, and was quite clearly visible in the > graphic that I linked. But it is this sort of supercilious "rebuttal" > that I've come to expect from global warmists, particularly if the > data in question is contrary to the AGW religion... > > Of course, I could have simply assumed that you understood the curve > shape, and not bothered linking a graphic at all... But there are > other readers, who may not be familiar with the shape and spectrum. It's not the black body curve that's at issue but the absorption! > > >> This graph shows you that CO2 has little or no optical thickness at > >> this primary wavelength: > >> > >> http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/ > >> Water vapor is the blue curve (band), CO2 is the black curve. > > > >The water curve is of no use for comparison unless we know for what > >concentration it is calculated, is it for saturated air, at what > >temperature, how about a comparison with dry air (over the Sahara or > >poles in winter?) > > It served perfectly fine for the purpose. > > But if you want to read more: > http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/ > http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/rec/ > http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/species/h2o.html > > It seems that you want to do a detailed, region by region analysis of > the atmospheric absorption -- feel free to do so... Do get back to us > with your results... > > >> Going back to the first graph, most of the energy lies in the (say) > >> 5-18 um range (just eyeballing the half-height region): > >> > >> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7/1/pwten3%5F05%2D03 > >> > >> CO2's only strong band is at the 18 um band. The rest of this > >> spectrum is strongly covered by water vapor absorption bands. > > > >In moist air yes, what would you say the situation would be at an > >altitude of 3000m? > > Red herring. > > We're talking about the full depth of the atmosphere, not some small > region. But if you want to discuss your detailed volumetric and > regional calculations, feel free to post them. But most of the full depth of the atmosphere is colder and therefore dryer than the suface. > > The claim (from Lloyd Parker) in question is whether any (all) given > IR photon(s) will automatically be captured if CO2 is in the > atmosphere, and will completely fail to interact with the atmosphere > without CO2 present. > > >> Ah, but this is not true if you had already absorbed all of the IR for > >> a given IR band (which is what I wrote, and to which you responded). > > > >Which is not the case for much of the Earth's surface. > > Doesn't matter. Lloyd Parker stated the ill-defined premise, I merely > drove it to its natural (however absurd it might be) conclusion. Thus: > > >> And Lloyd claimed without that CO2, the IR would escape into space > >> (i.e. none of these photons would interact). > > ;-) > > >> >Unlike CO2 the H2O concentration is not homogeneous and in particular > >> >decreases with altitude. > >> > >> And your point is? > > > >The part of the atmosphere that is in radiative equilibrium with outer > >space is rather dry and CO2 has a large role there. > > Non sequitur. > > Whatever gas may be present, will play the required role in emission > to space. And if no gas were present at this altitude, there would be > no energy absorption in this region (and then the lower layers of > atmosphere would emit energy directly into space instead). Should read if no CO2 were present. > > And if there were no atmosphere, the rock surface would emit directly > into space. The physics of the system will not be denied... > > Interestingly, stratospheric cooling indicates that the stratosphere > has become _more_ transparent (i.e. less energy is being absorbed by > the gases in this region). And apparently the increasing CO2 at this > altitude is not offsetting those changes. In the stratosphere CO2 is a net emitter not an absorber and is part of the reason that the stratosphere is getting cooler (along with reduced O3) > > >> And if CO2 is the RESPONSE to the warming, then that would mean that > >> something else is the ultimate cause. Recall, for example, that CO2 > >> dissolves less easily in warm water than cold water. Thus heating the > >> lakes and oceans could cause a rise in atmospheric CO2. > >> > >> To put it more simply, correlation does not mean causation. Wet > >> pavement does not cause rain. > > > >We know fairly accurately how much CO2 has been produced from fossil > >fuels over the last 100+yrs and that corresponds well with the observed > >increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over that time (also carbon isotope > >studies show that the extra CO2 is not from organic sources). > > You have failed to prove that increasing CO2 is the _cause_ of global > warming. How do you know it's not Methane? Or something else? What > _true_ experiment did you perform to show this _causality_, as opposed > to simple correlation. This is a common problem (and error) in many > of the sciences... > > >The optical characteristics of the extra CO2 would lead to an increase > >in the GH effect consistent with observations. Amplification of that > >signal by H2O vapor is expected. > > Apparently the amplification due to H2O was "expected", but not > accounted for... See: > > http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/wcollins/papers/newrad.pd |