Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Retief on 18 Sep 2006 22:52 On Sat, 16 Sep 06 10:32:36 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > [...] it's absorption of IR radiation. CO2 can do it; N2 cannot. This statement is incorrect. Search Google for: n2-n2 IR collision-induced http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=n2-n2+IR+collision-induced&btnG=Google+Search Again, this sort of error continues to occur, because people like Lloyd have great confidence in their "knowledge of the universe", to the point of misplaced arrogance. They think that the atmosphere is something that they understand extremely well, and/or "completely"... Retief
From: Phil. on 19 Sep 2006 01:32 Retief wrote: > On 18 Sep 2006 06:13:03 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: > > > > You apparently wish to assert that the collisional process PREVENTS > > > the radiative process from occurring. This is false. The two > > > processes occur simultaneously (each with their respective lifetimes). > > > > It does, once energy has been lost via collisions with N2 and O2 > > molecules it's no longer available to be lost via emission. > > Which is clearly untrue, since the Earth has not become "hotter than > hell". Again, this energy _will_ be radiated away, as well. The > collisional process in no way prevents the various radiative > processes that occur in the atmosphere. It certainly prevents emission by excited CO2 in the collision dominated lower troposphere which is exactly what I said. After convection into the upper troposphere the air becomes sufficiently thin that CO2 (and O3) can radiate into space (collisions being 6 orders of magnitude less frequent up there). > > > > That is, if a certain gas had a mean radiative lifetime of 100 > > > seconds, after 100 seconds, approximately 2/3 of the excited molecules > > > would have radiatively decayed, leaving approximately 1/3 in the > > > excited state. > > > > Right, but in the situation we are discussing the analogy would have a > > collision occuring every 0.1 sec which would mean that deactivation > > would 'predominantly' be via collisions, exactly as I said above. > > No, these processes occur simultaneously. The collisional process > will not prevent the various radiative mechanisms. Even though one process is several orders of magnitude faster than the other, a very interesting physics you believe in!
From: Lloyd Parker on 19 Sep 2006 09:17 In article <m5mug2lo4lmsvqu8uogtenp0nig1r019ic(a)4ax.com>, Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Sat, 16 Sep 06 10:32:36 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >> [...] it's absorption of IR radiation. CO2 can do it; N2 cannot. > >This statement is incorrect. Search Google for: > > n2-n2 IR collision-induced > >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=n2-n2+IR+collision-induced&btnG=Google+S earch > "While individual O2 and N2 molecules are transparent in the far-IR region, their interactions with water molecules may induce low-frequency intermolecular modes leading to absorption bands and continuum absorption [10-12]." So it's not N2 or O2 absorbing; it's an intermolecular adduct with water. >Again, this sort of error continues to occur, because people like >Lloyd have great confidence in their "knowledge of the universe", to >the point of misplaced arrogance. They think that the atmosphere is >something that they understand extremely well, and/or "completely"... > >Retief
From: Lloyd Parker on 19 Sep 2006 09:24 In article <7qmug2dmcpdjkepisi9o6u7b6gdib2803s(a)4ax.com>, Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 18 Sep 06 11:22:58 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >> >> >>No, I said without the added CO2, IR (not all of it) emitted by the earth >> >> >>would escape into space. >> >> > >> >> >And WITH the added CO2, IR emitted by the Earth will escape into >> >> >space. So what's your point? Oh, I see... It was a non sequitur... >> >> >> >> The IR which is absorbed by the added CO2 would be lost without the >> >> added CO2, unless you think a big bird comes along and swallows it. >> > >> >Only if Lloyd Parker believes that chemistry is linear. >> > >> >For example, Lloyd would assert that if you double the CO2, you'll >> >double the energy absorbed from a given IR band, even if the IR band >> >in question is already fully absorbed by the existing CO2. >> >> And if pigs had wings, they could fly. > >It has already been demonstrated that there exist IR bands, in which >CO2 effectively absorbs all the power available in that band. > >> >> But none of these have been changing recently. >> > >> >There are solar variations that occur regularly. >> >> The sun has not increased its output in the last 15 years. > >http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/fig2.gif >http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irrad.html >ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE/composite_d25_07_0310 a.dat > >> >No, you have made claims such as "Since the early 1990s we have had >> >the hottest years on record. Fact.", but will not provide data that >> >supports your claim. >> >> IPCC report data. > >The text "IPCC report data." does not support your claim "Since the >early 1990s we have had the hottest years on record. Fact." > >> >> What is causing the current warming? >> > >> >You tell me. You are the one who asserted that it was Anthropogenic. >> >Prove that it is due to something other than natural variations. >> >> There are no natural variations which can account for it. When you >> eliminate the natural, what is left? > >You haven't convinced me that you have even tried to address the >natural variations. > >For example, Lloyd Parker claimed: "The sun has not increased its >output in the last 15 years." > >Decreased from about 1990 to 1995, then increased: >ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE/COMPOSITE.v2.PDF > >Macroscopic solar increase since the turn of the century: >http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/fig2.gif > >The fact that Lloyd Parker doesn't know that this happened, is a good >indication that he did not address these natural variations. > >> > Explain why what's going on with the >> >rocks, soil, biosphere and ocean are not causing the warming. >> >> Huh? > >That's the most intelligent thing that you've said in weeks. > >> >> >Which obvious connection? Oh, you mean the one to sunspots and solar >> >> >variations? >> >> >> >> No changes in the past 15 years and the earth continues to warm. >> > >> >You must have missed the last sunspot maximum, huh Lloyd?... >> >> The sun's output has not increased. That's in the scientific literature. > >Decreased from about 1990 to 1995, then increased: >ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE/COMPOSITE.v2.PDF > Which goes only to 1999. And also goes up and down, so it can't be the cause of the warming, which goes up and up. The one you've cited already, http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/fig2.gif shows a decrease going on now. >Macroscopic solar increase since the turn of the century: >http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/fig2.gif > Which shows a decrease since 1980, so it can't be the cause of the current warming. Don't you even look at what you cite? Further, note the scale -- 1 out of 1370, or 0.07 %. >Data to 2003: >ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE/composite_d25_07_0310 a.dat > Which is what besides a huge file of numbers? >> >Explain how variations in the spectral output of the sun do not affect >> >the biosphere, and absorption coefficients of the Earth system. >> >> The energy output has not increased. > >Macroscopic solar increase since the turn of the century: >http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/fig2.gif > Which turns down since 1980, and look at the scale on that thing called a "y axis." >But I suppose you can just ignore a couple watts/square-meter... > Out of 1370? Yes, I think you can. >> >> What part of "the sun isn't changing" do you not understand? >> > >> >You must have missed the last sunspot maximum, huh Lloyd?... >> >> You missed the part about the sun's output not increasing. Why use an >> indirect measurement when we have a direct one? > >Decreased from about 1990 to 1995, then increased: >ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE/COMPOSITE.v2.PDF > >Macroscopic solar increase since the turn of the century: >http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/fig2.gif > >Data to 2003: >ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE/composite_d25_07_0310 a.dat > >> >Lloyd pretends that there is a concensus on the entire issue. >> >> Science says there is. > >No "science" does not say any such thing. Only political hacks like >yourself make that claim. > >> >> -- is not responsible for the warming, so provide your own >> >> explanation. >> > >> >Note: Shifting the burden a proof -- a fallacy of logic. >> > >> >Lloyd claims that something anomalous is occurring, the burden to >> >prove this lies with Lloyd. >> >> Wouldn't you demand proof from someone who claims the earth is just >> 6000 years old? > >Yes, just as I demanded proof from you. You made the assertion that >the current conditions are anomalous and anthropogenic, you prove it. > >> >> Yeah, those Republican politicians may be your standard for science; >> >> they're not mine. >> > >> >Lloyd falsely accuses Wegman, Scott and Said of being Rebublican >> >politicians. >> >> Who commissioned their study? > >Since the Republican Congress and Republican President funded NASA, >NOAA, GISS and the NSF, we can likewise reject all of their data and >analyses for that same reason, right? The difference is, Republicans didn't commission NASA to refute a particular study
From: Retief on 21 Sep 2006 21:41
On 18 Sep 2006 22:32:48 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: > > Which is clearly untrue, since the Earth has not become "hotter than > > hell". Again, this energy _will_ be radiated away, as well. The > > collisional process in no way prevents the various radiative > > processes that occur in the atmosphere. > > It certainly prevents emission by excited CO2 in the collision > dominated lower troposphere which is exactly what I said. After "Prevent" is incorrect. You will not prevent radiative emissions from CO2, nor will prevent radiation from the other excited gases present. Example, if all of the gases are in approximate thermal equilibrium, then swapping energy will not relieve the vibrational excitation, and thus the molecule is still able to radiate, even after a collision. Remember, the decay flux is proportional to the number of molecules in an excited state. Further, collisions create "instabilities" in many molecules, and actually result in radiative decays... > > > Right, but in the situation we are discussing the analogy would have a > > > collision occuring every 0.1 sec which would mean that deactivation > > > would 'predominantly' be via collisions, exactly as I said above. > > > > No, these processes occur simultaneously. The collisional process > > will not prevent the various radiative mechanisms. > > Even though one process is several orders of magnitude faster than the > other, a very interesting physics you believe in! Indeed, it is you who believes in interesting "physics". The simplistic assertion of "3 orders of magnitude" (based on 0.1 sec, versus 100 sec), which fails to take into account the actual population of the emsemble in an excited state. But this was the same sort of error you made when you claimed that a ten fold decrease in water would result in effectively no atmospheric IR absorption due to water (IIRC, you claimed a factor of 10E6 decrease in IR absorption -- though you didn't respond to my counter-example...). If the majority of molecules in the ensemble are in a vibrationally excited state (i.e. they are thermally excited to some extent), the collisions will not eliminate this energy (from the ensemble, nor necessarily from either of the colliding molecules), but only tend to even out the energy distribution thoughout the ensemble. These excited molecules are capable of emitting radiation. You could also get into the more complicated process of collisional energy pooling, but that also tends to result in radiatively favorable states. I notice that you focus in on the 380 ppm of CO2, but ignore the 999,620 ppm of the atmosphere that is not CO2... Retief |