Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Retief on 21 Sep 2006 21:40 On Tue, 19 Sep 06 13:17:37 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 > >"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]." Hahahahaha!!!... You are _such_ a kidder, Lloyd...missing those links like that... If you wanted to read about "N2-N2 collision-induced IR absorption", you should have looked at the first 2 links that Google presented to you. Since you had some trouble finding these (after all, they were the first two links from that Google search, so you probably didn't see them...), let me post the links for you: Here's the first one that appears on Google -- it contains no reference to H2O or water: http://mark4sun.jpl.nasa.gov/data/spec/Pseudo/Readme.cia FCIA and SCIA PSEUDO-LINELISTS FOR COLLISION-INDUCED ABSORPTION G. C. Toon and A. Kleinboehl Jet Propulsion Laboratory INTRODUCTION This file gives an introduction to the latest version (April 20, 2006) of the pseudo-linelists for collision induced absorption. These pseudo-linelists are given for foreign-collision induced absorption (FCIA) and self-collision induced absorption (SCIA). They contain pseudolines for O2 and N2. In the mid-infrared they cover the fundamental O2 band around 1550 cm-1, the fundamental N2 band around 2330 cm-1, and the first overtone band of N2 around 4630 cm-1. In near-infrared pseudo-lines are given for the O2 bands around 7900, 9400 cm-1, and 13250 cm-1. Each linelist consist of 5909 pseudolines with a spacing of 1 cm-1. [...] The N2 fundamental band is based on the measruements and the empirical model given in Tab. 1 by Lafferty et al. (1996). They give their empirical model for N2-N2 collisions, which could be directly converted to HITRAN units for SCIA. N2-O2 collisions were calculated from the N2-N2 collisions using their temperature dependent conversion factor, which parameterizes a linear temperature dependence based on Menoux et al. (1993). For this, an exponential function has been fitted to the product of (T/T_hitran) and the N2-O2 conversion factor, the accuracy of which is 0.3% between 190-295 K. The new linelist has been extrapolated to zero line strengths at 2*FWHM from the maximum absorption towards lower wavenumbers and 2.5*FWHM towards higher wavenumbers. This covers the range from 2030-2705 cm-1, giving a total of 676 pseudo-lines. Here's the 2nd one found by Google -- it contains no reference to H2O or water: http://www.astro.ku.dk/~aborysow/papers/index.html 9. A. Borysow and L. Frommhold. Collision induced rototranslational absorption spectra of N2-N2 pairs for temperatures from 50 to 300 K. Astrophys. J., 311:1043--1057, 1986. Here's that paper -- it also contains no reference to H2O or water: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...311.1043B Whose index says: "Full Refereed Journal Article (PDF/Postscript)", from which you can access the full document: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1986ApJ...311.1043B&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf Of course, you had to search elsewhere, so you could find a paper that didn't refer to N2-N2 and N2-O2 collisions... > So it's not N2 or O2 absorbing; it's an intermolecular adduct with water. Bullshit, Lloyd... I guess that you "accidentally" missed those obvious papers that discussed N2-N2 Collision Induced IR Absorption. How surprising... But you unintentionally bring up another relevant point -- the N2 and O2 need not interect with their own species, but also suffer induced multipoles from collisions with other gases in the atmosphere... Retief
From: Phil. on 22 Sep 2006 00:33 Retief wrote: > 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. Of course you will prevent the emission, if the excess energy has been lost via collisions it's no longer able to radiate! Swapping energy certainly will relieve the vibrational excitation because most of that energy will end up as translational energy, also the vast majority of the collisional recipient molecules will be nitrogen and oxygen which aren't able to radiate. > > 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. In the atmosphere the collisions occur on nanosecond timescales, the excited state lifetimes are 3 to 6 orders of magnitude longer, the radiation is effectively quenched by collisions. > > 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...). No it was a load of garbage and I was too busy. No CO2 would result in a snowball earth and negligible GH effect. > > 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... Because that's the reality, the 380ppm is the part of the atmosphere that absorbs the IR and the surrounding 999,620 ppm share out that energy via collisions.
From: Lloyd Parker on 22 Sep 2006 05:22 In article <95e6h21vhsptjh3q1344digcsm3manak26(a)4ax.com>, Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Tue, 19 Sep 06 13:24:18 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >> >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. > >Is 1999 within the last 15 years? > But it could not explain the warming after that. >Did you forget that you said >"No changes in the past 15 years and the earth continues to warm." > Again, your other chart shows a decrease. So which is it? >> And also goes up and down, so it can't be the cause >> of the warming, which goes up and up. > >And the current average is higher than at the turn of the century. > It isn't going up now yet the earth continues to warm. >> The one you've cited already, >> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/fig2.gif >> >> shows a decrease going on now. > >No it doesn't. It cuts off before 2000 (perhaps @ 1995). It shows a decrease after 1980. Hint: the earth continued to warm after 1980. >However it >clearly shows solar variability, within the last 15 years. > Yes, but up and down, whereas the earth's temp. keeps going up. >> >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. > >Really? That large oscillatory behavior is "a decrease"? That's a >"very interesting" interpretation, Lloyd. > A line which curves downward to most people is a "decrease." >It shows that the insolation has increased by about 2 W/square-meter >since about 1910. Say, wasn't that about the same time that the IPCC >graph shows a global temperature upswing? > And shows a decrease since 1980. >http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/05.16.jpg > >Why yes it is!... It looks like the IPCC thinks that the global >temperature started rising about 1920, according to this graph... > No, about 1850. >> Don't you even look at what you cite? > >Don't you look at it, before you make such stupid statements? > >> Further, note the scale -- 1 out of 1370, or 0.07 %. > >What, from less than 1370 to just under 1372 is 1? No Lloyd, it's >about 2 Watts/square-meter. > >> >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? > >It's solar irradiance, Lloyd. I assumed that a SCIENTIST would be >capable of reading the header and plotting the data. > >But since you aren't a scientist, let me help you understand the >table. From the file header: > >;Description of columns: >; 1st col: date as YYMMDD >; 2nd col: day of epoch 0 Jan 1980 (1 corresponds to 1-Jan-1980) >; 3rd col: average irradiance in W/m2 (over period of day), no data: >-99. >; format: (1X,I6.6,F9.2,F11.4) > >That is, Lloyd, column 1 is the 2-digit year, 2-digit month and >2-digit day -- the date in the form YYMMDD. > >And column 2 is the number of days before and after "0-Jan-1980" (AKA >31-Dec-1979). But since the first column gives you the date in the >form YYMMDD, you can plot against those if you wish. > >And the third column is the daily average irradiance, in >Watts/square-meter. > >Now, any competent scientist should be able to graph that data... > You cited a graph. It shows a decrease since 1980. >> >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." > >Gosh, is it still higher than it was at the turn of the century? > Yet the earth is warmer now than in 1980. So you don't even have a correlation. >Oh wait: > >http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/05.16.jpg > >The warming didn't start in 1850, as you have persisted in claiming, >but was actually closer to 1920... But by that time, the CO2 level >had already risen considerably (to about 300 ppm)... That's a 7% >change, Lloyd! Why didn't a 7% increase cause any warming? Now lay that over a CO2 increase. > >And the IPCC shows the global temperature as flat (drooping then >rising) from 1940 to 1980. But the CO2 levels had risen from >approximately 305 ppm in 1940 to about 340 ppm in 1980. Why wasn't >the temperature rising, Lloyd? That's a 11.5% rise from 1940, Lloyd! >Why wasn't this causing warming? Answered at least once a month here. Aerosols had a cooling effect. > >So, a 7% increase caused no warming. A 1.6% change (5ppm) caused 0.2 >to 0.3 C increase. Then a 11.5% increase in CO2 caused no temperature >increase. Then... Now that is some interesting correlation with CO2 >levels, Lloyd. > >I wonder if anything else could have affected those temperatures? > Show something else correlated with them. Solar irradiance, decreasing after 1980, sure isn't. >> >But I suppose you can just ignore a couple watts/square-meter... >> >> Out of 1370? Yes, I think you can. > >Excellent! That means that we can ignore the effect of CO2 and all >other GHGs!!! > >http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/06.01.jpg > >The IPCC attributes about 1.5 Watts/square-meter to CO2, and about 2.5 >Watts/square-meter to all GHGs combined... > >So Lloyd agrees that we can ignore the effects of CO2 on the global >climate, as it is less than 2 Watts/square-meter. Now we're getting >somewhere. > >Retief See http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figts-9.htm
From: Retief on 22 Sep 2006 12:31 On 21 Sep 2006 21:33:49 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: >Of course you will prevent the emission, if the excess energy has been Nonsense. >energy will end up as translational energy, also the vast majority of >the collisional recipient molecules will be nitrogen and oxygen which >aren't able to radiate. As I have already explained to both you and Lloyd Parker (on different occassions, I might add), that this is false. Look up N2-N2 Collision-induced absorption. You are familiar with this phenomena, aren't you? You also understand that this phenomena isn't limited to N2-N2 collisions, don't you? This is only one of the poorly understood interactions that occur in the atmosphere. (if you thought that the atmosphere was well understood, you are mistaken) >> 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...). > >No it was a load of garbage and I was too busy. >No CO2 would result in a snowball earth and negligible GH effect. Yes, I understand... Your dogma ate your homework... What you were going to find was that the opacity of atmospheric H2O is sufficiently high, that a factor of 10 decrease in the atmosphere would have much less effect than needed to support your agenda. And you would also find that the elimination of CO2 would not cause the temperature to drop low enough, to reduce the atmospheric H2O to that 10% level (especially in the tropics). But those answers would not support your agenda, and your claim that all warming is due to CO2. >> 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... > >Because that's the reality, the 380ppm is the part of the atmosphere >that absorbs the IR and the surrounding 999,620 ppm share out that >energy via collisions. That must be why the folks at JPL and elsewhere, make the effort to fold in effect of N2-N2 collision induced absorption, because _only_ CO2 absorbs IR (not H2O, not Methane, certainly not anything else in the atmosphere...at least in "Phil's World") Retief
From: Phil. on 22 Sep 2006 23:35
Retief wrote: > On 21 Sep 2006 21:33:49 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: > > >Of course you will prevent the emission, if the excess energy has been > > Nonsense. Inconveniently for you it's the truth! > > >energy will end up as translational energy, also the vast majority of > >the collisional recipient molecules will be nitrogen and oxygen which > >aren't able to radiate. > > As I have already explained to both you and Lloyd Parker (on different > occassions, I might add), that this is false. Look up N2-N2 > Collision-induced absorption. You are familiar with this phenomena, > aren't you? You also understand that this phenomena isn't limited to > N2-N2 collisions, don't you? Yes and Yes, I also know it's a rather weak effect and also know that the wavelengths included in the paper you referred to are between 1 and 6 microns and therefore not in a particularly significant region of the spectrum for the radiation balance of the earth's atmosphere. They may be more important on Titan. > > This is only one of the poorly understood interactions that occur in > the atmosphere. (if you thought that the atmosphere was well > understood, you are mistaken) > > >> 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...). > > > >No it was a load of garbage and I was too busy. > >No CO2 would result in a snowball earth and negligible GH effect. > > Yes, I understand... Your dogma ate your homework... > > What you were going to find was that the opacity of atmospheric H2O is > sufficiently high, that a factor of 10 decrease in the atmosphere > would have much less effect than needed to support your agenda. And > you would also find that the elimination of CO2 would not cause the > temperature to drop low enough, to reduce the atmospheric H2O to that > 10% level (especially in the tropics). But those answers would not > support your agenda, and your claim that all warming is due to CO2. I have no agenda, even a factor of ten reduction in the absorption by H2O would almost completely wipe out the gh effect due to water. > > >> 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... > > > >Because that's the reality, the 380ppm is the part of the atmosphere > >that absorbs the IR and the surrounding 999,620 ppm share out that > >energy via collisions. > > That must be why the folks at JPL and elsewhere, make the effort to > fold in effect of N2-N2 collision induced absorption, because _only_ > CO2 absorbs IR (not H2O, not Methane, certainly not anything else in > the atmosphere...at least in "Phil's World") > No the real world, please point to the lines in the measured spectrum of either the incoming solar radiation or the outgoing IR due to N2-N2 or O2-O2 CIA? |