Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question for Dr Nasif Nahle- CO2 scatters IR or converts it to heat?
#1
Hello fellow Realists,

I have finally sat down and put down in an e-mail my thoughts about what may actually be going on in the atmosphere, and whether CO2 merely scatters IR or does it absorb it and convert IR to kinetic energy thus warming the atmosphere?

I won't publish my question in full, until Dr Nahle has had time to consider my question and come up with an answer, or at least point me in the direction as to where to look for the appropriate data with which to come up with the answer.

In an earlier post, I showed how and why warming of the earths surface from back radiation is impossible. The answer to this question will, I believe show that CO2 can actually do very little to warm the earths atmosphere, and that all it does is scatter IR. Answer these two questions and the "greenhouse effect" from CO2 has nowhere to hide.

Remember, IR is a form of electromagnetic radiation, it is not in itself, heat. Heat is kinetic energy, it is movement, vibration on a molecular scale. I have a feeling that Dr Nahle already has looked into this and knows the answer and the work he has already done is mathematical confirmation of this idea.

Hopefully, he will reply and help me out with this and then when he does, I will publish the findings here. Thanks to (I think!) Sunsettomy who suggested that I write to Dr Nahle.
regards
Climate Realist
Reply
#2
" Thanks to (I think!) Sunsettomy who suggested that I write to Dr Nahle. "

Cough, cough..
Reply
#3
(05-02-2011, 11:30 AM)Derek Wrote: " Thanks to (I think!) Sunsettomy who suggested that I write to Dr Nahle. "

Cough, cough..

Thanks Derek, who suggested the idea! I did a search of my past posts but could not find that exchange.AngryAngryAngry

Reply
#4
(05-02-2011, 12:30 PM)Climate Realist Wrote:
(05-02-2011, 11:30 AM)Derek Wrote: " Thanks to (I think!) Sunsettomy who suggested that I write to Dr Nahle. "

Cough, cough..

Thanks Derek, who suggested the idea! I did a search of my past posts but could not find that exchange.AngryAngryAngry

I know I suggested I could put someone in contact with him and I think it was this forum but not real sure.

Edit: http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...ml#pid8274

Reply
#5
(05-02-2011, 06:15 PM)Scpg02. Wrote: I know I suggested I could put someone in contact with him and I think it was this forum but not real sure.

Edit: http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...ml#pid8274

Ah! I see you found it. Wink I have posted similar questions to R C's and brought in the Maxwell-Boltzmann kinetic energy curves as verification of CO2 ability to absorb and convert to heat energy and explain the low possiblity of radiation from CO2.
I would really like to this in a paper if this is the case.


Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#6
(05-02-2011, 11:38 PM)Richard111 Wrote:
(05-02-2011, 06:15 PM)Scpg02. Wrote: I know I suggested I could put someone in contact with him and I think it was this forum but not real sure.

Edit: http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...ml#pid8274

Ah! I see you found it. Wink I have posted similar questions to R C's and brought in the Maxwell-Boltzmann kinetic energy curves as verification of CO2 ability to absorb and convert to heat energy and explain the low possiblity of radiation from CO2.
I would really like to this in a paper if this is the case.

This if true then effectively proves the atmospheric greenhouse effect from CO2. (As opposed to the surface greenhouse effect from back radiation). With all due respect the Maxwell-Boltzmann kinetic energy curves do not address the question i am asking. That is something entirely unrelated. Your post concerns heat that is already in existence as kinetic energy. My question concerns the loss of energy from a CO2 molecule, is it primarily kinetic or radiative? Your post looks at the macro scale, my questions consider the micro scale - right down to the molecular level, because as a chemist, I feel this is where the solution to this problem lies.

My understanding is that earths surface cannot be heated by back IR because that would contravene the laws of thermodynamics. The Earths surface is already excited to this level, is already emitting radiation at these wavelengths so cannot be further heated by "back IR". Thus the surface greenhouse theory from back IR is falsified.

When you point this out the Warmists move the battle ground (goalposts) from the ground to the atmosphere and claim that the greenhouse effect works by CO2 absorbing IR and converting that IR straight away to kinetic heat energy, thus warming the rest of the atmosphere- the heat "trapping" as they say. What you have posted is evidence for that theory.

I have very good reasons for contending that this theory is incorrect.
One is that the evidence of Earth's past and present climate do not support this theory.
Two: the other is to do with the probability of the nature of the interaction of the CO2 molecule at a molecular, bond/ orbital level with IR radiation of the frequencies that CO2 interacts with is likely to suggest harmless scattering of IR through the atmosphere (and eventual escape to space) rather than conversion to kinetic heat energy in the atmosphere.

IR is not heat. That is another confusion that has lead to the greenhouse theory. IR is electromagnetic radiation much like radio waves or visible light. The difference between these is the wavelength. Heat is the measure of physical vibration on a molecular/ atomic scale.

That is why the experiments shown on TV with a candle, a cylinder of pure CO2 and an IR detector mean nothing in terms of the Global warming discussion. These experiments show only that CO2 is a good scatterer of IR, they show nothing of the conversion of IR to kinetic energy that CO2 is claimed to have - note that they never put a thermometer in these cylinders! Note also that CO2 is a very poor conductor of kinetic heat (see below).

Note also that you NEVER see warmists discussing these matters to this level of detail. I think this is because if you do look at the alleged effect from first scientific principles then it is shown that the theory does not work in the real world.

From Nasifs page :- "Metals are the best thermal conductors; while non-metals are poor thermal conductors. For comparison, the thermal conductivity (k) of the copper is 401 W/m*K, while the thermal conductivity (k) of the air is 0.0263 W/m*K.

The thermal conductivity of the carbon dioxide (CO2) is 0.01672 W/m*K, almost the thermal conductivity of an isolator."
http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Transfer.html

So how can an isolator efficiently conduct heat to a neighbouring air molecule??? If CO2 is very good at re-radiating IR of the appropriate wavelengths as the warmists say then surely all CO2 does, in the main is scatter IR through the atmosphere?? Radiation is a MUCH faster process that convection or conduction so the net effect of more CO2 could be a slight cooling rather than a warming of the atmosphere.

I'm going to give Nasif a chance to reply to my question and thoughts (he might be on holiday or just very busy!) before I post it here in full. I've already given plenty of clues away!

regards

Climate Realist

Reply
#7
My question concerns the loss of energy from a CO2 molecule, is it primarily kinetic or radiative?

This is exactly what the M-B curve answers for me! The loss in energy is primarily kinetic. The M-B curves show there will always be some radiation from CO2 at any temperature, getting less as temperature reduces.

I don't see how that "proves" the greenhouse effect at all. The greatest level of "backradiation" from CO2 takes place within a few centimetres of the surface. If you quantisize that "backradiation" against the the full spectrum leaving the surface it is laughable. But that is what the warmists are depending on which is why they always talk about temperature and never about the physics involved.

Happy to discuss this in more detail but I must remind you my level of understanding is self aquired from blogs like this. Smile
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#8
It just goes to show that it does not pay to be too dogmatic about anything concerning the atmosphere. My attention has been drawn to an essay by Pat Tyson titled
THE NATURE OF WIND
Quote:Summary: When the wind is blowing, more molecules have a component of motion in the wind direction than they do in any other direction. Moreover, those molecules with a component of motion in the wind direction also have a mean component velocity in that direction that is greater then the mean component velocity in any other direction.

That is the nature of wind.

This must have some effect on the absorption/emission characteristics of so called greenhouse molecules in the atmosphere. Still thinking about this.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#9
(05-05-2011, 12:18 AM)Richard111 Wrote: This must have some effect on the absorption/emission characteristics of so called greenhouse molecules in the atmosphere. Still thinking about this.

And latent heat being distributed towards the poles in each hemisphere.
UK "bathed" in warm wet winds from the Carribean for instance.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#10
With all due respect Richard, the MB diagrams show the distribution of velocity of a mass CO2 molecules within a litre of air as a measure of their kinetic energy of the whole molecule at three temperatures. That is to do with CO2 molecules once they have already acquired that kinetic energy as a mass. It does not say to me how they acquired that kinetic energy or how they lose it on the molecular and sub molecular scale.

What I am considering is what happens within the molecule itself and what happens between one molecule and another on the molecular scale. It is the energy within the CO2 molecule itself that is a measure of its energy state, not that of a mass of air/CO2.

"physics tells us that all molecules in a cubic metre of air actually occupy just 0.1% of the volume. Put it another way, 99.9% of the volume of 1 cubic metre of the atmosphere at STP is NOTHING!! The same sort of NOTHING you find between the stars!"

I think it is probably even smaller than that in a gas at STP.

"That 600m/s kinetic energy level was mentioned in a report I read that this was the energy level most likely to result in a CO2 molecule firing off a photon if it had recently absorbed a photon OR because of multiple collisions driving the CO2 molecule to an energy level high enough to emit a photon. I have not found any verification of this energy point for CO2 emmission so the following summary may have to change."

You are talking about average kinetic energy of a mass of CO2 molecules whereas I am talking about the internal energy within an individual molecule and what happens to that energy. You are talking about averages on the macro scale. I'm looking at the problem from the micro scale, ""kinetic"" energy of bondswithin each individual CO2 molecule. Within that average of molecular energy states there will always be some molecules at a lower energy state and some at a higher state, and these higher state molecules can lose their energy by emission of a photon. So masses of CO2 that are lower than the 600m/s level will have some some molecules that are higher than the 600m/s level and do have sufficient energy to radiate.


It is the difference between the movement of whole molecules of CO2 through the air- as in brownian motion- in your case and movement (kinetic energy) within the molecule in my case- as in bond stretching of each of the C=O bonds, bond waggling of the C=O bonds (i.e. the angle changes between them) and ultimately changes in electron states within those bonds that are the cause of these waggles.

A CO2 molecule is not a discrete unmovable block, but is made up of the carbon atom joined to two oxygen atoms via a double bond, because carbon has a valency of four and oxygen a valence of 2. Each single bond represents the sharing of two electrons between the two atoms.

Ultimately, radiation interacts with matter on the sub atomic scale- with electrons in the case of visible light and IR.

So the chain of excitation would go:-

1) Photon of IR from the ground strikes electron in a C=O bond, is absorbed and the electron's energy level is raised
2) This raising of electron energy level changes the physical nature of the bond between the C and O atoms in CO2
3) This causes movement within within the molecule- bond waggling or bond stretching. (depends on the wavelength of the IR absorbed by the molecule.
4) This intra-molecular bond movement can do either of two things to lose energy:-

a) Remain excited and waggling or stretching
b) re-radiate the photon
c) the bond waggling/ stretching may transfer its energy to a neighbouring N2 or O2 (or less likely CO2) molecule

a) keeps energy
b) loses energy by radiation
c) loses energy by transfer to kinetic energy of neighbouring molecules.

5) if process 4c has occurred then the internal energy of the CO2 molecule is lost as heat to the atmosphere, thus warming the atmosphere.
6) Kinetic energy (heat) is now transfered between molecules in the air.
It is the microscopic stage 4) that I am interested in, your MB diagrams refer to what happens after 4C, i.e. stages 5 and 6.

Of course the reverse can happen, so 5) and 6) can go all the way back to 1)

"As I see it CO2 is only capable of absorbing 8% of the upwelling radiation from the surface. It is then only capable of emitting 18% of that radiation which means 1.44% and then only HALF of that returns to the surface. A grand total of 0.72% of the original radiation might be returning to the surface. 70%, and more, of the surface is water. Long wave IR can't penetrate more than a 100microns anyway."

CO2 can only absorb on the wavelengths of IR that excite the C=O bonds to stretch or waggle, these wavelengths are part of the IR spectrum. I would say that is much less than 8% of all available upwelling radiation as the IR spectrum is only part of the overall spectrum of upwelling radiation.

You are also talking about what happens at the surface of the Earth, as I've shown before, it does not matter if back IR reaches the Earth, it cannot heat the Earth as the Earths surface is already hotter than the atmosphere and hence hotter than the back IR radiation striking it. That is impossible- the laws of thermodynamics dictate (as I explained in a previous thread) that the cooler air and IR from the CO2 within that air CANNOT warm the hotter ground.
Heat ALWAYS moves from hot to cold. NEVER from cold to hot.

However, I am not interested in the surface- we have shown the greenhouse effect is impossible at the surface- by both the Laws on Thermodynamics and by the excitation argument. Alarmists have moved the goalposts to the atmosphere.
I also think that CO2 cannot warm the atmosphere to any great extent because it mostly re-radiates IR rather than heats kinetically- because CO2 is such a poor conductor of kinetic heat. And see above- the IR is not hot enough to heat the ground.

In summary:-
You are talking about kinetic energy on the macro scale and the heat transfer between the CO2 and the earths surface.
I am talking about energy within the CO2 molecules itself and what happens to the IR energy within the atmosphere itself.

We are not disagreeing or even debating, we are talking of different (although related) subjects.

"I believe CO2 has NO IMPACT on global climate."

I would say it has very little impact on climate- or no measurable impact, anyway.[/i]

Regards
Climate Realist
(05-05-2011, 02:35 AM)Derek Wrote:
(05-05-2011, 12:18 AM)Richard111 Wrote: This must have some effect on the absorption/emission characteristics of so called greenhouse molecules in the atmosphere. Still thinking about this.

And latent heat being distributed towards the poles in each hemisphere.
UK "bathed" in warm wet winds from the Carribean for instance.

Again, wind and movement of heat to the poles (which I agree must make an impact ) is on the vast MACRO scale, the scale of the planet.

I am thinking on the molecular, the sub molecular, the atomic level, right down to electrons and photons. I am attempting to visualise on this scale.

Reply
#11
Pat Tyson has to be read very, very carefully.
I remember his piece about the latent heat fallacy.....

Climate Realist, I realise, with no animosity intended or taken, "we" are talking about different scales and processes.
My apologies for butting in somewhat off topic.
I will continue (and cordially invite others, if interested, to consider / contribute) with
my macro scale investigations, here in post 8. Or is that "there"..Big Grin

I concur that CO2 " has very little impact on climate ", my apologies for a quote that is slightly out of context.
Maybe in the stratosphere CO2 has an "impact" (by increased ability to radiate / cool)*
but elsewhere I basically agree CO2 has virtually no measurable effect whatsoever.
Excepting, more atmospheric CO2 means more life on planet earth.

* = It must be noted that more CO2 in the stratosphere seems to correlate with less H2O up there as well.
It maybe that any increased radiative ability effect is naturally counter balanced by
reductions in other radiatively able gases (but is H2O a gas at that altitude / temperature / pressure???).
All very confusing, I do not think "we" (I mean anyone) actually know at present.

Maybe decreasing ozone levels (for whatever reason - most probably natural) have caused or contributed significantly to
the observed stratospheric cooling over recent time scales.
Time scales that are the only ones we have even some (reliable???) data over...
Reply
#12
Gosh and golly! We do indeed discuss the same topics from different perspectives. But that is only to be expected as each of us aquires what knowledge we think we have from different and maybe suspect sources. From my point of view I have no way of checking the validity of any statement. I depend on finding other similar statements that show there maybe agreement out there. I do tend to "research" beyond my ability to understand but then I attempt to adjust my explanation so that somebody with no previous knowledge of the subject can understand what I say.

Both Derek and Climate Realist are delving more deeply within their areas of interest than I can hope to follow. So with the hopeful intent of gaining more understanding I would like to expound on just two points raised by Climate Realist below.

(05-05-2011, 03:14 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: With all due respect Richard, the MB diagrams show the distribution of velocity of a mass CO2 molecules within a litre of air as a measure of their kinetic energy of the whole molecule at three temperatures. That is to do with CO2 molecules once they have already acquired that kinetic energy as a mass. It does not say to me how they acquired that kinetic energy or how they lose it on the molecular and sub molecular scale.

What I am considering is what happens within the molecule itself and what happens between one molecule and another on the molecular scale. It is the energy within the CO2 molecule itself that is a measure of its energy state, not that of a mass of air/CO2.

Firstly, the three temperature curves in the MB diagram relate to the SAME litre of air. Each curve represents the possible kinetic energy levels of ALL the molecules at the recorded temperature. Any given molecule can, and in time will, occupy any position under a given curve as long as the recorded temperature does not change. CO2 molecules will be colliding with surrounding molecules of N2 and O2 plus some others and AQUIRING AND LOSING kinetic energy constantly. So statistically all the CO2 molecules in that litre of air can be at any kinetic level at any instant of time even if NO IR energy is passing through that litre of air. Also any CO2 molecule could aquire enough kinetic energy to fire off a photon at any time without having to absorb a photon first.

Secondly, what is happening within the molecule? I have read of the bending and stretching and rotating and the orbital positions of electrons jumping to different levels. But exactly how each computation, and there are many, relates to the kinetic energy of the molecule I haven't a clue! I am unable to accept the claim that the SPEED (kinetic energy) of the molecule changes on absorbing or emitting a photon (quantum of energy). But I can accept the internal structure of the molecule changes. I think of the molecule as a tuned radio circuit where certain frequencies will change the orbital levels of one or more electrons which will change the bending, stretching, rotating configuration by some amount. This in turn effects the "bouncyness" of the molecule such that on a collision with another molecule it "hits" harder or less, thereby transfering energy, kinetic, to another molecule.

Conversely, a collision of sufficient magnitude will cause the bending, stretching, rotating configuration of the molecule to change thereby changing the "tuning" of the molecule and making it more or less capable of absorbing or emitting a photon at a specified wavelength.

All of the above is supposition on my part. I squirrelled the following diagram from some now forgotten source which gives you an idea about my undirected "research".

[Image: co2_ir.gif]
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#13
"Secondly, what is happening within the molecule? I have read of the bending and stretching and rotating and the orbital positions of electrons jumping to different levels. But exactly how each computation, and there are many, relates to the kinetic energy of the molecule I haven't a clue! I am unable to accept the claim that the SPEED (kinetic energy) of the molecule changes on absorbing or emitting a photon (quantum of energy). But I can accept the internal structure of the molecule changes. I think of the molecule as a tuned radio circuit where certain frequencies will change the orbital levels of one or more electrons which will change the bending, stretching, rotating configuration by some amount. This in turn effects the "bouncyness" of the molecule such that on a collision with another molecule it "hits" harder or less, thereby transfering energy, kinetic, to another molecule."

Richard, this is exactly what I'm trying to get to the bottom of! You understand what I am saying.

This is the link between IR radiation and the kinetic "heat" the molecule has. I think you are right, that is my understanding that bond stretching/ waggling of a CO2 molecule may cause the molecule to interact with a neighbouring molecule (not quite hit) and transfer kinetic heat energy from the CO2 molecule to the rest of at atmosphere.

What I am trying to work out (find out) is how likely is it that the CO2 molecule will lose this energy by merely re-emit radiation (of whatever wavelength- not necessarily IR) or by kinetic heat transfer to a nearby molecule of the atmosphere, or for how long the CO2 molecule keeps this energy to itself.

This concerns the atmosphere and not the surface of the earth.
Reply
#14
I think Joe Postma has gone some way in explaining my question to Professor Nahle:-

From Joe's second atmosphere PDF:-
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...hp?aid=327

"Near the ground, where the transfer of heat is dominated by conduction and convection, the oscillatory vibrational harmonic of the CO2 molecule will already have been excited by physical collisions, and so resonance with that oscillation by the ambient infrared electromagnetic field merely constitutes a scattering effect, which is not a heating effect. In fact, it is likely that high- altitude CO2 molecules are already oscillating in the vibratory mode in any case, and so even high-altitude resonance between CO2 and infrared energy would still merely be a scattering effect. If CO2 increased in concentration, the result would merely be an increase in the scale
28
height of its concentration distribution, with a corresponding increase in the CO2 scattering altitude of the relevant wavelength; but this would not have any effect on the temperature there, nor far below."

YES! CO2 is scattering the IR, not converting it to kinetic heat!!!Big Grin

In fact CO2 is converting kinetic heat of the atmosphere to IR at the same time.

Reply
#15
My question which deals with considering the alleged greenhouse phenomenon from the molecular scale, as it was sent to Nasif Nahle and Joe Postma;-


Subject: Question for Professor/ Dr Joe Postma regarding CO2 excitation and energy release


"Dear Professor /Doctor Joe Postma,

Derek from the "Sceptics" forum gave me your e-mail and said I could e-mail you my question and thoughts. I have already asked this Question of Professor Nasif Nahle, but he has yet to reply.


I have been following your work on CO2 and the alleged "greenhouse effect", {in particular your brilliant recent paper on why the Greenhouse effect is not supported by physics} with great interest and would like to ask you a question or two. I participate actively on a number of "Climate Realist" internet forums (on two of which I am known as "Climate Realist".

But first a little background- I have an honours degree in applied chemistry and worked as an organic chemist in the pharmaceutical industry for nearly 20 years. That is how I approach the question, by application of first principals of chemistry and physics, and by trying to visualise the interaction of IR radiation at the wavelengths that excite the CO2 molecule in the atmosphere and considering what may happen as a result of this collision between molecule and radiation and the result of this collision.

If we consider the CO2 molecule in the lower atmosphere and IR radiation reflected from the Earths surface.
It has occurred to me (partly from reading your article!) that the CO2 molecule may absorb IR at the appropriate interaction wavelengths and the molecule becomes excited, ( C=O bond stretching/waggling etc) and then in order for the CO2 molecule to release this energy either of two processes may occur:-

1) Upon relaxation of the molecule, a further photon has to be emitted in order to lower the energy of the CO2 molecule in question to a lower state. This would be known to an organic chemist as an intramolecular process as it involves only one CO2 molecule. Energy loss by radiation.
(Wikipedia definition : Intramolecular in chemistry describes a process or characteristic limited within the structure of a single molecule, a property or phenomenon limited to the extent of a single molecule.)

2) An alternative process may occur in which the excited CO2 molecule, with it's two C=O bonds thrashing and waggling about, the molecule may collide with a neighbouring molecule of Oxygen, Nitrogen or with an Argon atom in the atmosphere. Such a collision would mean the transfer of kinetic energy to the neighbouring N2 molecule and therefore transfer of the energy as heat energy to those molecules and to the atmosphere as a whole. This process 2) would be known to an organic chemist as an intermolecular process as it involves CO2 and another gas molecule in the atmosphere.

It strikes me that there would be a greater probability of either process 1) or 2) of occurring. I think that one processes would be dominant in the atmosphere over the other. If process 1) is dominant then all CO2 does is scatter the IR at CO2 absorption wavelengths throughout the atmosphere as electromagnetic radiation and no net heating of the atmosphere would occur. The IR would eventually make its way to outer space- according to the mean free path you have calculated as being 4.22 microseconds.(?)

If, however, process 2) dominates in the atmosphere, then the excited CO2 molecule will on average convert most of it's excitation state energy into kinetic energy by collision with other molecules and atoms in the atmosphere. Thus CO2 will warm the atmosphere.

I am aware that IR radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation and it is NOT heat in itself, but may be converted into kinetic heat under suitable circumstances. My education and experience as a chemist tells me that intramolecular processes are much faster than intermolecular processes and therefore, I think that the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere will overwhelmingly act to scatter the IR at their interaction wavelengths throughout the atmosphere (and eventually to outer space). The conversion to kinetic heat energy will be a much less likely process to occur.

However, the question I have for you is two-fold - do you agree with my theoretical analysis of the interaction of CO2 with IR and do you have any information as to the relative probability of an excited CO2 molecule losing it's energy via process 1) or process 2)? Or could you point me in the direction of a source of this information or an expert in this field who may be able to answer this question?

After much internet searching I have not been able to find the answer to this question myself. I think the answer may be important in confirming or denying the CO2 greenhouse warming theory. I have noted from reading Nasif Nahle's website that CO2 is a very poor conductor of heat and this would also lead me to think that process 2) kinetic heat transfer would be even less likely and would be overwhelmed by process 1) radiation of IR as the means of energy loss from the excited CO2 molecule.

It also occurs to me that as H20 forms hydrogen bonds, then heat transfer and trapping with water vapour by an intermolecular process is much more likely and thus we can have a "greenhouse effect" from water vapour and not from CO2.

I would be most interested to know, do these ideas tie in with your understanding of the physics?

Many thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts and questions,

I am very much looking forward to your answer!

regards
John (Climate Realist)"
[i]
And very quickly (next day, in fact!) Joe Postma very kindly sent a reply:-

"Hi John,

Nice to meet you. Actually I am not a doctor or professor, but I do have a Masters Degree in astrophysics and do work for two different space agencies.

Your summary and description is excellent. The questions you ask should have easily-found answers at this point, but for some reason they are impossible to find. I think this speaks to the quality of science being peddled by the AGW crowd. A simple physical description such as yours should be easy to find, and prove...

But I have something for you to consider, which I think you would be quite helpful with, that just slightly expands the bounds of your analysis. Perhaps I am incorrect but your insight from chemistry will help.

First, I do believe that collisional (kinetic) processes are billions of times more likely than either IR emission, or absorption. The atmosphere is collisionally dominated near the surface. However, notice what I said: “billions of times more likely than either IR emission, or absorption”. (I am not positive about the “billions” number, but Dr Nahle has used this number before.)

What I am saying is that the intra-molecular excited states of CO2 are ALREADY excited by collision. They HAVE to be. The “excited state” of CO2 (or H2O vapour) is not an electron-orbital thing – it is a PHYSICAL vibration of the entire molecule which can be excited by collision just as easily as from radiation. The molecular bonds are free to stretch and compress and should do so under physical forcing via collision.

So now we must consider a slightly expanded scenario: with CO2 molecules ALREADY excited in ALL possible modes, from the billions of collisions which occur between IR interactions, then what can IR possibly DO with the molecule?

Can it excite it further? No...it is ALREADY excited by collision. Possibly we can say it would augment the already existing vibration, but by how much?

In that case all IR can do is SCATTER off of the CO2 when the appropriate wavelength RESONATES with the existing vibrational pattern.

And as you pointed out, scattering is not heating.

There can’t be a general scenario, or if there is it is only 1 in a billion molecules, where the CO2 is NOT thrashing about, THEN it gets excited by IR, then it shares the additional energy with the surroundings.

That sequence of events can’t happen (regularly) because the CO2 is already excited by the billion collisions it had before having an IR photon pass by.

The intra-molecular “vibrations” of CO2 or H2O vapour are part and parcel of their thermodynamic heat capacity and ability to transfer heat. The heat capacity of the substance includes BOTH its kinetic and radiative properties, as you can’t actually separate these out from each other as they are both continuous and simultaneously ongoing modes by which a substance transfers energy around.

One author made the point that if back-IR was an additional phenomenon to conduction, then in measuring heat capacity for CO2 should result in a negative value: http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

Plus, you still have the problem that the actual source of heat is from the Solar insolation upon the ground, and then conduction and convection being the totally dominant mode by which that heat energy is spread into the atmosphere. If measurement of heat capacity for a gas already includes its radiative properties, which it must, then the question of additional “heating” from additional CO2 becomes a simple materialistic thermodynamic problem. This results in a negligible change in the heat capacity of the atmosphere and its subsequent temperature distribution...the author calculates a change of 0.004C at the surface for a doubling of CO2.

Let me know what you think.

Cheers,

Joe P."

I'd like to say- many thanks to Joe for taking the time to read and answer my somewhat rambling questionSmileSmile. Together with Claes Johnson et al thermodynamics there is nowhere for the alleged "greenhouse" theory to go. Now, how do we go about enlightening the rest of the world???

So, in summary CO2 merely scatters IR because virtually all the CO2 molecules are already kinetically excited in the atmosphere- already warm so they cannot convert IR to kinetic energy- because like the surface of the earth they are already at that temperature. Thus CO2 merely scatters IR on its way out to space and very little conversion to kinetic heat occurs. The IR radiated by the surface that is scattered by CO2 on it's way to outer space is as a RESULT of the temperature or the Earth's surface and atmosphere- not a cause of that temperature.

Once again, cause and effect are reversed.


Reply
#16
This thread is mentioned here at Tallbloke Talkshop:

MDGNN: Limits on the Co2 Greenhouse Effect
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#17
My path back to this thread started from this post at JoNova:
300,000 dollars and three years to produce a paper that lasted three weeks: Gergis

Well worth the trip to reread this thread. One tends to forget. Cool

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#18
Climate realist writes.

Quote:When you point this out the Warmists move the battle ground (goalposts) from the ground to the atmosphere and claim that the greenhouse effect works by CO2 absorbing IR and converting that IR straight away to kinetic heat energy, thus warming the rest of the atmosphere- the heat "trapping" as they say. What you have posted is evidence for that theory.

If CO2 absorbs IR that then cause vibration of the molecule to occur then release it as IR emission then there was no conversion from IR to Thermal energy OUTSIDE of the molecule at all and thus no warming could occur.

Since we know IR is NOT heat at all therefore the GH effect is contrived shamanism babbling.

I like what Climate Realists wrote here:

Quote:IR is not heat. That is another confusion that has lead to the greenhouse theory. IR is electromagnetic radiation much like radio waves or visible light. The difference between these is the wavelength. Heat is the measure of physical vibration on a molecular/ atomic scale.

Why is this elementary knowledge so hard for people to understand?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#19
(06-10-2012, 10:56 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote: Why is this elementary knowledge so hard for people to understand?

My guess is we have to overcome several million years of subjective experience. Anyone who steps from shade into sunlight feels the increase in warmth. At the end of the day after sunset, the rocks still feel warm but, it is time to go snuggle in the cave.

Now talk quantum physics and watch for the enlightenment. Rolleyes


Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle Sunsettommy 0 3,256 04-30-2013, 07:35 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)