Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The "Thermostat Effect"
#1
I posted this yesterday on the FB page "There is no Greenhouse effect". Michelle Mcgivern suggested that it would be a good topic for GWS. Here it is:

It seems pretty clear, at least in the "greenhouse effect" (GHE) denier camp, that so-called "greenhouse gases" (GHG's) do the opposite of what the warmists and luke-warmists claim.

The warmists' so-called "settled science" or "consensus orthodoxy" says that GHG's trap outbound radiation from the surface and sends it back to the surface, thus causing "global warming" beyond the power of the sun; or perhaps GHG's just block the surface heat from escaping to space, thus making the surface warmer than it would be if these so-called GHG's didn't exist.

On the other side of it, those who deny the existence of an atmospheric GHE have argued that so-called GHG's actually prevent some of the incoming solar energy from reaching the surface and also facilitates the escape of up-welling IR into the cold sink of space. In other words, these radiatively active gases actually act to cool the Earth, as described in this PSI paper. Most of us on this FB page are in this camp.

http://www.climatecorruption.com/pdf/Gre..._Earth.pdf

Maybe this has been suggested before and already exists, but it seems to me that we should coin our own term to counter the ubiquitous, inaccurate warmist term, "the Greenhouse Effect". They've done a great job of establishing this term. Everyone knows what it means, and many scientists and laymen alike accept it as the given truth.

We GHE "deniers" (which is, after all, what we are) need our own catchy term to counter this shorthand description that evokes their whole meme. Here's my suggestion: we should always refer to the process whereby radiatively active gases act to cool the surface and stabilize global mean temperatures within a natural historic range as the "THERMOSTAT EFFECT".

Yes, no, maybe? I haven't seen this term anywhere before, but it is a good descriptor that encapsulates the well supported view that global warming/climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, which is, unlike the GHE, supported by a provable and natural mechanism.
Reply
#2
You mean this Thermostat effect?

[Image: IPCC_oven.jpg]

He he
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
#3
What is so powerful about this oven is that it destroys the entire AGW conjecture by showing the impossibility of heating the chicken in such an oven.

To be able to cook it successfully would require a conventional oven where CONTINUOUS flow of incoming energy that was generated by a power source to maintain a cooking temperature is available.There is no "back radiation" being used in such an oven since it reaches a SET temperature that cooks it.

The AGW conjecture claims you can get extra energy from outside the boundary of a power source and call it a credible argument.
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
#4
(01-09-2014, 06:39 AM)Russell Wrote: I posted this yesterday on the FB page "There is no Greenhouse effect". Michelle Mcgivern suggested that it would be a good topic for GWS. Here it is:

We GHE "deniers" (which is, after all, what we are) need our own catchy term to counter this shorthand description that evokes their whole meme. Here's my suggestion: we should always refer to the process whereby radiatively active gases act to cool the surface and stabilize global mean temperatures within a natural historic range as the "THERMOSTAT EFFECT".

Yes, no, maybe? I haven't seen this term anywhere before, but it is a good descriptor that encapsulates the well supported view that global warming/climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, which is, unlike the GHE, supported by a provable and natural mechanism.

THANK YOU Russell for posting this here. It has generated a lot of discussion in several places, and has complimented at least one other discussion elsewhere I am aware of.

I have expressed concerns about the term thermostat, which I hope does not put anyone off. As usual my expressed concerns are intended to be for the best.

The term thermostat is a far better basis than the failed greenhouse effect hypothesis from which to think about our planet's climate system, but it has to be used with some caution. There are two main reasons why I think this is so.

1) A thermostat is used to turn either heating on or cooling on when the temperature deviates from a set level. The water cycle can be described as earth's climate thermostat, but it reduces heating when heating is occurring and reduces cooling when cooling is occurring. That is quite a difference that must be borne in mind. Thermostat is a, strictly speaking, incorrect simile, not an accurate description.

2) How one "sees" something (mentally speaking) largely determines how one thinks about something, it can even affect what you think you have observed. Perspective is therefore very important, and in climate science the present GH "theory" is the paradigm you are supposed to use to view things with. That causes massive issues. There are many subtleties and pitfalls that await anyone that tries to question the paradigm, and most of these have been deliberately constructed to misdirect you back to the faith that is GH "theory" based AGW and current PC climate pseudo science. One of the pitfalls is that you are supposed to think of warming, and that is what a thermostat, in your mind, generally does. Well, it does in the cold UK.... May be in parts of the USA it is normal for a thermostat to heat during winter and cool during the summer, but not in dear old Blighty... I think however there is a more problematic perspective problem with the term thermostat, because it implies we can set the temperature, and increase the thermostat setting by our activities which emit CO2. We can not. To think so would need one to view the system from an incorrect view point. Not surprisingly such a view point has been brain washed into us for years, and years. It is the view point that we at earth's surface experience a temperature that is 33C warmer than it would otherwise be. This is the case, as such, but we are viewing it with the wrong paradigm, and therefore reaching the wrong conclusions. I shall try to explain the misdirection and miscomparison that the 33C warmer than we would otherwise be is.

Both the moon and the earth are about 93.5 million miles from the sun. They are objects in space, but they have one big difference, earth has an atmosphere, the moon does not to speak of.

According to the Stefan Boltzman law and equation an object receiving IR at a power of 1368 Watts per meter squared (W/m2) should be at a temperature of 121 degrees Celsius (C.). This is plainly ridiculous for earth and the moon. The earth and the moon are both rotating oblate spheroids (revolving spheres), so, as a sphere has four times the surface area of a disc of the same diameter, we divide solar input received at the top of earth's atmosphere (TOA) by four. This gives us, 342W/m2 = 5.5C. However, this is "incorrect" too, because what we observe from space is that the earth and the moon are both objects with an average temperature of -18C. In reality not all of the received IR makes it to the earth's surface, some (102W/m2) is simply reflected back into space or refracted within earth's atmosphere. So, earth's surface is said to receive 240W/m2, 24 hours a day. If we apply the Stefan Boltzman equation to 240W/m2 we get a temperature for earth's surface of -18C.

BINGO, earth's surface is only warmed to -18C by our sun, IF we spread it over a 24 hour period, which we have done by dividing 1368W/m2 by four (P/4), ie, one revolution of planet earth = 24 hours. I know this sounds daft, ridiculous even (because it is), BUT, that is how GH "theory" and therefore AGW, and therefore current climate science, states earth's surface is only warmed to -18C by our sun. P/4 is simply used to get a low enough temperature in the first place to require a greenhouse effect. The above is usually justified by the fact that the moon also seems to reflect 102W/m2, and so it also is observed as emitting on average 240W/m2, ie the sun only warms it to an average temperature of -18C. In one sense this is true overall, BUT it is the incorrect use of an average, and one then views the (waterless) moons surface as if it were -18C all over, when in fact it is has extremes of 101C on the lit side and -184C on the unlit side. At earth's surface the day to night time extremes are far less than at the moons surface. At earth's surface the day time record high is 56.7C and the record night time low is -89C.

Please note, the temperatures given for earth's surface are "dry bulb temperatures", so they are near surface air temperatures, NOT the actual surface temperature. This is a common mistake (in some cases deliberate), surface temperature is not differentiated from near surface air temperature. They are two different things. Earth's actual surface, at least in parts, and for short periods of direct sunlight, frequently does get hotter, and a lot hotter than 56.7C. This we have all experienced when placing your hand on a hot tin roof, or a car body left in strong sunlight, a chromium plated or a polished aluminum surface left out in the sun, etc, etc, etc. The air above is nowhere near as hot as the actual surface itself can get. In point of fact, some polished metal surfaces can and do get a lot hotter than 101C at earth's surface due to sunlight alone. In short, the temperature extremes on both the earth and the moon are not represented accurately by the given figures. BUT, this does not fit in with the paradigm you are supposed to view the situation with. Is it the paradigm, or the observation that is wrong?

Ok, let us get back on track with the paradigm view we are supposed to use. The earth has an average surface temperature of 15C. It does not, the earth's actual surface temperature on average is nearer 24 to 25C. Earth's near surface air temperature though is approximately 15C. GH "theory" states earth's surface is at a constant (average) temperature of 480W/m2, or rather, 30C. Getting back on track with the paradigm is a bit more difficult than it should be, if the paradigm were correct... Ok, let us just say earth's surface temperature (which is actually near surface air temperature) is on average roughly 15C, and that the moon's (average) surface temperature is -18C (it is actually nearer -15C). Right, so, the difference between earth's surface temperature and the moon's is the difference between -18C and 15C = 33C. So, the differences between the moon and the earth's, as different systems, surfaces means there is a distinct temperature difference between the two temperatures, and it is (very roughly - depending on what figures you use) 33C warmer at earth's surface. The question now is WHY is earth's surface apparently warmer on average than the moon's?

It is true that the presence of an atmosphere makes earth's surface warmer than the moon's surface, but not for the reason given by GH "theory", ie supposed surface warming by atmospheric back radiation. The reason is that the two different systems, one an object with an atmosphere and the other an object with no atmosphere, means that the two surfaces are not directly comparable, because you are comparing two differing parts of two differing systems. Earth has an atmosphere, but it must still maintain it's -18C overall average it emits to space. To do this, through the depth of the atmosphere, it must mean that the bottom is warmer than the top of the atmosphere. The earth has oceans and an atmosphere that both store and transport heat / energy, and to comply with the known laws of thermodynamics the system must be warmer at the base than the top. To say the bottom would be at the overall average of -18C, except for the warming effect at the surface of atmospheric back radiation is to invent physics that contradict the accepted laws of thermodynamics. It is far simpler, and agrees with the laws of thermodynamics, if one accepts that water in it's various forms, and using the energies of it's phase changes, acts as a massive and dominant negative feedback that regulates the temperature at earth's surface in almost exactly the opposite way that a thermostat works. The observation that we are 33C warmer than we would otherwise be is possibly THE misdirection and miscomparison that the current GH "theory" based paradigm of AGW is most reliant upon.

The second most replied upon misconception of the GH "theory" based paradigm is, to my mind, that water vapour is a positive feedback. It is not, water in it's various forms, by it's heat capacity and energies of phase changes is the dominant negative feedback within earth's climate system, to view the system from any other basis is to miss what the system is about in the first place. The system overall is a negative feedback dominated, and therefore stable and resistant to change system. That is the point the system is a natural, complex, but extremely robust and stable system, because of water and the fact it is the dominant negative feedback, with a tremendous capacity, spare capacity, and that it is both flexible and dynamic. It is a truly amazing thing the water cycle, few seem to appreciate it's importance, power, capacity and flexibility, especially in relation to the climate system of this planet.

It is time to junk the present radiative obsession, GH "theory" based AGW paradigm, because it does not relate in any physical way to the grey body reality in which we live, the water cycle does. It really is that simple.

NB - Russell, I see no reason to put deniers in speech marks, I for one do deny there is a greenhouse effect of any sort, and particularly of the one currently touted by the IPCC, and the consensus, and the various undefined versions touted by various main stream skeptics. I do deny them all, no speech marks required, because they are ALL unphysical. They are all unphysical because they rely on either or both P/4, which is a misapplied average, and a supposed but not shown to date atmospheric back radiation warming effect at earth's surface.
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
#5
Gosh! Will have to read all that a few more times.

Been thinking about these things on the quiet and came up with a strange thought. In my reading about reflection of sunlight from water surfaces and solar panels I understand that once the sun angle exceeds 45 degrees from the vertical some 90% is REFLECTED, NOT ABSORBED! I could have this all wrong so a link to some understanding would be helpful.

Now for the strange thought... Dodgy if this is so then only about 1/6th (one sixth) of the earth's surface gets the full whack of sunlight at any instant.

My maths is too dodgy to take that further, but as I said, just a thought.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#6
Richard111 it would not surprise me at all, and for good reason. All the talk of this and that amount of energy going hither and thither is based upon and justified by misapplying black body all over the place. Put simply, peak frequency of emission is taken as power and amount of emission. Given only a black body can do that, and they are imaginary, then I think the sums are all wrong. How else does one explain the total absence of emissivity in all global energy budgets of whatever type???

Yet reality is grey body and grey bodies MUST HAVE emissivity.....

You I think are on the right track, solar input is a lot lower than is currently thought, AND I think Joe Olsen is correct geothermal input is far greater than currently thought, and mostly hidden in the oceans.

Onward and upward.

btw - Have you got a de-humidifier yet? Emptied mine yet again this morning, it's almost a daily ritual now.
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
#7
[...]

The term thermostat is a far better basis than the failed greenhouse effect hypothesis from which to think about our planet's climate system, but it has to be used with some caution. There are two main reasons why I think this is so.

1) A thermostat is used to turn either heating on or cooling on when the temperature deviates from a set level. The water cycle can be described as earth's climate thermostat, but it reduces heating when heating is occurring and reduces cooling when cooling is occurring. That is quite a difference that must be borne in mind. Thermostat is a, strictly speaking, incorrect simile, not an accurate description.

2) How one "sees" something (mentally speaking) largely determines how one thinks about something, it can even affect what you think you have observed. Perspective is therefore very important, and in climate science the present GH "theory" is the paradigm you are supposed to use to view things with. That causes massive issues. [...]
[/quote]

Derek, first point: I agree with you that my analogy of a thermostat isn't an entirely accurate way to describe how global climate operates. It wasn't meant to be. The term "thermostat effect" came to me just after I had read two PSI papers describing how greenhouse gases [sic] act to cool the surface/near surface, rather than causing "global warming". Even that doesn''t exactly fit the thermostat analogy because there are various natural periodic cycles with significant swings in GMT (e.g. Medieval Warm Period vs Little Ice Age). The term is also a little too anthropocentric, but then so is the greenhouse analogy. All I was trying to do was to capture this regulatory effect of radiatively able gases in a short, memorable phrase to counter the well-worn and even less accurate "greenhouse effect" [sic]. I meant it more for the lay community than the science community, although I think it could be effective in changing some perceptions in both camps. In other words, I was looking for a phrase that would change the way people "see" and think about the variables that affect the climate, as you state above.

Quote: NB - Russell, I see no reason to put deniers in speech marks, I for one do deny there is a greenhouse effect of any sort, and particularly of the one currently touted by the IPCC, and the consensus, and the various undefined versions touted by various main stream skeptics. [...]

Second point: I agree with you here, too. Like you, I'm a denier and proud of it, but we aren't the only ones reading these posts. I put it in quotation marks to call attention to the word. We need more deniers. :nod_yes:
Reply
#8
I do really agree with you Russell, however I am aware "elsewhere" there is a group of (respected, well known) main stream skeptics who have previously and intend in the near future to use the term again. What they want to put it with, is well, errr, "peculiar"... I am trying to understand it at present, but it really is way, way too esoteric. They appear to want to redefine thermo so the Slayers are wrong!!!! Given I do not fully understand their standpoint / reasoning at present, but I know they will start from the term thermostat, I want to avoid it, because I think they will wreck any use it has.

How about, as I replied to Peter Laux in the fb group -
"Peter Laux writes " Im thinking out loud - the 'Moderator Effect' - 'Stabilizer Effect'- 'Climate Governor' ....... but it needs a more catchy adjective .....
In the end it needs to be catchy as well as true."

Spot on Peter. My thinking (now) is that there is a system preset temperature that the oceans and the water cycle act as a rubber band to resist changes in either direction from."

My overall view is that the thermal inertia of the oceans and the negative feedback of the water cycle must be described in the simple term, hence, I prefer the suggestion of -
a system preset temperature which global mean temperature (GMT) is tethered to by a powerful elastic band, to changes to in either direction (warmer or cooler).

Which is not a term....dam.
I suppose thermostat it is then, but it is going to be a rough ride...
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
#9
There is a post over at WUWT that nearly made me blow my top.
Once I had calmed down I made a comment which I will post here as I think it is pertinent to this discussion.

Quote:Radiation is transport of energy not heat. High frequency radiation has high energy levels and low frequency radiation has low energy levels. Planck's rule.
If you could create a laser that emits a very narrow band of radiation of about 2 or 3 microns wide and direct that radiation at a black body, Wien's Law will predict the maximum possible temperature. The black body, being a black body, will be radiating a much wider band of radiation and thus will not quite reach the predicted temperature. EVER!
CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are effectively black bodies with an emissivity/absorbance factor of 1 over the electromagnetic range 13 to 17 microns and two further bands centred around 2.7 and 4.3 microns. The CO2 molecules have ZERO emissivity/absorbance at all other radiation frequencies (apart from one very weak band at ~1.9 microns which seems to be ignored).
CO2 is a gas with a lower heat capacity than standard air thus the CO2 easily aquires the local air temperature via kinetic collisions with other other molecules in the atmosphere. These collisions effect the vibrational levels of the CO2 molecule to raise the molecule's temperature to the local air temperature.
Peak radiative temperature of 13 microns is ~223K (-50C) from Wien's Law.
From the surface to the tropopause, some 80% of the total atmosphere, the air temperature is much warmer than -50C. Thus all the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, from the surface to the tropopause, will be fully occupied RADIATING over the 13 to 17 micron band. These molecules are in no condition to ABSORB any 13 to 17 micron radiation from the surface. Also the surface will be unable to absorb any so called 'back radiation' from the CO2 as IT IS ALSO TOO WARM!
When the sun is shining the CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb energy in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands and little, if any, of that energy will reach the surface. The CO2 molecules are unlikely to re-radiate in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands as this requires the molecules to reach temperatures in excess of 200C, not encountered in the atmosphere, but those CO2 molecules can emit strongly at the lower frequency levels of 13 to 17 microns but the surface is too warm to absorb at those bands. CO2 has some 3,800 lines of absorbance/emittance over the 13 to 17 micron band making it quite effective at converting high energy radiation to low energy radiation.
Increasing or decreasing the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere will not change the radiative characteristics of the CO2.
CO2 cools the atmosphere but is most effective above the tropopause where radiation can escape directly to space. By cooling the top of the atmosphere CO2 helps maintain the convective path for heat up through the atmosphere otherwise known as the lapse rate.
To blame CO2 in the atmosphere for hurricanes and other extreme weather events is absolutely ludicrous.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#10
Brilliant reply / comment Richard111.

Please get so annoyed more often, it is obviously very productive.
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
#11
I think the important thing is to keep plugging terminology that reflects the mitigating effects of the atmosphere. GH terminology is centred around positive feedback and when just the opposite is seen by most to be the reality, a new term will emerge Smile
Reply
#12
(01-13-2014, 04:05 AM)Michelle McG Wrote: I think the important thing is to keep plugging terminology that reflects the mitigating effects of the atmosphere. GH terminology is centred around positive feedback and when just the opposite is seen by most to be the reality, a new term will emerge Smile

"Mitigating effect"! I like that one, Michelle.

Thank you for your post, too, Richard III. I'm going to have to spend some more time on Ira Glickstein's post on WUWT. My initial reaction is that his "thought experiment" involving yellow balls coming down from the sun and purple balls going up from the surfase has problems. No matter how you vizualize the "greenhouse effect", you run into the 1st Law of Thermo. How in the world can you count the same energy multiple times and not violate "conservation of energy".
Reply
#13
(01-12-2014, 11:53 PM)Derek Wrote: I do really agree with you Russell, however I am aware "elsewhere" there is a group of (respected, well known) main stream skeptics who have previously and intend in the near future to use the term again. What they want to put it with, is well, errr, "peculiar"... I am trying to understand it at present, but it really is way, way too esoteric. They appear to want to redefine thermo so the Slayers are wrong!!!! Given I do not fully understand their standpoint / reasoning at present, but I know they will start from the term thermostat, I want to avoid it, because I think they will wreck any use it has.

How about, as I replied to Peter Laux in the fb group -
"Peter Laux writes " Im thinking out loud - the 'Moderator Effect' - 'Stabilizer Effect'- 'Climate Governor' ....... but it needs a more catchy adjective .....
In the end it needs to be catchy as well as true."

Spot on Peter. My thinking (now) is that there is a system preset temperature that the oceans and the water cycle act as a rubber band to resist changes in either direction from."

My overall view is that the thermal inertia of the oceans and the negative feedback of the water cycle must be described in the simple term, hence, I prefer the suggestion of -
a system preset temperature which global mean temperature (GMT) is tethered to by a powerful elastic band, to changes to in either direction (warmer or cooler).

Which is not a term....dam.
I suppose thermostat it is then, but it is going to be a rough ride...

I see what you're getting at, Derek. I'm not sure it's possible to portray all of that in two or three words, but it's certainly worth a try to at least start people thinking and then feed it out with a paragraph or two that blows the GHE away, perhaps by invoking the 1st and 2nd Laws. I like all three of Peter's suggestions. My favorite is his "stabilizer effect". I also like Michelle's "mitigating effect". "Climate elasticity" is good in that it implies a historic range that is naturally controlled, or "stabilized", or even "mitigated", within a certain tolerance. I think we're zeroing in on a way to position our position, so to speak. When we simply say "there is no greenhouse effect", both the warmists and lukes seem to freak out. Youi can hear their minds slamming shut.
Reply
#14
Gosh and golly! I've had a comprehensive rebuttal to my comment shown in POST: #09 above. Rolleyes See:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/gl...nt-1534507
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#15
Hmmm, third night, so please excuse me, I have a head of mush tonight...

First I will try to get the answers / rebuttal bolded.
" Phil. says:
January 13, 2014 at 9:43 am

Richard111 says:
January 13, 2014 at 1:03 am
Radiation is transport of energy not heat. High frequency radiation has high energy levels and low frequency radiation has low energy levels. Planck’s rule.
If you could create a laser that emits a very narrow band of radiation of about 2 or 3 microns wide and direct that radiation at a black body, Wien’s Law will predict the maximum possible temperature. The black body, being a black body, will be radiating a much wider band of radiation and thus will not quite reach the predicted temperature. EVER!

You appear to misunderstand Wien’s law which gives the wavelength of peak emission at a certain temperature. The technique of laser induced incandescence uses a laser beam of about 1micron wavelength focussed onto soot (a black body) which is heated up to about 5,000K (hence the incandescence).

CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are effectively black bodies with an emissivity/absorbance factor of 1 over the electromagnetic range 13 to 17 microns and two further bands centred around 2.7 and 4.3 microns. The CO2 molecules have ZERO emissivity/absorbance at all other radiation frequencies (apart from one very weak band at ~1.9 microns which seems to be ignored).
CO2 is a gas with a lower heat capacity than standard air thus the CO2 easily aquires the local air temperature via kinetic collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere. These collisions effect the vibrational levels of the CO2 molecule to raise the molecule’s temperature to the local air temperature.

CO2 has a higher heat capacity (28 J/K) than N2 and O2 (21 J/K). The collisions primarily effect the translational energy of the molecule not the vibrational levels unlike absorption which directly excites the vibrational level. The 667cm^-1 CO2 energy level corresponds to a temperature of ~950K.

Peak radiative temperature of 13 microns is ~223K (-50C) from Wien’s Law.

Wien’s Law says that a radiating black body at a temperature of 223K has its peak emission at 13 microns, you have it backwards).

From the surface to the tropopause, some 80% of the total atmosphere, the air temperature is much warmer than -50C. Thus all the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, from the surface to the tropopause, will be fully occupied RADIATING over the 13 to 17 micron band. These molecules are in no condition to ABSORB any 13 to 17 micron radiation from the surface. Also the surface will be unable to absorb any so called ‘back radiation’ from the CO2 as IT IS ALSO TOO WARM!

You have this completely wrong, look up the Boltzmann distribution, the probability that the vibrational levels will be excited by those collisions is extremely small. In addition the vibrational levels have a long lifetime compared with collisional rates so the excited molecule predominantly loses energy by collision in the lower atmosphere. Only in the high troposphere/stratosphere is the collision rate sufficiently low that emission is the dominant route.

When the sun is shining the CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb energy in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands and little, if any, of that energy will reach the surface. The CO2 molecules are unlikely to re-radiate in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands as this requires the molecules to reach temperatures in excess of 200C, not encountered in the atmosphere, but those CO2 molecules can emit strongly at the lower frequency levels of 13 to 17 microns but the surface is too warm to absorb at those bands. CO2 has some 3,800 lines of absorbance/emittance over the 13 to 17 micron band making it quite effective at converting high energy radiation to low energy radiation.
Increasing or decreasing the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere will not change the radiative characteristics of the CO2.

There is very little solar irradiance in those bands, however if a molecule is excited by 2.7 micron light it is able to re-emit at that wavelength provided it isn’t first deactivated by another process such as collision.

http://www.pvresources.com/portals/0/Ima...diance.png

Also your idea that the surface can’t absorb the 15micron band because of temperature is a complete misunderstanding of radiational heat transfer.

CO2 cools the atmosphere but is most effective above the tropopause where radiation can escape directly to space. By cooling the top of the atmosphere CO2 helps maintain the convective path for heat up through the atmosphere otherwise known as the lapse rate.
To blame CO2 in the atmosphere for hurricanes and other extreme weather events is absolutely ludicrous.
End of post.

Ok, first off.
Phil says -
The technique of laser induced incandescence (LII) uses a laser beam of about 1micron wavelength focussed onto soot (a black body) which is heated up to about 5,000K (hence the incandescence).


? "soot (a black body)" Does he mean a body that is black? A black body is an imaginary concept / maximum rule of thumb, which is a big difference.
A quick search turned up, in respect of LII
http://www.brighton.ac.uk/shrl/laborator...es/LII.php
" Laser-Induced Incandescence (LII) takes place when a high power laser beam hits particulate matter like soot. As the particles gain energy from the beam, their temperature increases and if the energy absorption rate is high enough, the soot particles will reach incandescent temperatures (4000 K) and produce near-blackbody emission. "

Noting powerful laser I looked up how powerful is a one micron laser.
http://www.iiviinfrared.com/1-Micron-Opt...rview.html
" Power output can be as high as 5 kilowatts. The uses of Nd:YAG lasers include cutting, drilling, welding, scribing, and engraving. Materials processed by Nd:YAG lasers include carbon resin, ceramics, most metals, and most plastics. "

So, a one micron laser is very powerful, and nothing is a black body.

What is the power in W/m2 of a 1 micron laser? Heck of a lot I suspect, and it seems it is stated equivalent to a temperature of 4,000k.

Interesting thread though, and it may be worth looking a little deeper into Phil's reply to you Richard111. I suspect it is not as "honest" as it may first appear.

Sorry, that's about all I can mange tonight. TTFN.
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
#16
Don't worry about it Derek. I am more amused than bothered. Wink

I stopped reading at this point:

Quote:CO2 has a higher heat capacity (28 J/K) than N2 and O2 (21 J/K). The collisions primarily effect the translational energy of the molecule not the vibrational levels unlike absorption which directly excites the vibrational level. The 667cm^-1 CO2 energy level corresponds to a temperature of ~950K.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#17
Hi ALL, and in particular Richard111 and I hope Russell too,
how often do we see answers / statements where our lack of understanding of radiation is used to baffle us with what I can only describe as "rollocks", as the above reply to Richard111 at WUWT demonstrates?
All too often I would suggest.

I would note that Phil's basic confusion re LII was to confuse Richard111's beam 2 to 3 microns wide, with a beam of exactly 1.06 microns length. Thereby confusing differing temperature emissions of radiation. A 1 micron beam is presumably emitted by something at about a temperature of 4000, to 5000 degrees k. Which was obviously not the temperature range of emission Richard111 was referring to.

I think the basic issue is the confusion of the differing types of radiation. There are different types with different abilities / properties. But it is almost impossible to find a simple clear "stepped" explanation of the types / differences / abilities.

I suppose I mean if we talked about grapes, cucumbers, lions, elephants, whales, and oak trees we would know they are all forms of life, but just because a grape is a form of life does not mean it can blow like a whale whilst swimming in the ocean. Grapes, although a form of life, simply can not do that, it is a ridiculous suggestion. However similar "comparisons of abilities" are regularly attributed to differing forms of radiation. Will the thermal radiation your toaster gives off give you cancer? No. Will the radiation your microwave produces internally cook you? Yes, some of it could, so to speak.

Does anyone know of a simple explanation of the differing types and abilities of the differing types of radiation. May be we should compile a resource, or find / produce a simple explanatory diagram?

Also, is all radiation made up of photons? If so, as it appears radiation received is usually just summed together, why does my radio aerial not get really really hot?

I now have a mental picture of a pod of grapes swimming through the ocean, blowing and jumping like dolphins......

HELP....
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
#18
Would like to help Derek, but as a self taught layman on this subject I doubt my own understanding. I did a thought experiment to try and show how quickly the upper air cools and found that CO2 can 'cool' 3 tons of air in less than a minute!
By radiation alone! Ah, well. Back to the drawing board.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#19
Richard111 were you using black body or gray body emissions?
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
#20
I make the assumption that at 15C blackbody level is 390w/m^2 but CO2 will be limited to just 70w/m^2, I use 18%, for the 13 to 17 micron band.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)