Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Layman struggles with Science
Another new and interesting site. I link to just one of many posts:

CO2 is Insignificant
Quote:CO2 is a trace gas in air, by definition insignificant and a poor absorber of heat energy from sunlight, one seventh that of water vapor that has 80 times as many molecules getting 560 times as much heat or 99.8% of it. CO2 only does 0.2% of all atmospheric heating!

Enjoy! Don't forget to read the comments.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Boy! Am I being educated! All my puzzlement at line broadening of CO2 has been laid to rest. Line broadening by kinetic speed differences can only account for about +-0.01um bandwidth. The actual broadening is the sheer number of radiative lines centered around the 15um band.
I joined the comments section of this post, Absorption, Not Reflection, where I was shown a link to a NASA file (beware 6MB!) that covers the 12 to 20um band of CO2 in great detail.

Quote:
ABSTRACT
A listing is given of the wavenumber, intensities at 300,
275, 250, 225, 200 and 175 K and energy of the lower state of CO2
absorption lines between 12 and 20um. They are ordered by wave-
number and include 19 bands of 12C16O2, 4 bands of 13C16O2,
2 bands 12C16O18O and 1 band of 12C16O17O. The vibrational
and rotational constants and the band intensities used to calculate
the line parameters are tabulated.

The 26 bands mentioned in the abstract are made up of 3,871 emission lines. But don't panic. Very few seem to have any great radiative capacity.
That will be the next stage of my education (I hope) where I learn how to tell which lines are really important with regard to radiation at the 6 temperature ranges quoted.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
No progress on my last post. My ability to absorb and understand new concepts has deteriorated now I'm in my eight decade. Blush

This is a quick change of subject and very easy to understand. Cool It's about solar panels and the energy of sunlight.

Solar Efficiency Limits

Quote:It was first calculated by William Shockley and Hans Queisser in 1961. A solar cell's energy conversion efficiency is the percentage of power converted from sunlight to electrical energy under "standard test conditions" (STC). The STC conditions approximate solar noon at the spring and autumn equinoxes in the continental United States with the surface of the solar cell aimed directly at the sun. The modern SQ Limit calculation is a maximum efficiency of 33% for any type of single junction solar cell.

Real life cannot achieve that 33%! Why I'm interested is because there is talk of installing 20,000 solar panels in a field near where I live. Here is a LINK to the sunshine that will be driving those panels.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Oh, dear! Oh, dear! oh, dear. Where will it end? Family sitting around having coffee after lunch and up pops a weather forecast on the BBC TV talking about possibility of snow on the Chilterns. Right now it is cold wet and windy outside, real miserable. Somebody asks "Will it snow on Christmas day?" Trying to be cheerful I guess. So yours truly obligingly dives into the Bing search engine and this pops up:

White Christmas? Exeter's Met Office says it's too soon to tell as historic snow statistics released

Look at the 'snow lying' chart half way down the page and tell me again we are living in a warming world.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
I made a post over at TALLBLOKE'S BLOG which I thought I would repost here.

This layman is still lost in the darkness. Theoretical talk now. We have a blackbody at a temperature of 288 K. Suspended above is another blackbody (Oh yes it is!), The suspended blackbody is at some temperature slightly below 288 K. The suspended blackbody has a limited range of radiation from 13 microns to 17 microns. Wien’s Law tells us peak temperature for 13 micron radiation is 223 K. (17 microns is at 170 K, lower still).

Science rules that blackbodies can only absorb frequencies that are higher than its current temperature limited radiation level. Lower frequency radiation is scattered, NOT absorbed. The suspended body is mixed in an inert gas with a temperature just below 288 K. Since our suspended body is held at a temperature ABOVE 233 K and 170 K it will be radiating at 13 to 17 microns, both up and down. If you look at the Planck curves for blackbody temperatures at 288 K and 287 K there is a very small, I mean VERY small, window of a slight difference in energy over the 13 to 17 micron bands, that looks to be less than 1% for that specific band. That portion of radiation in the 13 to 17 micron band arriving at the 288 K blackbody surface below, WILL NOT BE ABSORBED, or science as it is taught today is meaningless and mindless.

All of the above tells me CO2 in the atmosphere will not be able to absorb any significant IR in the 13 to 17 micron band untill the local ambient temperature is close to -50C (223 K) which is in the region of the tropopause. Some 20% of the atmosphere is above the tropopause, and being of very low density, its cargo of CO2 gas will be radiating almost directly to space.

Carbon dioxide has other active regions, namely the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands, which can absorb radiation directly FROM THE SUN and pass that energy as heat to surrounding air molecules. Since that particular quantity of sun energy never reached the surface it has to be said that CO2 has a cooling effect on the surface as well as a cooling effect at the TOA.

So maybe it is a good idea to try and limit man made CO2 as it is definitely getting colder each year.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words I took some screen dumps from Planck Curve interactive graph and used photo edit to produce this.

[Image: 288-287-compo.png]

This is a composite of two blackbody curves, 288 K and 287 K with the 13 to 17 micron band marked out. You can just make out a difference in total power but the change in power in just the 13 to 17 micron band is not really noticeable. The vertical scale of the graph is watts per square metre per micron.

The 288 K is upward radiation from the surface and the 287 K is downward radiation from CO2 in the 13 to 17 micron band from the first metre or so of the atmosphere.






Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
I've been rabbitting on about CO2 and the 13 to 17 micron band lately because a few people out in netland use this range in their calculations, at blackbody emissivity levels, which I cannot understand or follow in any great detail. They some how manage to conclude that CO2 'forcing' is limited but my personal observations and intuition tell me, even at blackbody emissivity levels, CO2 'forcing' is NIL, as I demonstrate above.

But, whatever. I mentioned a NASA data file in Post: #262 above with data on some 4,000 CO2 emission lines centered on 15 microns (wavenumber 667). A lot of the emission lines show a marked reduction with temperature which makes me think that CO2 emissivity factor decreases below 1 at lower temperatures. NOT blackbody! Problem is I can't figure out how to use the data to check out my idea. Any advice welcome.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Having fun with photo edit program. Here is another trace dealing with IR emission over the 13 to 17 micron band.

[Image: 10-degree.png]

The top trace is for a temperature at 288 K (15C), and the bottom trace is for 278 K (5C). Exactly 10 degrees celcius cooler. The two vertical lines mark out how much energy is available in the 13 to 17 micron band. The shaded area is the energy difference between the two temperature ranges. The horizantal line shows the peak of the energy difference closest to 13 microns does not exceed the peak energy level of the 278 K (lower) radiation level. My interpretation is that it would have to exceed this level to put any warming into the air. Second law again. You can't heat something that is already warmer than the source.



Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Been amusing myself trying to put some numbers onto the trace I show in Post: #267 above.

15C (288K) represents the standard surface temperature with upwelling radiation of 390W/m^2. The cooler body at 5C (278K) represents a block of air above the surface. Problem. Nitrogen, oxygen and argon, some 99.9% of the atmosphere is transparent to IR radiation in the region we are discussing. Now we look at that other 0.1% of the atmosphere and find it contains a little carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide can absorb and emit IR radiation. According to the NASA paper I linked to in Post: #262 above that 0.04% of CO2 has nearly 4,000 emission lines over the 12 to 20 micron band. This is the active region for the temperature range the Earth's surface. People cleverer than I claim that the working band is 13 to 17 microns. Let's take that as given.

The two vertical lines in the graph above show the 13 and 17 micron points. Using area under the curve we see that that band constitutes some 18% of the total radiated energy. This is what CO2 can 'see'. The surface is radiating some 70 watts and the CO2 in the air is radiating 61 watts. Thus it looks like CO2 is free to absorb the 9 watts difference. Look at the horizantal line on the peak of the lower trace. It extends over the shaded area, just touching at the 13 micron point. If you look up kinetic energy distribution for gases you will see that a large percentage of the air molecules, and this will include the 0.04% of CO2 molecules, will be too warm to absorb all that 9 watts of extra energy. But, I'll assume the air absorbs all that 9W/m^2 just to see what happens. By the way way, 9 watts from the 390 watts source is just 2.3% of total radiative energy leaving the surface. Under clear skys the other 97.7% radiation escapes directly to space. I'm ignoring water vapour, H2O, I'm talking only about carbon dioxide, CO2.

I am assuming clear sky and dry adiabatic lapse rate of -10K per kilometre. We have one square metre of surface radiating 390 watts up into the air which is absorbing 9 watts. That 9 watts is 9 joules per second. Night lasts say 12 hours which is 12 x 60 x 60 = 43,200 seconds at 9 joules per second then the surface will have pumped 388,800 joules into a square metre column of air 1,000 metres tall. A cubic metre of air masses about 1.2 kilograms so total air mass is 1,200 kilos. The heat capacity of air is about 1,000 joules per kilogram per degree celsius. If we are going to raise the temperature of that block of air just 1 degree celsius we will need 1,000 x 1,200 = 1,200,000 joules, but we only have 388,800 joules which means that the whole column air was heated by just 0.324 degrees.

Yes I know this is meaningless because as air warms it starts to rise. and if there is wind, conditions are different again. I haven't a clue how to compute for all the dynamics but that number gives an indication of how little energy is going into the night air. Remember, it is just 2.3% of the total radiated level of 390 joules per second leaving the surface. I haven't allowed for the fact that the departing radiation is also cooling the ground which would make the final figure even smaller. That is just night time heating. Day time heating is going to be something else entirely.

Just out of curiosity I'm going to look at the whole 10.2 tons of atmosphere above our 1 square metre of surface radiating at 390W/m^2 of which the CO2 is 'seeing' 70 joules per second. 12 x 60 x 60 x 70 = 3,024,000 joules went into our 10,200 kilos of atmosphere. So at 1,000 joules per degree that whole block of air warmed by 0.3 degrees! How about that? That is 18% of the total radiated energy! And of course I have not taken into account that during the night with clear skies ground temperatures droprapidly, sometimes close to freezing. And then most of the absorbance will occur in the lower atmosphere while the upper atmosphere is radiating directly away to space. In between those levels any air that was warmed would be rising steadily. So that 0.3 degrees of warming is a massive over estimate.

Now just think about this. Radiative energy is entering the bottom of the air from a flat 1 square metre surface. But radiation is leaving from the whole VOLUME of the 1 square metre column which, above the tropopause, or 300 mb level, which ever is the point radiation can escape to space, is in the order of 50 or more KILOMETRES tall.

Tell me again how 'greenhouse' gases trap heat? I seem to have a problem absorbing that.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Brilliant Richard111.
The above posts need to be put into a single piece / paper / pdf.


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
Aww.. nice of you to say so Derek. Blush

But it's not original to me. Got the makings from here:

Why CO2 is not the cause of “Hothouse Venus”

See figure 1. Just my laymans way of looking at this problem.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
In a way Richard111 nothing any of us say is "new". It has all been said before, HOWEVER, if you put it in a new way, that gets across what was missed before then it is new.
I think you are very close to achieving, if you have not already achieved that.
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
Here's another person's much more qualified and coherent view on this subject. See the graph in Post: #265 above. It's what I was trying to put over. Wink

Quote:AlecM says:
December 14, 2012 at 9:00 am


My Dear G: how deluded you are. Any professional with substantial radiant heat transfer knowledge, and mine came from being a metallurgical engineer where we use GHGs to heat and cool materials, knows the IPCC ‘consensus’ is totally wrong.

Explaining this Big Mistake is quite easy. When you have two radiating bodies, in this case the Earth’s surface and the adjacent atmosphere at nearly the same temperature, the two radiation fields interact such that the net energy transfer is the vector sum of the Poynting Vectors over all the wavelengths.

Because the atmospheric GHG thermal emission is apparently nearly a black body** in that wavelength range, it annihilates most of the same wavelengths from the Earth’s surface. The only GHG IR to be emitted is a limited subset of water vapour side bands. There can be no CO2-AGW – Never.

read more...
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
I think this is quite a reasonable refutation of the 'greenhouse effect'. Cool

Quote:99.9% of the atmosphere is indeed transparent to solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light. It is also transparent to the 47% of solar radiation in the infrared thermal range. 'Greenhouse gases' are NOT transparent to a lot of that solar thermal radiation. That absorbed energy partly warms the atmosphere and partly reradiates. Half up and half down. This helps, along with albedo, to limit surface warming from solar radiation.

But the most important point is that the atmosphere is TRANSPARENT to most electro-magnetic radiation. This means a pure unpoluted atmosphere is a very poor absorber and a very poor emitter of thermal energy. But it can still be warmed by conduction from the surface and convection up the air column. This means the pure unpoluted atmosphere would HEAT UP to a level that would not have allowed life on this planet. 'Greenhouse gases', and especially carbon dioxcide, radiate thermal energy from the top of the atmosphere at such a rate as to support a reasonable lapse rate up the atmosphere column so life at the bottom can enjoy a comfortable living temperature.

link
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Something similar to this was put forward by a member in the fb group recently.

"This means the pure unpoluted atmosphere would HEAT UP to a level that would not have allowed life on this planet."

Errr, a heated gas expands, unless physically restrained, ie, rigidy contained. According to the ideal gas law. Shown in Carl Breher's re-examination of the GH in a bottle experiment too.

Earth has an atmospheric diurnal bulge.

Gases emit IR by molecuar collision.

I do not see "HEAT UP to a level that woud not have allowed life on this planet.",
it is in contradiction of observation and the ideal gas law.

BTW - Richard111 please, do you have any idea who AlecM is? Reply by pm if need be.
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
Haven't a clue who AlecM is. Just liked his comment which agrees with the way I am thinking on the AGW ponzi scheme.

Now! Non-radiative gases! Had my brain cells well screwed up before the light dawned. Lets see if I can put this across in my layman talk.

Imagine a planet, same size and mass as Earth, but no oceans cause water vapour MUST NOT be present. Atmosphere of this planet is exactly same amount nitrogen, oxygen and argon as Earth. Nothing else, no polution. Sun same distance etc. Now sunlight reaching the surface through that pristine atmosphere will be just about max energy level. Bit like the moon, minimal albedo etc. Now as you say, air in contact with the surface will heat up, expand and rise. As air rises it will pass heat by molecular collision to upper air levels. Okay so far? Come the night surface cools by radiation. Air does NOT cool by radiation. Air in contact with surface will cool, sure. BUT COOL AIR DOES NOT RISE. Temperature inversion. Next day, more sun, more heat.

As this warmed air rises, with no radiative cooling path, all the molecules, at all altitudes will eventually have the same kinetic and internal vibrational energy. There comes a point when there are no cool molecules to take up the heat.

The molecules are far apart due low density at altitude but they are still hot. Think thermosphere.

Now put 'greenhouse gases' and other crap in the air and it is a whole different ball game. Other points to bear in mind now we have polluted air is H2O dictates lapse rate below stratosphere, but above the stratosphere carbon dioxide, CO2, is king.

It is only from up there that the atmosphere can lose heat by radiation to space.

AND THOSE GREENIE MORONS WANT TO REDUCE CARBON DIOXIDE!!!
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
I think the point that is a stumbling block for me, is that such an atmosphere of gases that are not radiatively able to emit IR in the way water vapour and CO2 are, will still emit IR by molecular collision. So, such an atmosphere, even of none radiatively able gases, will still cool, albeit slowly, by IR loses. If my understanding is correct.

AND, the IR window for the surface loses by IR emission would be virtually 100%.
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
Very close, but no banana yet. Wink

Let's go through that 1 step at a time:

1. the IR window for the surface loses by IR emission would be virtually 100%.

Absolutely! Surface can cool without interference of back radiation and once the temperature of the air in contact with the surface drops slightly, the layer of cooler air now insulates warmer air from above trying to keep the surface warm.

2. an atmosphere of gases that are not radiatively able to emit IR ... will still emit IR by molecular collision.

Not so. For photon emission to occur an electron in the molecule must drop to a lower energy orbit. Same for absorption. If photon is absorbed an electron jumps to a higher level orbit. Oxygen, nitrogen and argon not very good at this while CO2 and H2O are very active.

3. an atmosphere, even of none radiatively able gases, will still cool, albeit slowly, by IR loses.

Oh, yes indeed. Look carefully at any radiation charts and you will see a few points for O2 and O3. If you check the wavelength points you will see this occurs at rather high temperatures. So yes, a very slow rate of cooling. Haven't seen any points for N2 or Ar. They must be there. After all, science tells us everything radiates. But discrete gas molecules are another matter. This is why scientists reduce unknown materials to a gas so they can then record the quantity of each element by the intensity of its absorption signiture.

You've seen the ice age/CO2 charts that show a marked delay for CO2 and temperature? Think about this. As life dies off during the developing ice age the level of CO2 drops. Cold oceans and frozen bodies don't produce much CO2. Eventually, CO2 levels above the tropopause become so low that radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere falls off and temperatures rise quite sharply. After a long period ice melts and frozen ground thaws and CO2 levels rise and we have a short interglacial.

Well, that's my interpretation of why ice ages come and go. :nod_yes:
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
re 2 above - electron orbit expands and contracts (seems more reasonable than jumps) I would agree. Not sure if Bohr has been disproved though - seems too rigid to me.
What is a photon? No one knows. Is it a quanta too?

Two molecules have mass and speed. They collide, they have less speed, they therefore have less energy. Where does that energy go?
I would suggest the lost energy has become an emitted, because of the collision, photon.

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
Derek, have a look at this 13 page pdf lecture file:

Absorption/emission by atmospheric gases. Solar, IR and microwave spectra of main atmospheric gases .

Quote:NOTE: Homonuclear diatomic molecules N2 and O2 don’t have neither rotational nor
vibrational transitions (because of their symmetrical structures) => no radiative activity in
the infrared. But these molecules become radiatively active in UV.

no radiative activity in the infrared. But these molecules become radiatively active in UV.

So how will N2 and O2 cool? The UV, I suspect, only warms. If N2 and O2 radiated UV I think life on this planet would be rather different.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
I printed the lecture file I linked above and now reading it in detail, it is really screwing my mind. I've shown my simple calculations on what could be the total heat energy fed into the atmosphere at night, but now I need to know how to calculate the heat energy fed into the atmosphere during the day. The fact that oxygen reacts with UV to produce ozone which blocks a sizable proportion of UV makes me ask how much heat goes into the atmosphere during this process. Then there are the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands of CO2. Some 47% of total incoming energy from the sun is in the non-visible near IR band. So, all in all, that is a lot of heat energy going into the atmosphere while the sun shines.

This is where I get freaked out. N2, O2 and Ar have no means of ridding themselves of all that heat energy. Of course heated air expands and rises and cools. BUT ONLY BECAUSE IT HAS COOLER AIR ABOVE.

The only candidate for effective IR radiation to space from the cold upper atmosphere is carbon dioxide, our life giving CO2! CO2 can radiate down to -80C and a bit below.

There is no 'greenhouse effect'! It is total cobblers! If there were no 'greenhouse gases' (radiatively active molecules) in the upper atmosphere there would be no cooling radiation to balance incoming energy.

Geological ice ages are beginning to make sense now as it would take many years before any response to too much or too little CO2 in the upper atmosphere takes effect.

Remember, heat can only keep rising and cooling if there is a path for the heat to escape. The only stuff that can do it up there is CO2.
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: 4 Guest(s)