Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[r-j]

To a degree, you're right, though I don't think that proves anything.

Of course I'm right, and I wasn't trying to prove anything, just countering a lie I saw on the page. OK maybe it did prove a point. Or your commentary did.

The basic theory, predictions and physics behind launching a probe and using gravitation to slingshot it smack in the middle of a comet traveling through our solar system at thousands of miles per hour are thoroughly beyond my knowledge.

Same here. Doesn't mean we couldn't discuss it, and learn something. Of course if the loudest posters were constantly insulting anyone who didn't understand all the physics of the matter, it would be a horrible discussion.

Luckily, it's not my knowledge that is important in these matters.

The same is true for every last person posting or reading here. In regards to how CO2 warms the surface, or the troposphere, it's certainly on topic. And interesting. It's also funny because it's pretty obvious nobody here understand the physics of how it happens. The question was how does the CO2 molecule warm the surface, or the troposphere.

The molecule has not warmed (There are no changes in latent heat in a higher scale, so to speak)
It does not "impart" any aditional energy in the form of translational kinetic energy as a consequence of that absorption (nothing of consequences).
It does not make the gases in the atmosphere warmer per se by re-radiating IR as those gases are mostly transparent to those IR. It can affect other scattered CO2 molecules by chance in the same way.

Where in all that is there an answer to the question?

I can't think what on Earth do you imagine the greenhouse effect is.

That wasn't the question. You actually didn't answer anything.

r-j, you asked about the greenhouse effect

No, I asked about the physics of how CO2 warms the surface or the air.

Since the energy of these photons can’t simply disappear the heat energy content of the earth’s atmosphere rises until a new equilibrium is found where the IR that escapes the atmosphere balances the solar energy entering it.

That CO2 causes warming wasn't the question. The question is about the physics of how it happens. Which nobody has answered yet.

If you don't know, you can just say so.

Once more, the question is about how, how does CO2 physically cause warming of the surface of the earth, or the atmosphere. What is the physical mechanism involved? Nobody asked it it does happen, that fact isn't in dispute at all, the question is about the physics involved in the matter.

In the pursuit of education, please describe the physics of how CO2 in the atmosphere warms the surface of the earth. And the lower troposphere.

It's a basic question. When the CO2 molecule intercepts, or absorbs IR that otherwise would have simply gone into space, how does that energy warm the surface, or the atmosphere?

the co2 and other GHGs absorb and reradiate the IR radiation given of by the planet. so energy that would leave the planet into space in form of IR radiation is not leaving the system and remains here warming up the planet.

Yes, but the question is about HOW that occurs. Does the CO2 heat up? Do the CO2 molecules heat the other gases that make up the atmosphere? Is it be kinetic exchange? Radiation of IR? HOW does the CO2 molecule, after absorbing the IR, then transfer the energy to the other gases in the atmosphere?

the Co2 molecule does this because it start vibrating when exposed to IR radiation.

That doesn't explain how it warms the air around it. That is the question on the table.

and AGw is very well understood here. its only the deniers that have problems even understanding the very basics.

If it's all understood, then it should be easy to explain how it happens.

 

[r-j]

It seems self evident to me, that if CO2 is absorbing then re-radiating IR radiation, then it is sending some of the IR back towards the surface, which would cause the surface to be at a higher temperature than if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere above .

If CO2 is simply absorbing and then re-radiating IR, and the other gases in the atmosphere are transparent to that IR energy, the CO2 can't warm the atmosphere. Unless the CO2 keeps the energy, which I have read it does not, the warming effect would be on the surface of the earth, not the air.

These are important scientific questions/issues. If you don't know the answer, there is no shame in that.

 

[citizenzen]

A very small degree when it comes to the rather simple physics underlying AGW.
Science is built on a latticework of acquired knowledge...tested over time from a variety of approaches and observed.

Both are solid in AGW...complex is what the outcome will be and when and what to do about it.
Some need to move on to that Gordian knot.....rather than repetitious nonsense as seems to be their wont.

And I completely agree with that.

The most interesting problems [and accompanying debates] will center around how we deal with Global Warming and it's effects.

The seemingly endless argument of whether it's real or not is bordering on the absurd.

 

[r-j]

Does a CO2 molecule that has warmed, by absorbing IR, impart that energy to other non-greenhouse gas molecules in the form of translational kinetic energy, or does it make the atmosphere warmer only in the sense of re-radiating IR?

Is there a difference between the two?

what? what exactly do you mean by that?

It's a direct scientific query, no confusion at all.

In the pursuit of trying to educate you : Greenhouse effect (the physics of how CO2 in the atmosphere warms the surface of the earth!)

So you agree that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere, but only the surface?

The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.[1][2]

That is common knowledge. The question is, does CO2 cause any heating of the atmosphere? Or is it just the surface, solid objects or plants or structures or water that can absorb the IR energy?

 

[r-j]

For such a simple thing, it certainly isn't being explained very well.

Since the energy of these photons can’t simply disappear the heat energy content of the earth’s atmosphere rises until a new equilibrium is found where the IR that escapes the atmosphere balances the solar energy entering it.

Again, you didn't answer the question, which is about the physical mechanism of how CO2 warms either the surface, or the troposphere. If, as you say, "the heat energy content of the earth’s atmosphere rises", how does CO2 cause that? Kinetic energy? IR radiation? The CO2 molecules warming and retaining the heat, having become warmer themselves? What is the mechanism that CO2 uses to result in "the heat energy content of the earth’s atmosphere rises"?

As to why this energy winds up in the lower troposphere, there is simply no logical reason why some of it would not.

That isn't an answer at all. If, as you claim, CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm, how does it do so?

Climate scientists have done a great deal of work figuring out where this energy will end up and their conclusion is that most of it winds up in the ocean so your question is misleading at best.

That is absurd, the questions are clear and direct, no misleading of anything. If, as you claim, the energy ends up in the ocean, how does CO2 cause that to happen? Is it only IR radiation? Or is there any physical kinetic energy involved?

You hear about CO2 "trapping the heat energy", what is the physical mechanism involved in this? Where is the energy "trapped"?

 

[lomiller]

It seems self evident to me, that if CO2 is absorbing then re-radiating IR radiation, then it is sending some of the IR back towards the surface, which would cause the surface to be at a higher temperature than if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere above .

And it just so happens that the surface of the Earth is 33 Deg C higher than it's black-body temperature AKA the temperature the earth would be with no atmosphere and therefor no greenhouse gasses.

If CO2 is simply absorbing and then re-radiating IR, and the other gases in the atmosphere are transparent to that IR energy, the CO2 can't warm the atmosphere. Unless the CO2 keeps the energy, which I have read it does not, the warming effect would be on the surface of the earth, not the air.

A CO2 molecule can lose this energy either by collision with another molecule or by emitting a photon in a random direction. In the lower atmosphere where there are more molecules the former is more likely, in the upper atmosphere the latter is more likely.

 

[citizenzen]

For such a simple thing, it certainly isn't being explained very well.
Again, you didn't answer the question, which is about the physical mechanism of how CO2 warms either the surface, or the troposphere. If, as you say, "the heat energy content of the earth’s atmosphere rises", how does CO2 cause that? Kinetic energy? IR radiation? The CO2 molecules warming and retaining the heat, having become warmer themselves? What is the mechanism that CO2 uses to result in "the heat energy content of the earth’s atmosphere rises"?

That isn't an answer at all. If, as you claim, CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm, how does it do so?



That is absurd, the questions are clear and direct, no misleading of anything. If, as you claim, the energy ends up in the ocean, how does CO2 cause that to happen? Is it only IR radiation? Or is there any physical kinetic energy involved?

You hear about CO2 "trapping the heat energy", what is the physical mechanism involved in this? Where is the energy "trapped"?

Have you visited this page yet?

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

It's well over my head but appears to hold the information you're looking for.

 

[lomiller]

For such a simple thing, it certainly isn't being explained very well.
Again, you didn't answer the question, which is about the physical mechanism of how CO2 warms either the surface, or the troposphere. If, as you say, "the heat energy content of the earth’s atmosphere rises", how does CO2 cause that? Kinetic energy? IR radiation? The CO2 molecules warming and retaining the heat, having become warmer themselves? What is the mechanism that CO2 uses to result in "the heat energy content of the earth’s atmosphere rises"?

Your question makes no sense. The retained energy IS heat, so it doesn't have to "cause" heat.

That isn't an answer at all. If, as you claim, CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm, how does it do so?

Please read more carefully. The energy the CO2 prevents from leaving causes the temperature increase, the CO2 itself doesn't produce heat and you are the only person to suggest it does.

You hear about CO2 "trapping the heat energy", what is the physical mechanism involved in this? Where is the energy "trapped"?

Again please read more carefully as I already explained this quite clearly. CO2 absorbers IR photons that would otherwise leave the earths atmosphere.

Where is the energy "trapped"?

Ummmm in the atmosphere/oceans, that's why their temperature increases.

For such a simple thing, it certainly isn't being explained very well.

It seems more of a willful ignorance issue to me as you have repeatedly asked questions that have just been answered or that make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[a_unique_person]

The molecule has not warmed (There are no changes in latent heat in a higher scale, so to speak)
It does not "impart" any aditional energy in the form of translational kinetic energy as a consequence of that absorption (nothing of consequences).
It does not make the gases in the atmosphere warmer per se by re-radiating IR as those gases are mostly transparent to those IR. It can affect other scattered CO2 molecules by chance in the same way.

I can't think what on Earth do you imagine the greenhouse effect is.

Could you just walk me through how that does cause warming. I have read this before but didn't quite grasp where the warming happened exactly.

 

[Trakar]

Could you just walk me through how that does cause warming. I have read this before but didn't quite grasp where the warming happened exactly.

In the most simple terms, it is a very gradual increasing of the delay of the escape of absorbed solar energy. Insulating an object isn't technically "heating" an object, it is an active enhancement of the accumulation/temporary retention solar energy/radiations (Thermal IR).

 

[macdoc]

Yup - a change in radiative equilibrium...and we're still adding insulation tho a bit slower laast year.

Seems there is a lower limit on one aspect of CO2's role thanks to the biome...maybe Lovelock was correct

Ancient forests stabilized Earth’s CO2 and climate
Date:
January 23, 2014
Source:
European Geosciences Union (EGU)
Summary:
Researchers have identified a biological mechanism that could explain how the Earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate were stabilized over the past 24 million years. When CO2 levels became too low for plants to grow properly, forests appear to have kept the climate in check by slowing down the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123102429.htm

 

[DC]

Of course I'm right, and I wasn't trying to prove anything, just countering a lie I saw on the page. OK maybe it did prove a point. Or your commentary did.

Same here. Doesn't mean we couldn't discuss it, and learn something. Of course if the loudest posters were constantly insulting anyone who didn't understand all the physics of the matter, it would be a horrible discussion.

The same is true for every last person posting or reading here. In regards to how CO2 warms the surface, or the troposphere, it's certainly on topic. And interesting. It's also funny because it's pretty obvious nobody here understand the physics of how it happens. The question was how does the CO2 molecule warm the surface, or the troposphere.
Where in all that is there an answer to the question?
That wasn't the question. You actually didn't answer anything. No, I asked about the physics of how CO2 warms the surface or the air. That CO2 causes warming wasn't the question. The question is about the physics of how it happens. Which nobody has answered yet.

If you don't know, you can just say so.

Once more, the question is about how, how does CO2 physically cause warming of the surface of the earth, or the atmosphere. What is the physical mechanism involved? Nobody asked it it does happen, that fact isn't in dispute at all, the question is about the physics involved in the matter.
It's a basic question. When the CO2 molecule intercepts, or absorbs IR that otherwise would have simply gone into space, how does that energy warm the surface, or the atmosphere?
Yes, but the question is about HOW that occurs. Does the CO2 heat up? Do the CO2 molecules heat the other gases that make up the atmosphere? Is it be kinetic exchange? Radiation of IR? HOW does the CO2 molecule, after absorbing the IR, then transfer the energy to the other gases in the atmosphere?
That doesn't explain how it warms the air around it. That is the question on the table.

If it's all understood, then it should be easy to explain how it happens.

by reuducing the planets ability to radiate off its energy it received from the sun.

as usual, you are extremely dishonest, why did you leave away this part that explains exactly what you are asking now?

this perfectly demonstrates your extreme dishonesty and trolling behavior here.

no wonder people don't take deniers serious anymore, all that is left are dishonest liars like you.

 

[Trakar]

The molecule has not warmed (There are no changes in latent heat in a higher scale, so to speak)...

Much as climate is the result of weather trends over the periods of decades, centuries and (tens/hundreds of) millennia, the velocity and directionality of a molecule of CO2, is averaged among the many random absorption/emissions that such molecules undergo every infinitesimal fraction of a second that they exist. What is the main free path of a thermal IR photon in our lower atmosphere, about 5 miles IIRC. The more significant number is the IR photon density average near the surface of our planet.

You are correct, the only thing we can say about the kinetic energy of gases is that as the average energy of the environment increases, the average kinetic energy of those gas molecules that make up our atmosphere, increases. Some people try to put the horse ahead of the cart by talking about the motion of gas being the cause/source of "heat" rather than the reaction to "warming," by an increasingly enriched energy/IR environment.

A single photon emission has little impact on even a small molecule's velocity or direction, and environmental IR photons come from mostly random directions with a slight bias of more from the surface of the planet than from above the surface of the planet. The more we "insulate" our surface, the more we reduce the differential, increasing the reflection from above.

 

[Belz...]

Your question makes no sense. The retained energy IS heat, so it doesn't have to "cause" heat.





Please read more carefully. The energy the CO2 prevents from leaving causes the temperature increase, the CO2 itself doesn't produce heat and you are the only person to suggest it does.




Again please read more carefully as I already explained this quite clearly. CO2 absorbers IR photons that would otherwise leave the earths atmosphere.




Ummmm in the atmosphere/oceans, that's why their temperature increases.



It seems more of a willful ignorance issue to me as you have repeatedly asked questions that have just been answered or that make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It's amazing how arrogant people can get while at the same time displaying such an ignorance of the topic.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Where in all that is there an answer to the question?
That wasn't the question. You actually didn't answer anything.

Feigning your questions weren't answered just the way you asked is not going to help you.

It's clear you realized you had another giant hole in your knowledge and you have resorted, in the style that characterizes you, to rewrite what you failed to say.

Now, your self-forgiving version is that nobody provided what you asked and you will ask it again modifying what you're saying to incorporate in it some shreds of understanding you could grab from the answers you deny you got.

It's pretty silly you telling that you didn't ask about the greenhouse effect but you asked instead how CO2 manages to re-radiate IR to the surface and how that ends up warming the air. But so are your ways, aren't they?

It seems self evident to me, that if CO2 is absorbing then re-radiating IR radiation, then it is sending some of the IR back towards the surface, which would cause the surface to be at a higher temperature than if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere above .

If CO2 is simply absorbing and then re-radiating IR, and the other gases in the atmosphere are transparent to that IR energy, the CO2 can't warm the atmosphere. Unless the CO2 keeps the energy, which I have read it does not, the warming effect would be on the surface of the earth, not the air.

These are important scientific questions/issues. If you don't know the answer, there is no shame in that.

Though you are probably going to double the bet and pretend again that this doesn't address your words, you already said it "the warming effect would be on the surface of the earth, not the air". A big duh! for you, for discovering that it is mainly the surface what warms the air, giving sensible heat to it and providing water vapour which will give back latent heat at different altitudes.

But we also have set apart for the sake of simplicity the fact that there are non-gaseous elements in the atmosphere that do warm with those IR: water drops and assorted particles. But that is not the main flux of energy.

You may care to mix up all of these fluxes into one of your "tiddledy-dee, not theory of AGW".

 

[aleCcowaN]

Have you visited this page yet?

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

It's well over my head but appears to hold the information you're looking for.

From this post of yours I deduce you think that r-j is trying to understand the greenhouse effect, is debating the greenhouse effect or fails to wrap his mind around the greenhouse effect. Is that correct?

 

[a_unique_person]

For such a simple thing, it certainly isn't being explained very well.

I don't find it simple at all.

The saturated gassy argument addresses what should be your next question.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

 

[a_unique_person]

These are important scientific questions/issues. If you don't know the answer, there is no shame in that.

The problem you have is that you don't know what they know.

 

[macdoc]

r-j

If you don't know the answer, there is no shame in that.

Is that by way of an excuse for your ignorance of climate science and basic physics?
The shame for you is that you've been provided the answers numerous times.

Case in point....were you unable to understand this....it clearly shows downward IR flux which you are crowing about as if you are stating something profound. Shame that you didn't look.

Are you unable to learn or unwilling??
From the evidence it's one or the other.

 

[r-j]

It's well over my head but appears to hold the information you're looking for.

Yes, that is very good, thank you very much. It explains most everything, and confirms what I suspected, that nobody here actually understands the physics of greenhouse gases.