Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[lomiller]

The IR re-radiated wouldn't warm the air, just the surface or other greenhouse gases. But if the CO2 molecules heat the N2 and O2 molecules by collisions, then the IR energy could be transferred to the air, rather than re-radiated.

Your statement is nonsensical. You are conflating macro scale properties (temperature of a gas) with quantum scale behaviour. One molecule in a gas doesn’t “warm” the other molecules because temperature in this context is a property of the collection of molecules not any single molecule in the gas.

 

[r-j]

Certain gases in the atmosphere have the property of absorbing infrared radiation. Oxygen and nitrogen the major gases in the atmosphere do not have this property. The infrared radiation strikes a molecule such as carbon dioxide and causes the bonds to bend and vibrate - this is called the absorption of IR energy. The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere.

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html

Your statement is nonsensical. You are conflating macro scale properties (temperature of a gas) with quantum scale behaviour. One molecule in a gas doesn’t “warm” the other molecules because temperature in this context is a property of the collection of molecules not any single molecule in the gas.

You aren't making any sense at all.

 

[r-j]

Then what ARE you arguing for here?

I think of it as an intellectual and educational discussion. You are the one who labeled it an argument.

Certainly there seems to be some serious confusion about how CO2 acts in our atmosphere, but that is science, not an argument. If we knew everything already, it would be pretty damn boring.

 

[lomiller]

You aren't making any sense at all.[/QUOTE] What part doesn’t make sense to you?

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by r-j View Post

The IR re-radiated wouldn't warm the air, just the surface or other greenhouse gases. But if the CO2 molecules heat the N2 and O2 molecules by collisions, then the IR energy could be transferred to the air, rather than re-radiated.

oh sooooooo precious....when we said you did not understand basic physics you didn't really need to provide more of an example .....but thanks anyways....

 

[DC]

That's a lie. If I could have easily found the answers, it would be a different conversation right now!

But I feel a lot better now that I found out nobody else knew the answer either.

Except I'm still not sure the answer is correct. If CO2 transfers heat by collisions with O2 and N2 molecules, there is no way it can be re-radiating back the amount of IR the diagrams show.

It's not physically possible.

wow you just can't resist lying, isn't it?

Reality Check told you.

but you just make up claims as you go along, isn't it?

If CO2 transfers heat by collisions with O2 and N2 molecules, there is no way it can be re-radiating back the amount of IR the diagrams show.

do you have any evidence for this claim? this is blatantly untrue.

 

[Reality Check]

You can't say the only way CO2 warms is by re-radiating IR, and also say it does so by translational kinetic energy, that isn't possible.

You are lying, r-j.
I have never said that the only way CO2 warms is by re-radiating IR and it does so by translational kinetic energy.

I will make this simple enough for you to understand:
* CO2 heats up molecules by colliding with them ("translational kinetic energy")
* CO2 heats up molecules by the re-radiating IR being absorbed by them !
There are two separate processes.

 

[DC]

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html



You aren't making any sense at all.

yes he does make sense, that is your problem, and what he explained to you so very well. is the reason why i asked you what you meant when you said a molecule that has warmed. that is where you didn't make any sense at all.

 

[Reality Check]

What I want to know, which was stated clearly in the questions, is if that is true or not. Is that the only way CO2 warms the planet? By warming the surface?

That is not your questions, 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?

But I have just noticed the "only" in the second part that displays ignorance of basic physics (CO2 molecules collide with other molecules in the atmosphere !)

So the actual answer is: not only - both and yes (radiation is not collisions!).

 

[a_unique_person]

I think of it as an intellectual and educational discussion. You are the one who labeled it an argument.

Certainly there seems to be some serious confusion about how CO2 acts in our atmosphere, but that is science, not an argument. If we knew everything already, it would be pretty damn boring.

The only confusion is trying to find a way to put it that you understand.
I am no a scientist, do I don't understand the dinner nuances of how it works, and when you get to the next level of understanding, why is the effect still important when the level of co2 response is logarithmic anyway, and what is the enhanced Co2 effect, out all gets even harder to explain and understand all over again.

 

[Reality Check]

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter3/Ency_Atmos/Radiation_Solar.pdf

That is a pretty good source, but it says "Of the radiant energy emitted from the Sun, approximately 50% lies in the infrared region ", which isn't the same as stating the percentage that reaches the stratosphere.

Well duh r-j .
Not a surprise to anyone (except you) that when they talk about light emitted from the Sun then they are not talking about the Earth's stratosphere or even atmosphere!

The only mention of stratosphere in that document is reference to ozone. Then there is

In the troposphere, the absorption of solar radiation occurs in the visible and near-infrared regions, owing primarily to H2O, CO2, O2, and O3.

which matches the usual modeling of the greenhouse effect happening in a "surface" in the mid-troposphere.

 

[citizenzen]

I'm sorry, but this is asked by the person who has repeatedly asked questions which could have been easily found with Google.

That's a lie. If I could have easily found the answers, it would be a different conversation right now!

I found the answer with a quick Google search.

No you didn't.

Yes I did.

You asked a question in post #3105.

I responded to that question in post #3106, five minutes later.

Within that five minutes I searched your question, found the answer and responded to you and another post.

I'd say that was pretty quick and easy.

Oh. And just in case you claim I didn't answer your question, then please explain why you requoted that very same information, from the same source, in post #3142.

 

[CapelDodger]

But I feel a lot better now that I found out nobody else knew the answer either.

Except I'm still not sure the answer is correct.

So you don't understand the answer.

If CO2 transfers heat by collisions with O2 and N2 molecules, there is no way it can be re-radiating back the amount of IR the diagrams show.

There is a way, you just don't know what it is.

It's not physically possible.

It is, even though you don't know why.

 

[CapelDodger]

r-j is actually not arguing here. That implies that r-j is willing to (or capable of!) answering questions. So far there is no sign of that.

r-j's point seems to be: No matter how often citations to the physics behind the greenhouse effect are given to r-j, r-j will ignore them and ask about the greenhouse effect again and again .

He will also enlighten us with his insights, which he naturally believes have evaded us for so long. And the scientific world in general, for that matter.

 

[OCaptain]

I think of it as an intellectual and educational discussion.

To what end? For you?

 

[CapelDodger]

Global temps as of 2013 :
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/global-temperature-2013/

Interestingly, Cowtan and Way doesn't have 1998 in the top 5; 2013 comes in 5th. It does rather seem that the Pause has had its day (not that we won't keep hearing about it anyway).

Meanwhile the greenhouse effect continues to operate as normal, which is a relief for those of us who like their physical laws invariant.

 

[r-j]

Lets go back and see what passed for conversation, before I asked the questions.

There's little point to a discussion of differences unless we get agreement on basic terms. That's where the discussion begins.

The basic terms are already well understood by everyone except you.

Do you agree that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas' in that it absorbs and then, after a delay, re-emits IR photons?

You think we have to agree in basic terms? Oh, my! Basic terms are there. Either you know them or not.

wants to discuss the basics but runs away from the very simple question if CO2 absorbs and reradiates IR radiation.....

heck even schoollkids learn that in simple experiments....

So that was what I saw, which led to my asking.

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.

This led to several answers.

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.

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

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

The physics GHG is well understood

Which is why I simply asked,

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?

Which I was sure would be a simple thing, a basic thing to explain. Especially since I thought it was like the following.

Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.

This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

https://spark.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

But now, it's a lot more comilicated than that.

 

[macdoc]

r-j

I think of it as an intellectual and educational discussion.

that could have and should been concluded in about 5 minutes

 

[DC]

Lets go back and see what passed for conversation, before I asked the questions.

So that was what I saw, which led to my asking. This led to several answers.



Which is why I simply asked, Which I was sure would be a simple thing, a basic thing to explain. Especially since I thought it was like the following.
https://spark.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

But now, it's a lot more comilicated than that.

no its not.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh. And just in case you claim I didn't answer your question, then please explain why you requoted that very same information, from the same source, in post #3142.

(Note to self : stay on citizenzen's good side)

IIRC you said some time ago that if we could get past the greenhouse effect - does it work, how does it work, is it working properly - we could get onto discussing plans. That, I think, is what's being avoided by petifogging obfuscation.

It's not a pleasant prospect, I'll grant, and if it was my job I'd probably put it off as well.