Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I beg to differ. Perpetual motion is a bad metaphor for CO2 based atmospheric warming. Perpetual motion is about achieving a zero entropy state ... a loss-less machine with perfect efficiency as it were. Heat is lost from systems, friction eventually grinds the most balanced machinery to a halt, chaos degrades organization.
Atmospheric warming isn't about creating energy, it's about conserving energy that is normally lost. Per blackbody radiation, the Earth radiates into space primarily in the IR and C02 acts as a reflector that bounces much of that IR back to Earth causing heating. Think of it as a blanket. Your body radiates IR. With a heavy enough blanket that IR is trapped and your body heats up.
????????????????
The notion of CO2 as "a blanket" is wrong and grossly false from a scientific standpoint. It again shows the lack of knowledge of the global warming crew regarding physics and "climate change".
The CO2 Blanket?
-
A greenhouse traps its IR/ LWR with its glass enclosure. The UV comes in, warms the interior which starts radiating and that radiation is trapped by the enclosure. Simple, basic stuff.
According to at least some AGW alarmists CO2 acts like a blanket. Clouds can act like a blanket depending on the type and abundance. But that blanket just keeps the norm. It doesn't make it any warmer.
CO2 is heavier than air. The miniscule traces of CO2 are nothing like cloud cover and nothing like a blanket.They re-emit their absorbed energy in any direction, not just back towards the source, for example the earth. If all of the CO2 aligned such that their collective re-emittance was towards space then there is zero greenhouse effect. It wouldn't matter if the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 1% if that was the case. And at 400 parts per million, even if you could get them all aligned to re-emit towards the earth, it's a very inefficient process that includes cooling when the energy is released.
And guess what? All of that energy escapes anyway.
The fact is neither scenario is likely. That is because the CO2 is constantly being moved around and with that the angle of re-emittance is always changing. And the area the re-emitted energy can affect is very small. Unless the CO2 is very close to the earth there is no way its re-emitted energy will reach the earth. It's most likely going to get moved right along by winds and convection currents. That is how the majority of the heat the atmosphere is moved- winds and convection currents. The re-emitting from CO2 is very, very minor in comparison and is overwhelmed by it.
CO2 only absorbs 8% of the total black body radiation produced by the earth. 8%- that's it. 92% leaves unimpeded by CO2. That is a number you will never hear AGW alarmists say.
How long does the CO2 hold onto the energy? Not long at all. It gets energized and gives it away- badda-bing, badda-boom- gone. Some of it's energy is transferred via contact with other atmospheric gasses. Only some of it's absorbed energy is re-emitted as IR/ LWR. You are not going to get warmer if the energy the CO2 releases is less than the surrounding air.
How far does that re-emitted energy travel? It isn't powered by much so it cannot be very far before it dissipates without leaving any noticeable effect.
Then there is the following:
Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands.
Conclusions
This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming caused by an increase of absorptivity of infrared radiation (IR) by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature.
On the overlapping absorption spectral bands of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the carbon dioxide propitiates a decrease of the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture in the atmosphere, not an increase, as AGW proponents argue 1, 2, 3.
Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.
What? How can that be? HINT- CO2 is being used as a commercial refrigerant- it is a high quality natural refrigerant. Go figure.
Without an atmosphere the surface would be roasting. The Moon doesn't have an atmosphere and guess what the sunny side's temperature is? 253 degrees F!!!!! NASA
It is our magnetic shield, atmosphere and oceans which greatly attenuate and regulate that signal. The greenhouse gasses, mainly water vapor just slow the return of the energy back into space. Deserts are cold at night due to the lack of humidity and total lack of cloud cover. CO2 doesn't have any effect there.
Urban heat islands exist as do Urban CO2 domes. Looks like the gasses don't mix as much as we are led to believe which would make CO2 a local and not global issue. IF it was an issue to begin with, which apparently it is not.
CO2 does not act like a blanket. It does not trap any heat. All the alleged greenhouses gasses do is slow the ascent of the radiated heat from the surface of the earth to space.
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 01-04-2022 at 07:30 AM..
The notion of CO2 as "a blanket" is wrong and grossly false from a scientific standpoint. It again shows the lack of knowledge of the global warming crew regarding physics and "climate change".
The CO2 Blanket?
-
A greenhouse traps its IR/ LWR with its glass enclosure. The UV comes in, warms the interior which starts radiating and that radiation is trapped by the enclosure. Simple, basic stuff.
According to at least some AGW alarmists CO2 acts like a blanket. Clouds can act like a blanket depending on the type and abundance. But that blanket just keeps the norm. It doesn't make it any warmer.
CO2 is heavier than air. The miniscule traces of CO2 are nothing like cloud cover and nothing like a blanket.They re-emit their absorbed energy in any direction, not just back towards the source, for example the earth. If all of the CO2 aligned such that their collective re-emittance was towards space then there is zero greenhouse effect. It wouldn't matter if the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 1% if that was the case. And at 400 parts per million, even if you could get them all aligned to re-emit towards the earth, it's a very inefficient process that includes cooling when the energy is released.
And guess what? All of that energy escapes anyway.
The fact is neither scenario is likely. That is because the CO2 is constantly being moved around and with that the angle of re-emittance is always changing. And the area the re-emitted energy can affect is very small. Unless the CO2 is very close to the earth there is no way its re-emitted energy will reach the earth. It's most likely going to get moved right along by winds and convection currents. That is how the majority of the heat the atmosphere is moved- winds and convection currents. The re-emitting from CO2 is very, very minor in comparison and is overwhelmed by it.
CO2 only absorbs 8% of the total black body radiation produced by the earth. 8%- that's it. 92% leaves unimpeded by CO2. That is a number you will never hear AGW alarmists say.
How long does the CO2 hold onto the energy? Not long at all. It gets energized and gives it away- badda-bing, badda-boom- gone. Some of it's energy is transferred via contact with other atmospheric gasses. Only some of it's absorbed energy is re-emitted as IR/ LWR. You are not going to get warmer if the energy the CO2 releases is less than the surrounding air.
How far does that re-emitted energy travel? It isn't powered by much so it cannot be very far before it dissipates without leaving any noticeable effect.
Then there is the following:
Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands.
Conclusions
This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming caused by an increase of absorptivity of infrared radiation (IR) by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature.
On the overlapping absorption spectral bands of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the carbon dioxide propitiates a decrease of the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture in the atmosphere, not an increase, as AGW proponents argue 1, 2, 3.
Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.
What? How can that be? HINT- CO2 is being used as a commercial refrigerant- it is a high quality natural refrigerant. Go figure.
Without an atmosphere the surface would be roasting. The Moon doesn't have an atmosphere and guess what the sunny side's temperature is? 253 degrees F!!!!! NASA
It is our magnetic shield, atmosphere and oceans which greatly attenuate and regulate that signal. The greenhouse gasses, mainly water vapor just slow the return of the energy back into space. Deserts are cold at night due to the lack of humidity and total lack of cloud cover. CO2 doesn't have any effect there.
Urban heat islands exist as do Urban CO2 domes. Looks like the gasses don't mix as much as we are led to believe which would make CO2 a local and not global issue. IF it was an issue to begin with, which apparently it is not.
CO2 does not act like a blanket. It does not trap any heat. All the alleged greenhouses gasses do is slow the ascent of the radiated heat from the surface of the earth to space.
Care to reference the study you copy and pasted this from (which is against the TOS and copyright law!)
By the way, I found it. And here is a peer commentary of why this is horrible, bad science.
His study you copy and pasted from is listed on Google Scholar. With only THREE citations, by ONE scientist meaning no one is taking it serious at all.
Oh, and the author, Nasif S. Nahle? He is a Biologist! In Mexico. https://www.linkedin.com/in/nasif-na...alSubdomain=mx And all that lists in is a B.SC from the University of Nuevo Leon. Not a masters, not a doctorate.
Now try find a relevant peer reviewed article that is not debunked by the real science.
According to at least some AGW alarmists CO2 acts like a blanket. Clouds can act like a blanket depending on the type and abundance. But that blanket just keeps the norm. It doesn't make it any warmer.
Wrong. When is it colder on a winter morning, when it's overcast or when it's clear? When it's clear of course. Water vapor and CO2 are not transparent at infrared wavelengths, they absorb heat and re-emit heat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
CO2 is heavier than air. The miniscule traces of CO2 are nothing like cloud cover and nothing like a blanket.They re-emit their absorbed energy in any direction, not just back towards the source, for example the earth. If all of the CO2 aligned such that their collective re-emittance was towards space then there is zero greenhouse effect.
Huh? If there was no CO2 and water vapor, ALL of the Earth's blackbody goes out to space. But as CO2 rises, some of the heat is re-radiated back towards the Earth, reducing the amount that otherwise would go out into space. No one asserts that greenhouse gasses are 100% opaque and reflect all of the heat downward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
CO2 only absorbs 8% of the total black body radiation produced by the earth. 8%- that's it. 92% leaves unimpeded by CO2. That is a number you will never hear AGW alarmists say.
Even if it is only 8% you are conceding that there is a "blanket" greenhouse effect then. Great!
Another data point that proves man-made climate change is real is that the upper atmosphere is now getting colder. This is exactly what you would expect if the greenhouse effect is true, because the Earth's IR radiation is being trapped and can no longer reach the upper atmosphere like it used to, thus it gets colder. So we have warming on the surface confirmed by massive temperature databases, more extreme weather more often, and cooling of the upper atmosphere -- exactly what the climate scientists predicted.
Wrong. When is it colder on a winter morning, when it's overcast or when it's clear? When it's clear of course. Water vapor and CO2 are not transparent at infrared wavelengths, they absorb heat and re-emit heat.
Huh? If there was no CO2 and water vapor, ALL of the Earth's blackbody goes out to space. But as CO2 rises, some of the heat is re-radiated back towards the Earth, reducing the amount that otherwise would go out into space. No one asserts that greenhouse gasses are 100% opaque and reflect all of the heat downward.
Even if it is only 8% you are conceding that there is a "blanket" greenhouse effect then. Great!
Another data point that proves man-made climate change is real is that the upper atmosphere is now getting colder. This is exactly what you would expect if the greenhouse effect is true, because the Earth's IR radiation is being trapped and can no longer reach the upper atmosphere like it used to, thus it gets colder. So we have warming on the surface confirmed by massive temperature databases, more extreme weather more often, and cooling of the upper atmosphere -- exactly what the climate scientists predicted.
QED, man-made climate change proven yet again.
Go complain to the major contributor, the Chinese If only your Leftist Political Hero's and their rock star buddies would give up their private jets flying to their Climate Summits we would actually find you believable
His study you copy and pasted from is listed on Google Scholar. With only THREE citations, by ONE scientist meaning no one is taking it serious at all.
Oh, and the author, Nasif S. Nahle? He is a Biologist! In Mexico. https://www.linkedin.com/in/nasif-na...alSubdomain=mx And all that lists in is a B.SC from the University of Nuevo Leon. Not a masters, not a doctorate.
Now try find a relevant peer reviewed article that is not debunked by the real science.
My goodness! What lunacy!
It was easier than trying to explain the interraction of IR energy within different bandwidths for CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere and the issues of atmospheric saturation relative to altitude. Further, ALL of you AGW people don't understand it; if you did understand the physics, you would not believe in AGW
In short, CO2 is not a "blanket" as it only absorbs SOME of IR energy over a small bandwidth (4 microns), which it radiates spherically (not like a reflective blanket). The absorbed energy is small, but very transient due to vibration of the molecule. In a brief period of time nearly ALL of this energy is eventually retransmitted to space and does not result in "warming"!
Now if CO2 acted as you believe, we would have no problem whatsoever if the sun extinguished, as the CO2 "blanket" would just keep all the heat from the earth in the atmosphere toasty warm and we would not even need a sun!!!!!!!
In order to create the number of joules required to increase the temp of the atmosphere one degree centigrade via CO2, we would have to have those molecules heated to 2500 centigrade (temps near the surface of the sun) in order to achieve that goal. Of course, this is absolute lunacy and is in contrast to every bit of information we know about chemical absorption spectra, thermodynamics, and physics.
Even "academic" idiots attempt to "prove" CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" by inserting CO2 above water in a closed system vs water alone, apply a heat source, then measure the temp of the gas above the water. These idiots don't realize that they INCREASED PRESSURE BY INJECTING THE CO2, WHICH DOES INCREASE TEMP. PV = nRT ; those idiot don't realize that they are just demonstrating the gas law, not CO2 as a "greenhouse gas".
Further, CO2 absorbs over 4 microns, while H2O absorbs over 100 micons in the IR band. So we have 25 times the ability to absorb IR energy from water.
So CO2 is .04 % of the atmosphere, while water vapor is 1%. So we have water molecules 25 times more prevalent in the atmosphere. So water has 25 X 25 = 625 X greater at being a "greenhouse gas" with regard to atmospheric "warming".
Further, we know from the geologic record that plant and animal life FLOURISHED in earth's history with CO2 levels 15-20 times levels today. The whole notion of AGW is pseudo-science created to extend a crazy liberal agenda, just like pressing for solar energy and electric cars, which produce far, far worse ecological problems from heavy metal toxins to the environment. Electric cars are, after all, coal or natural gas powered with energy stored in batteries. Those batteries, when they wear out, are a HUGE toxic waste problem.
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 01-04-2022 at 12:59 PM..
It was easier than trying to explain the interraction of IR energy within different bandwidths for CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere and the issues of atmospheric saturation relative to altitude. Further, ALL of you AGW people don't understand it; if you did understand the physics, you would not believe in AGW
In short, CO2 is not a "blanket" as it only absorbs SOME of IR energy over a small bandwidth (4 microns), which it radiates spherically (not like a reflective blanket). The absorbed energy is small, but very transient due to vibration of the molecule. In a brief period of time nearly ALL of this energy is eventually retransmitted to space and does not result in "warming"!
Now if CO2 acted as you believe, we would have no problem whatsoever if the sun extinguished, as the CO2 "blanket" would just keep all the heat from the earth in the atmosphere toasty warm and we would not even need a sun!!!!!!!
In order to create the number of joules required to increase the temp of the atmosphere one degree centigrade via CO2, we would have to have those molecules heated to 2500 centigrade (temps near the surface of the sun) in order to achieve that goal. Of course, this is absolute lunacy and is in contrast to every bit of information we know about chemical absorption spectra, thermodynamics, and physics.
Even "academic" idiots attempt to "prove" CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" by inserting CO2 above water in a closed system vs water alone, apply a heat source, then measure the temp of the gas above the water. These idiots don't realize that they INCREASED PRESSURE BY INJECTING THE CO2, WHICH DOES INCREASE TEMP. PV = nRT ; those idiot don't realize that they are just demonstrating the gas law, not CO2 as a "greenhouse gas".
Further, CO2 absorbs over 4 microns, while H2O absorbs over 100 micons in the IR band. So we have 25 times the ability to absorb IR energy from water.
So CO2 is .04 % of the atmosphere, while water vapor is 1%. So we have water molecules 25 times more prevalent in the atmosphere. So water has 25 X 25 = 625 X greater at being a "greenhouse gas" with regard to atmospheric "warming".
Further, we know from the geologic record that plant and animal life FLOURISHED in earth's history with CO2 levels 15-20 times levels today. The whole notion of AGW is pseudo-science created to extend a crazy liberal agenda, just like pressing for solar energy and electric cars, which produce far, far worse ecological problems from heavy metal toxins to the environment. Electric cars are, after all, coal or natural gas powered with energy stored in batteries. Those batteries, when they wear out, are a HUGE toxic waste problem.
I actually understand science, and spent decades being involved making policy based on what the experts and the literature says. Your understanding of pseudo-science is faulty. There are ways you could correct your lack of knowledge.
He's not exactly kidding. He simply doesn't know what he's talking about, and can't prove any of it.
He does this fairly frequently on this forum. He rotely recites talking points, doesn't offer any proof, calls people names, and then announces that it's up to others to prove HIM wrong.
So, is that only a problem with you if it goes against your own opinion? Seems like you do much of the same, and also post in support of many others who do the same.
The more I come to these forums, I get so sickened by partisans on the left and on the right. Really, you ALL seem like a bunch of useful pawns.
(Now I'll put on my kevlar jacket to ward of the incoming flames from everyone I've offended with the truth. Should be double-barrage for this post...)
He does this fairly frequently on this forum. He rotely recites talking points, doesn't offer any proof, calls people names, and then announces that it's up to others to prove HIM wrong.
I do offer proof. Climate deniers just ignore it. Happens all the time.
No, I don't expect others to prove me wrong; I expect climate deniers to prove SCIENCE wrong. And towards that end the climate deniers have failed miserably. Climate deniers have no data to back up their theories, zero proof that the planet is not warming, zero proof that extreme weather is not happening, and they resort to pseudo fake "science" featuring lots of blah blah about interglacial periods and sunspots
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If only your Leftist Political Hero's and their rock star buddies would give up their private jets flying to their Climate Summits we would actually find you believable
