Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 101 to 150:
-
CallItAsItIs at 20:30 PM on 2 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
NO! -- You either re-post or respond to my satisfaction to my last comment (about violating the laws of thermodynamics) or we have nothing further to discuss.
[Snip]
Moderator Response:Moderation complaints are always off-topic. Following the instructions of moderators is not optional.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
CallItAsItIs at 18:06 PM on 2 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
PS @805
Before making any rash decisions about ceasing further commentary with me, you might be interested in learning how the SkS claims about CO2 greenhouse warming violates the first law of thermodynamics. First, Kirchoff's Law is used to claim that for every photon absorbed by a CO2 molecule, a similar photon is emitted, and vice-versa. Now Kirchoff's Law applies only if the system is in thermal equilibrium, and a warming atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium. Nevertheless, two SkS climate "experts" insist on applying it, and the result is that the number of 15 micron photons and the number of energized CO2 molecules never changes. This means that if there is any CO2 greenhouse warming, each such molecule would have to absorb a photon, deliver thermal energy to the surrounding N2 and O2 molecules, and still have enough energy to emit a similar photon. That, I'm afraid, is a violation of energy conservation!
Now, I know I have overstayed my welcome here, but you might want me around a little bit longer in case the "experts" have questions. Meanwhile, I will deliver my Fear No Carbon lectures if invited to do so, and they will include the issue I just raised.
Moderator Response:[PS] As far as most physicists are concerned, the only problem is your understanding of how to apply physical laws. No further discusssion till you present an alternative that can be tested against observation. That is how science works. I reiterate - present your equivalent of heat flux through a slice of atmosphere.
https://github.com/atmtools/konrad and https://github.com/atmtools/arts have code you hack to remove what you consider is the flawed physics. -
Bob Loblaw at 02:12 AM on 2 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
One more post for the moment. I alluded in my previous comment that to examining the effects of changing CO2 or other aspects of climate modelling, one needs to "combine the local aspects of Schwarzschild’s equation into a series of equations that links many layers of the atmosphere - and also includes other forms of energy transfer besides radiation".
One such study was the work of Manabe and Strickler (1964). Their figure 1 provides a useful illustration of what goes on inside such a model:
What we see is the results of four model runs, where atmospheric temperature changes over time. At the initial time, temperature is set to a somewhat arbitrary uniform temperature. Radiative transfer equations are used to evaluate the upward and downward fluxes (both IR and solar). At each altitude/layer in the model the energy balance is calculated, and the result is used to move to the next time step.
- If the layer is gaining energy, it will warm.
- This is a net change: energy coming in from or going out to the layers above and below.
- If the layer is losing energy (net), it will cool.
- The calculations continue until all layers show no further change. They have reached thermal equilibrium.
- Just doing the radiative transfer calculations once is not enough - you have to look at how they change with height (layer to layer), and then determine how they change over time (warming, cooling).
On the left, we see results if only radiative transfer occurs. There are two model simulations: one from a cold atmosphere, and one from a warm atmosphere. We see that it does not matter if the model started cold or warm - it converges on a common temperature profile.
The diagram on the left produces a tropospheric temperature profile that is too steep - a profile that would lead to extreme convection and cannot be sustained in a fluid atmosphere. On the right, we see the results when convection is added in, limiting the temperature profile. In essence, convection increases energy movement from the surface upward, so less needs to be transferred via radiation. More efficient energy transfer leads to the same total energy moving along a smaller slope (T vs. h) in the temperature profile.
What we also see on the right, is that such a model does a pretty good job of predicting global mean atmospheric temperature profiles. The model is verified by data.
A very similar model was used by Manabe and Wetherald 1967. Earlier in this discussion, I included their figure 16:
Notice that adding CO2 does not cause warming - oh oops, well, not at the top of the daigram. In the stratosphere, increasing CO2 leads to cooling. It's only when you get to the lower troposphere and surface that you see substantial warming.
So, when CallItAsItIs claims he can prove that CO2 can't cause warming, he does this by completely ignoring most of the physics.
Moderator Response:[PS] Since Callitasitis continues to argue alternative physics, I propose all further commentary with him/her cease until equations are produced. Then predictions can be compared to reality. Since conventional physics makes accurate predictions for both earth and satellite measurements of radiation spectrum, as well as accurately predicting change in backradiation as CO2 increases, then the burden of proof is on CallitAsitis.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:27 AM on 2 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs continues to provide assertions with no evidence. And he is also saying "it's too hard!" when asked to show his math, and shouting "Wrong!" at anyone that points out his misunderstandings.
MA Rodger is correct in comment 801, when he points out that this is grade-school level discussion. It's a continuation of CallItAsItIs's posts where he says things like "I cannot pack an entire radiometry textbook into this comment space". Long experience tells me that someone who pretends it is too complex or hard to explain things to me has reached a point where they are trying to hide their obvious lack of knowledge.
What is also glaringly obvious is that when CallItAsItIs reads pretty much anything, the only part that makes it into his mental model is any small snippet that he thinks confirms his misunderstandings. Anything else is rejected as "irrelevant".
More than once, I have referred to Schwarzschild’s equation, and linked to its discussion on Wikipedia. CallItAsItIs claims (in comment 791) "I have checked out every link and diagram that was posted, and only found two that were even remotely related to the problem I am addressing,"
So, what has CallItAsItIs's reaction to Schwarzschild’s equation? It's in comment 796 (quoted in its entirety, for context):
Wonderful! Now with your radiation expertise and Schwarzschild's equation, you surely see that the solution for spectral intensity has a term that accounts for thermal radiation (ie. blackbody) and an exponential term that vanishes at high altitudes, giving us the exact same result I have been claiming through all the ridicule. Yes, those photons are there but they are there to establish thermal equilibrium at the surrounding temperature and not for warming. I'm glad you finally see the light!.
Amazing! CallItAsItIs has noticed that Schwarzschild’s equation includes both absorption and emission of radiation. But all he sees is the bit that he thinks confirms his "theory". For reference, here is equation, as posted on Wikipedia:
If we read further, we'll note that Schwarzschild’s equation is not applied to the atmosphere as a whole, but over small volumes where local thermodynamic equilibrium applies. Reading even further, we get to a section on "Application to Climate Science" that starts with (emphasis added):
If no other fluxes change, the law of conservation of energy demands that the Earth warm (from one steady state to another) until balance is restored between inward and outward fluxes. Schwarzschild's equation alone says nothing about how much warming would be required to restore balance.
In other words, you need to combine the local aspects of Schwarzschild’s equation into a series of equations that links many layers of the atmosphere - and also includes other forms of energy transfer besides radiation. Once you have Schwarzschild’s equation, there is still work to be done. The very next sentence on Wikipedia starts this:
When meteorologists and climate scientists refer to "radiative transfer calculations" or "radiative transfer equations" (RTE), the phenomena of emission and absorption are handled by numerical integration of Schwarzschild's equation over a path through the atmosphere.
Further down, we even get a section titled "Saturation". What do we find in the first paragraph? (Again, emphasis added).
In the absence of thermal emission, wavelengths that are strongly absorbed by GHGs can be significantly attenuated within 10 m in the lower atmosphere. Those same wavelengths, however, are the ones where emission is also strongest. In an extreme case, roughly 90% of 667.5 cm−1 photons are absorbed within 1 meter by 400 ppm of CO2 at surface density,[23] but they are replaced by emission of an equal number of 667.5 cm−1 photons. The radiation field thereby maintains the blackbody intensity appropriate for the local temperature. At equilibrium, Iλ = Bλ(T) and therefore dIλ = 0 even when the density of the GHG (n) increases.
Near the bottom of the Wikipedia article we see:
The radiative forcing from doubling carbon dioxide occurs mostly on the flanks of the strongest absorption band.
There is more there that disagrees with CallItAsItIs's "reading", but his Morton's Demon is blocking that information. He does not see that Schwarzschild’s equation includes emission of radiation that he deems "irrelevant" or non-existent. He does not see the information that should tell him that the local flux of IR radiation - including emissions - will be far more than just the IR radiation that has reached that altitude from the surface. He does not see that calculations of the effect of CO2 must look at more than just the strongest absorption band (and more than just radiation).
...but we have been trying to point all this out to CallItAsItIs for a week now.
It's very, very simple. In order for CallItASItIs's "interpretation" to be correct, one must ignore huge swaths of basic physics and observations of the climate system. And CallItAsItIs has been very effective at maintaining that ignorance in his knowledge. There is a word for that.
-
Eclectic at 22:33 PM on 1 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs @802 :
Just to pick out one of your many errors :-
In your penultimate paragraph you say: "Namely we start with a CO2 molecule and a photon ... and in the end ... all in thermal equilibrium. So how is it that we get any warming?"
That comment of yours demonstrates your gross failure to understand the warming result from the so-called GreenHouse Effect. And your failure to educate yourself at the many sources available on-line.
You have looked at a single "tree", a single cubic meter of air ~ and you turn a blind eye to the fact that the atmosphere becomes progressively thinner with altitude and progressively cooler with altitude (the temperature Lapse Rate of the troposphere, which provides the bulk of the GHE ).
The question for your own introspection is: Why would anyone [such as yourself] choose to ignore the many facts (including densities and lapse rate) that show the mechanism of GHE by CO2 , H2O etcetera? Why would that person [such as yourself] choose to be so un-scientific? ~ is the answer Motivated Reasoning, and/or some other embarrassing condition of the human brain?
Look inwards, CallItAsItIs.
As the sage said: "Know Thyself".
.
-
CallItAsItIs at 19:02 PM on 1 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Charlie_Brown @799
1) He keeps referring to a single 15-micron band.
Yes — It is common practice to approximate the entire absorption band from 14-16 microns as a band at wavelength 15 microns for the purpose of analyzing the CO2 greenhouse effect, and until now, no one has objected. So, why is it suddenly and issue when I do likewise?
2) Once absorbed, near the surface or anywhere in the atmosphere, Kirchhoff’s Law applies, absorptance = emittance, ...
It seems that you forgot something that you yourself included in comment 756, namely the at equilibrium part, and an atmosphere that is warming is not at equilibrium.
There is more to CallItAsItIs’ misunderstandings, e.g., “Beer's Law is a linear equation.” No, it is exponential.
I will acknowledge some confusion on my part when I made this statement. At that time, I was thinking that Beer's Law was the first order linear differential equation that we solve to get exponential dependence of the spectral intensity on altitude. Anyway, that statement did not affect any of my future arguments.
Finally, lets consider your statement from comment 756
It works like this: photon is absorbed by CO2. CO2 molecules collide with N2 and O2 to come to thermal equilibrium (i.e., same temperature). CO2 molecule emits photon. The net effect at equilibrium is a pass-through of energy unless there is a change that upsets equilibrium.
From what you describe here, it seems to me that we end up with exactly the same system from which we started. Namely, we started with a CO2 molecule and a photon in thermal equilibrium, and in the end, we got the same CO2 molecule in the same state with a similar photon, all in thermal equilibrium. So how is it that we get any warming?
That's all for now, but I may have some more feedback when I have a chance to review your final paragraph some more.
-
MA Rodger at 16:23 PM on 1 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Bob Loblaw @797,
Commenter CallItAsItIs @800 continues to demonstrate a schoolyard approach to this subject which is not appropriate to its scientific nature. If "one could probably show" something then why shouldn't 'one'. Oh, this is because "typesetting equations tends to be a long, grueling task" for him and "most likely" these equations would then be subject to rebuttal "over statements I did not make or that you misunderstood." I think I'd prefer "the dog ate my homework!!"While the commenter CallItAsItIs appears a lost cause and too far up his own nonsense to see any of his multivarious misconceptions, it would be correct here to ask him to explain his comment @796 and show where exactly it is within Schwarzschild's equation there is "an exponential term that vanishes at high altitudes" and demonstrate from that how it is this would obtain "the exact same result (he has) been claiming through all the ridicule."
-
CallItAsItIs at 14:04 PM on 1 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Bob Loblaw @797
Yes, I see the light. You simply cannot conceive of the idea that adding CO2 changes the temperature at which the atmosphere reaches "thermal equilibrium".
Wrong! Whether adding CO2 changes the equilibrium temperature remains to be seen. I should note, however, that with the absorption strength of CO2 on the 15 micron band, one could probably show that band saturation occurs over a pretty wide temperature range.
Do the actual math. Your handwaving achieves nothing other than making you look like a fool.
I have already done the math but am not posting it here. Typesetting equations tends to be a long, grueling task for me and not worth the effort in view of the fact that you and your AGW comrades would most likely discredit it over statements I did not make or that you misunderstood. Attend my Fear no Carbon lectures if you want to learn something more about the mathematics of this band saturation effect.
-
Charlie_Brown at 11:22 AM on 1 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs has three fundamental blind spots that he does not understand, despite our addressing them several times. 1) He keeps referring to a single 15-micron band. Actually, as shown @788, there are thousands of absorptance/emittance lines for CO2 in the spectrum. Some are weak and some are strong, and Beer’s Law applies to each of them individually. 2) Once absorbed, near the surface or anywhere in the atmosphere, Kirchhoff’s Law applies, absorptance = emittance, and an equal number of photons are absorbed and emitted, although they are not the same identical photons. They do have the same intensity and wavelength. 3) Therefore, energy loss to space is determined by the uppermost radiating layer that “sees” space. The maximum value of emittance is 1.0. If a line reaches a value of 1.0, there will be more molecules above that altitude. If a line is less than 1.0 at the top of the troposphere, there will be more molecules at a lower altitude that is thicker and warmer. If the altitude reaches 0 km before the emittance reaches 1.0, then the remaining emitted energy will come from the surface.
There is more to CallItAsItIs’ misunderstandings, e.g., “Beer's Law is a linear equation.” No, it is exponential. And “their arguments against C02 band saturation violate the laws of thermodynamics.” No, they do not. But let’s get those first three blind spots resolved first. Continued repetition of misunderstandings without taking the time to study our explanations is not a sign of respect.
CallItAsItIs needs to do some self-study before he posts again, and certainly before he tries to teach this stuff. MA Roger @792 provides Dr. Sabine Hossennfelder’s summary Figure. Sabine also has a great entertaining video. My only quibble with her material is that she does not emphasize the strong and weak absorptance/emittance lines but refers to an average or effective altitude for all lines. I recommend again that CallItAsItIs studies the spectrum using the link that has already been provided twice for instruction and guidance. He needs to resolve the changing spectra with the step-by-step exercises. If he cannot resolve the results with his thinking, then he needs to think again before making more repetitive posting. Meanwhile, I have submitted another guest post that is in the review process. It describes the mechanism of warming that is similar to Sabine’s material, but it emphasizes the absorptance/emittance lines with upsetting and restoring the overall global energy balance.
-
Eclectic at 07:58 AM on 1 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs ~ may I humbly suggest that you present your New Physics at the WUWT website ["WattsUpWithThat"] .
At WUWT you would find a gratifyingly-large number of readers (and commenters) who will welcome your novel insights into the nature of Space-Time & the Universe in toto.
True, there will be some carping criticisms from WUWT-ites at the more educated end of the spectrum there. But on the whole, you will receive a very warm welcome from the majority of the spectrum ~ they are ever-ready to applaud anything which could seem to give a poke-in-the-eye to boring conventional mainstream science.
# But a warning, CallItAsItIs. Be quick to lap up the praise there . . . because, very soon, the loons crackpots and wingnuts at WUWT will wish to move on to the next pseudo-science-du-jour that promises to soothe the typical WUWT ego.
[ Loons crackpots and wingnuts . . . have I omitted anyone of the WUWT regulars ? . . . Wait, yes, there's a handful of actual scientific thinkers in the comments columns there, who post to enjoy tweaking the collective nose of the WUWT-ites . ]
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:23 AM on 1 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs @ 796:
Wonderful. Now "establishing thermal equilibrium" has nothing to do with "warming".
Yes, I see the light. You simply cannot conceive of the idea that adding CO2 changes the temperature at which the atmosphere reaches "thermal equilibrium".
Do the actual math. Your handwaving achieves nothing other than making you look like a fool.
-
CallItAsItIs at 03:07 AM on 1 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Bob Loblaw @784 and 795
Wonderful! Now with your radiation expertise and Schwarzschild's equation, you surely see that the solution for spectral intensity has a term that accounts for thermal radiation (ie. blackbody) and an exponential term that vanishes at high altitudes, giving us the exact same result I have been claiming through all the ridicule. Yes, those photons are there but they are there to establish thermal equilibrium at the surrounding temperature and not for warming. I'm glad you finally see the light!.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:21 AM on 1 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
I'll also respond to this bit from CallItAsItIs:
Now, I would be glad to further discuss this with you if you can respond in a non-insulting professional manner.
You mean a non-insulting, professional manner such as:
I hate to disappoint you...
Wrong!
Come on, Bob! Learn some physics!
Now that we have (hopefully) gotten it straight...
And how do they get this extra energy? — from Maxwell's Demons! (LOL)
Now, if this is unclear to you, please understand that I cannot pack an entire radiometry textbook into this comment space.
I should warn you, however, this book does assume that you already recognize that...
I should also point out that I am not using any tricks that are not already used by you and your AGW believing comrades.
Frankly, your attitude since you got here has been condescending, confrontational, and tiresome. You have severe delusions of adequacy. Not only are there huge gaps in your knowledge, but much of what you think you know is just plain wrong.
Many of your blustering tactics may work in a group setting where people do not know the science, but here there are a few of us that do. You can find out more about me by looking at the "Team" menu item under "About" in the main masthead, but you are arguing with someone that has been studying climate for 45 years, took radiation transfer theory as a grad student 40 years ago, used to teach undergrad and grad climate courses as a professor, and spent a dozen years observing radiation at a climate research station.
The idea that you have something to teach me about radiation is laughable.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:01 AM on 1 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Oh, my. CallitAsitIs is doubling (tripling? quadrupling?) down on his misunderstandings of physics.
@ 789:
Let's keep it straight as to what problem I am working and what problems I am not. And balanced terrestrial energy flows is one that I am not working on. Therefore, your chart is irrelevant.
Now there's your problem. Balanced terrestrial energy flows are completely relevant to the greenhouse effect, the role of CO2 warming, global climate, etc.
Continuing in comment 790, in response to my pointing out that he continues to ignore 15um radiation in the upper atmosphere:
I never said those 15 micron photons didn't exist.
Let's see. In your very first post, On Nov. 24 (#722) (emphasis added):
Above this altitude, there is no more upward-bound IR energy that CO2 molecules can absorb. Essentially, the entire 15 micron band has been absorbed...
Your second post, the same day (#723):
As I understand it, the greenhouse effect is saturated for a particular GHG if there is an altitude at which the absorption bands for that GHG have all been depleted (from the upwelling IR radiation) through absorption at lower altitudes.
Your third post (Nov 25, # 726):
Above the extinction altitude of the 15 micron band, CO2 can still emit IR radiation (at any wavelength) but can no longer absorb within this band. The fact that CO2 can no longer absorb within this band means that it has zero greenhouse forcing at this altitude and above for the simple reason that there is no more 15 micron radiation that can be absorbed.
Your fourth post (Nov 25, #730) says it three times:
The extinction altitude of an absorption band of a GHG is the altitude at which the upwelling radiation with the band becomes negligible according to the Beer-Lambert law and the absorption coefficient of the band. For CO2, the absorption band is 14-16 microns and the extinction altitude is about 10 meters. This means the upwelling IR radiation absorbed by CO2 at the top of the credible atmosphere is pretty miniscule. Above that, of course, it is zero.
Regarding the CO2 molecule at 50000m, it most certainly can absorb the 15 micron IR photons — if you bring an IR source up there. The reason there is no absorption at that altitude is because all 15 micron IR has already been absorbed at lower altitudes.
Your fifth post (Nov 25, # 740):
This, in turn, corresponds to an altitude of about 70 km, above which there isn't much of an atmosphere. Therefore, for the 15 micron band, the detectors are only picking up some thermal radiation from the TOA. Any upwelling radiation from this band has already been completely absorbed at lower altitudes.
You then managed to make a few comments without repeating your error, but then it returns on Nov 26 in comment 751:
It should be noted that convection is important for the CO2 greenhouse effect to work since the 15 micron absorption band of CO2 is strong enough to pack the thermal radiation from the entire band into a layer at the surface just a few tens of meters thick.
...and then on Nov 27, in comment 765:
And, as indicated in previous posts, intensity contributions within the 15 micron band become pretty miniscule at altitudes well below the TOA.
On Nov 28:
Now that we know that Beer's Law applies to the 15 micron absorption band, we see that this band is attenuated to insignificant values well below the TOA,
Finally, on Nov 29, CallItAsItIs took a day off, but on Nov 30, he is back saying:
The problem I am working on is in determining how much of the 15 micron absorption band of CO2 is extinguished on its way from the surface to the TOA. And from what I have found, that figure is darn close to 100% regardless of the numbers on your diagram.
So, your claim that you "never said that those 15um photons didn't exist", is refuted by your daily claims that it either didn't exist ("there is no more", "have all been depleted"), or is insignificant/negligible/minuscule.
I particularly like the last part of that last statement I quoted: "...regardless of the numbers on your diagram." CallItAsItIs thinks that his fantasy fizziks trumps observations.
In short, CallItAsItIs dismisses huge amounts of relevant, critical, significant, and important theory and observations related to radiation transfer, global energy balances, and CO2-induced greenhouse warming by a wave of his hands, calling it "irrelevant".
If the facts disagree with CallItAsItIs's "theory", they must be disposed of.
-
Eclectic at 17:59 PM on 30 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
In addition to MA Rodgers's comment above :-
CallItAsItIs @789 :
Sorry for the Home Truth . . . but your comments are becoming more bizarre ~ you are implying that solar radiation penetrating to the lower atmosphere (see Trenberth's diagram with solar EMR being absorbed by dust, etc ) is somehow not warming the air at these lower altitudes. And in addition, you are implying that the CO2-related IR emitted/absorbed at the 0 - 10 meter altitude is incapable of warming the remainder of the atmosphere by means of kinetic motion and/or re-radiation.
and @790 :
You can apply "conservation of energy principles to individual frequencies" [unquote] and also you can apply COE principles to bands of frequencies . . . and indeed to all sorts of individual "trees" ~ but to get valid and useful results, you need to apply COE principles to the "forest" (i.e. the total atmosphere). If you do not do that total assessment, then you will fail to understand terrestrial climate.
and @791 :
Yes : "self-contradictory assertions" by the score.
If you blame readers "who misunderstood me" , then the fault is either your poor explanation of your New Physics of Climate . . . or that your New Physics is simply wrong.
( Though perhaps the Nobel Prize Committee will one day recognize & acclaim a third possibility,eh ! )
-
MA Rodger at 16:51 PM on 30 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs @789,
There are three CO2 absorption/emission bands for IR (although it can get more complicated with massive rising CO2). At the temeratures found ion Earth, the 2.7 micron and 4.3 micron bands is too energetic to be anything more than an absorption band. And the 4.3 micron band is so weak from the sun that it is ignorable while the 2.7 micron band is strong enough to have a measurable dip in the incoming solar IR, but it is tiny.
More of a cooling influence from increasing CO2 is the central 15 micron wavelengths as these are not emitted into space until up in the stratosphere where temperature rises with altitude. But such central-15 micron cooling is far outweighed by the edges of the band's warming.
I noticed a chart from the science blogger Sabine Hossenfelder which you may find useful in describing the greenhouse effect (something which is not usually done well). The one word I would change is to substitute "impeded" for "trapped" in the 'grand description' line.
-
CallItAsItIs at 16:34 PM on 30 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
PS @783
CallItAsItIs you are ducking and avoiding the germaine questions and still apparently refuse to read refutations or clarifications.
What do you mean "still apparently refuse to read refutations or clarifications"? I have checked out every link and diagram that was posted, and only found two that were even remotely related to the problem I am addressing, and even those did not change my stand any concerning CO2 band saturation. The rest were either old, irrelevant, or just plain nonsense. For example, Eclectic's spiel about "Motivated Reasoning" or trying to psychoanalyze me can be skipped. In general, the other participants in this have been quite unprofessional in their communications regarding my postings. They have been sarcastic and insulting. They have accused me of self-contradictory assertions when it was they themselves who misunderstood me. They have stone-walled my arguments by claiming I didn't justify certain mathematical steps that have long been standard procedure in radiometry (See 784). Additionally, they accuse me of being "wrong" by bringing up material that is not relevant to the issue I am resolving, and then claiming I failed to include such material (see 772).
It gets quite interesting when I show them that their arguments against C02 band saturation violate the laws of thermodynamics, and I get no material response. Just so that you are aware, I am saving screen shots of this webpage from my first posting onward, and they may be used in a lecture series I am pulling together called Fear No Carbon. These lectures would explain this AGW non-science at both the scientist and layperson levels. So far, SkS has been my best source!
Now, I am still willing to correspond with the other participants on this webpage if they can do so in a professional manner. This means no insults or sarcasm, no psychoanalysis, and no accusations of evasion when I decline to respond to questions and inputs that are irrelevant or not applicable to my specific research topic. In the last paragraph of comment 787, Charlie_Brown asked me to show respect if I have further questions, and I intend to comply with his request. But I expect the same from others on this webpage. Otherwise, we have nothing further to discuss.
Moderator Response:[PS] No, you manage to ignore the substance. Your arguments make no sense to me because you appear to ignore applying relevant bits of physics that contradict your view, and that applies in spades to other commentators. There is only way out of this - make predictions from your understanding of theory and compare with observations. I repeat - state your equation for energy flux through a layer of the atmosphere. Further discussison of photons are moot until you do so. As I understand your ideas, you would have considerable difficulties explaining observations like this: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
-
CallItAsItIs at 16:26 PM on 30 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Bob Loblaw @784
Frankly, that is bull$#!^. Conservation of energy has nothing to do with applying Beer's Law to individual frequencies.
All I can say to this is that all through my education and career, I have applied conservation of energy principles to individual frequencies and have seen many others do likewise in textbooks and papers, and it hasn't gotten me in trouble yet. Authors assume that readers already know this is perfectly valid. Mathematically, it works for linear problems, and Beer's Law is a linear equation. But if there is some other reason I am supposed to believe that it is legitimate for me to apply Beer's Law to different frequencies individually, then let's see it! Please note that I will view an unprofessional response involving sarcasm and/or ridicule as indicating that you are not up to the challenge!
...and you are back to completely ignoring the observed fact that 15um radiation does exist in the upper atmosphere (moving in both upward and downward directions) in highly-significant values,
I never said those 15 micron photons didn't exist. Now Beer's Law does predict vanishingly small intensities of this band in the upper atmosphere, but that is not all that is happening. Remember that Beer's Law is obtained by adding an absorption term to Maxwell's Equation which assumes a wave character of EMR. The upper atmospheric 15 micron photons are manifestations of the quantum nature of EMR. Now, I would be glad to further discuss this with you if you can respond in a non-insulting professional manner.
-
CallItAsItIs at 16:21 PM on 30 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Bob Loblaw @772
When I made the statement that
...we are trying to determine the warming of the atmosphere due to GHGs tapping energy from the terrestrial IR radiation rising from the surface. This means that the upwelling terrestrial IR radiation is the source.
the term "upwelling terrestrial IR radiation" means all upward-bound IR flows shown in your diagram. Let's keep it straight as to what problem I am working and what problems I am not. And balanced terrestrial energy flows is one that I am not working on. Therefore, your chart is irrelevant. The problem I am working on is in determining how much of the 15 micron absorption band of CO2 is extinguished on its way from the surface to the TOA. And from what I have found, that figure is darn close to 100% regardless of the numbers on your diagram.
In regard to your statement that I ignore anything other than IR radiation, I can only say that I am studying the saturation of the 15 micron absorption band. Therefore, absorption at visible and UV radiation is irrelevant.
And since I was told to not forget about the sun as a source, I have an interesting question. It turns out that the same physics whereby CO2 blocks the 15 micron radiation from leaving the earth also blocks solar radiation at both the 15 micron and 4.3 micron bands from entering the atmosphere, which of course would cause cooling. Since these bands are of about equal spectral strength and since the solar irradiance is much stronger at 4.3 microns than the terrestrial, I wonder which one "wins".
-
BaerbelW at 06:20 AM on 30 November 2024The Debunking Handbook 2020: Downloads and Translations
On November 28, 2024 the French translation of The Debunking Handbook was published thanks to Robert Leven's work! This is the 20th translation of the handbook!
-
nigelj at 11:46 AM on 29 November 2024Recorded webinar about climate change misinformation and disinformation
Regarding climate science and mitigation missinformation. Chimpanzees throw mud or stones at things they dont like. Modern humans throw logical fallacies and lies and ad hominems instead. Thats about the only difference.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:03 AM on 29 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Charlie_Brown @ 787:
CallItAsItIs has not shown much proclivity for following links and reading material people have pointed him to. (He doesn't even seem to read much of what people say in comments to this thread.)
Anyway, more to the point, since figure 3 in your guest post is a figure that is "available on the internet", you can easily re-use that figure and insert it into a comment, just like any other figure that is "available on the internet". I did this earlier for the Trenberth diagram, which is used on another SkS page.
The link to your figure is:
https://skepticalscience.com/pics/AtmosphericRadiationModel-Fig3-1200px.jpg
...and I can insert it here using the little "tree" icon on the Insert tab of the editor:
(In this case, I used the Appearance tab on the "insert Image"dialog box so that I could limit the display width to 500 pixels. This avoids breaking the web page formatting with large pictures.)
-
Charlie_Brown at 04:32 AM on 29 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
A key point that explains why the CO2 band is not saturated has been lost in trying to convey fundamental concepts. To avoid semantics, I use the term “saturated” to mean no further effect from increasing CO2. This occurs when emittance = maximum value of 1.0. It should have been evident in Figure 3 of the link to my guest post that Bob provided earlier. It also should have been apparent when I said that the 15-micron peak at 50 km was below the Planck distribution temperature. The emittance of the strongest lines between 14.93-15.0 microns absorptance/emittance lines reach a value of 1.0 in the lower atmosphere and at the bottom of the stratosphere. However, the CO2 band has thousands of strong and weak emittance lines between 13-17 microns. The emittance of the 14.25-micron line has a value of 0.25 in the tropopause where it matters to energy loss to space. By Beer’s Law, the line will strengthen with increasing CO2. The 14.93-15.0 micron band may be saturated with respect to energy loss to space. However, the full range of the CO2 band is not saturated. The logarithmic band saturation effect is plotted in Figure 3 of my article in Chemical Engineering Progress that was referenced in the guest post.
CallItAsItIs, as a professor for an in-person class, I do not respond well when a student stands up and shouts “Wrong!” (@760), disrupts the class, and then repeats his misunderstanding. In person, that student would be dismissed. Let me know, with some respect, if you have any further questions.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:36 AM on 29 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallitAsItIs @ 782:
You say (your emphasis):
Kirchhoff’s Law is absorptance = emittance (at thermal equilibrium)
Actually, its thermodynamic equilibrium.
You go on to say (emphasis mine):
Now, the system is never far from equilibrium, but laws that are strongly conditioned on equilibrium may well be compromised.
Translation: CallItAsItIs feels free to invoke Kirchoff's Law when he wants to, and ignore it when it is inconvenient to his bogus argument.
Let's look at a "radiometry textbook", since CallItAsItIs is so fond of them. I'll go back to Liu (1980) "An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation", which I mentioned earlier as one of the books on my bookshelf. On page 13:
Kirchoff's law requires the condition of thermodynamic equilibrium, such that uniform temperature and isotropic radiation are achieved. Obviously, the radiation field of the earth's atmosphere as a whole is not isotropic and its temperatures are not uniform. However, in a localized volume below about 40km, to a good approximation, it may be considered to be isotropic with a uniform temperature in which energy transitions are determined by molecular collisions. It is in the context of this local thermodynamic equilibrium that Kirchoff's law is applicable to the atmosphere.
If CallItAsItIs wants to continue to ignore Kirchoff's law when forming his arguments, he will need to provide a much stronger argument as to why it does not apply than to hand-wave it away with a statement such as "may well be compromised".
-
MA Rodger at 00:26 AM on 29 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Through the last 50-odd comments it is evident that the commenter CallItAsItIs is unable to accept that poly-atomic molecules in a gas will pick up vibrations from collision, this often enough that some of them will relax and emit a photon before further molecular collision. He seems to still believe that ideal gases exist. SO that's quite a pile of learning he would need to grasp to understand the greenhouse effect in terms of the molecular processes.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:18 AM on 29 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs @ 781:
Finally, we get to see something from you that is a little closer to reality, but once again you wander into interpretations that are blatantly wrong. Let's start with part of your second paragraph:
An energized CO2 molecule could also re-emit a similar photon in the downward direction, and this new photon is re-absorbed by the earth, although this is far less likely. Photons absorbed and then re-emitted in an upward direction would not be distinguishable from those not absorbed in the first place.
First of all, emission of IR radiation by CO2 (or any other gas in the atmosphere) is omni-directional. Up. Down. Left. Right. North. South. Southwest. All directions are equally probable. As a result, IR radiation is diffuse in nature - emission heads out in the shape of a sphere. It is convenient to consider this spherical problem in the context of two directions - a hemisphere we'll call "up" and a hemisphere we'll call "down". This leads to a well-known (for those of us informed on atmospheric radiation transfer) analysis named the two-stream approximation.
The key result is that at any height in the atmosphere, an IR photon emitted by CO2 has an equal probability of being emitted upward or downward. And yes, this "new" IR photon is indistinguishable from any other IR photon of the same wavelength. As such, it is just as easily absorbed as photons originating from the surface. In fact, we can calculate the probability of that absorption by applying - wait for it - Beer's Law, using the height of emission as the starting point and following the path through the atmosphere. If we want to include the emission of radiation and work it in with Beer's Law to get a more complete equation, we can get the Schwarzschild’s equation.
Way back when, you argued that CO2 in the atmosphere above 10m could not possibly absorb 15um photons because there weren't any left is now shown (by your own admission) to be completely wrong. There is a ready supply of 15um photons available, travelling in all directions. (You still vastly underestimate how many there are, and have missed out on the ones that are heading upward, but it's a start.) Earlier, you dismissed those upward-directed 15um photons as "thermal radiation" not related to CO2 - hopefully now you realize why we've been telling you that you are wrong. [But your paragraph 4 reduces that hope. See below.]
On to paragraph 3, which starts:
When I made the statement that conservation of energy must hold for each frequency independently of the others, I was merely trying to provide the physical basis for applying Beer's Law to individual frequencies. But since you are convinced of that already, you can disregard this statement.
Frankly, that is bull$#!^. Conservation of energy has nothing to do with applying Beer's Law to individual frequencies. And no, we will not disregard that statement because it is yet another example of where you clearly do not understand the physics involved. Invoking an incorrect, imaginary explanation only serves to destroy your credibility.
Paragraph 4:
Now that we know that Beer's Law applies to the 15 micron absorption band, we see that this band is attenuated to insignificant values well below the TOA, with the electromagnetic energy being converted into thermal energy mostly within the atmosphere. Furthermore, adding more CO2 won't cause more warming because this band is already completely absorbed and converted into heat.
...and you are back to completely ignoring the observed fact that 15um radiation does exist in the upper atmosphere (moving in both upward and downward directions) in highly-significant values, and that CO2 can absorb these 15um photons (since you admit that these 15um photons are indistinguishable from ones emitted at the surface). And when you do the full math using the proper equations for absorption, emission, and conservation of energy, you find that adding CO2 does cause more warming.
-
Eclectic at 17:41 PM on 28 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs :-
Absolutely no need to apologize for an "almost" double posting. After all, it did provide opportunity for a tad of humor.
[ If you happen to double-post in future, then simply do an additional brief post asking the Moderator to make one deletion at his early convenience. ]
Also ~ while our friend Michael Sweet is skeptical about your bona fides as a genuine poster . . . that is ultimately a matter for an umpire's decision by Moderators, who may (or may not) expunge the posts of clumsier trolls or of those whose crackpot ideas are expressed in a repetitive tiresome manner.
Some crackpots simply do a "drive-by" series of posts on SkS and then disappear ~ others will later phoenix themselves. But we hope they will then revise & renovate their contrarian arguments into something of at least 25% merit. # Sadly, I have never encountered a phoenix who manages to show that all the mainstream scientists are wrong. Yet we live in hope that AGW will someday prove to be a mistaken concept, eh.
I am still eating my popcorn, CallItAsItIs , while I wait for you to introspect about Motivated Reasoning. And I suspect that some of the reason you are here in this thread, is that the strictly rational part of your intellect is quietly hoping that the powerful emotional/non-rational part of you will be brought into agreement with the climate expert physicists. ( Ain't human psychology interesting ! )
Moderator Response:[PS] This thread is on the usual downward spiral. CallItAsItIs you are ducking and avoiding the germaine questions and still apparently refuse to read refutations or clarifications. It is time put up or shut up. Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 https://ramanathan.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/460/2017/10/pr15.pdf put a clear early picture of solar flux. Since you strongly disagree, please give us your equations for describing the energy flux through a layer in atmosphere. Then we can compare with observations and decide scientifically.
-
CallItAsItIs at 15:03 PM on 28 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
There is something concerning Kirchoff's Law that we all may have forgotten about. Actually, Charlie_Brown brought it up at 756.
Kirchhoff’s Law is absorptance = emittance (at thermal equilibrium) (emphasis added)
At this point, it must be remembered that a system in the middle of absorbing photons is not in thermal equilibrium since more energy is being added. After absorption, the newly introduced energy is re-distributed throughout the system (the atmosphere in our case) and IR spectrum in order to re-establish equilibrium. Now, the system is never far from equilibrium, but laws that are strongly conditioned on equilibrium may well be compromised.
-
CallItAsItIs at 14:22 PM on 28 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Eclectic @779
First, I would like to let you know that my posting very nearly the same comments twice was unintentional. I submitted the first one but it didn't show up on the webpage. So, I figured that somehow it got lost and I rewrote it and re-posted it. But it seemed to get "lost" again. Finally, I realized that I had started a new page with my new comment. So please disregard one of those postings and your moderator is welcome to remove it.
Next, the reason I "failed" to include where the absorbed photon energy goes is because I thought we already knew that. Primarily, it is distributed as kinetic energy to the atmospheric gases through collisions of excited CO2 molecules with N2 or O2. An energized CO2 molecule could also re-emit a similar photon in the downward direction, and this new photon is re-absorbed by the earth, although this is far less likely. Photons absorbed and then re-emitted in an upward direction would not be distinguishable from those not absorbed in the first place.
When I made the statement that conservation of energy must hold for each frequency independently of the others, I was merely trying to provide the physical basis for applying Beer's Law to individual frequencies. But since you are convinced of that already, you can disregard this statement. This means that the energy flux contained in each frequency is proportional to the amplitude squared of the electric (or magnetic) field at that frequency, and the energy flux of the entire spectrum is simply the sum of the energy fluxes at the individual frequencies. This, of course, should be nothing new to persons knowledgeable in radiometry.
Now that we know that Beer's Law applies to the 15 micron absorption band, we see that this band is attenuated to insignificant values well below the TOA, with the electromagnetic energy being converted into thermal energy mostly within the atmosphere. Furthermore, adding more CO2 won't cause more warming because this band is already completely absorbed and converted into heat.
At this point, it looks like you have a few things you could mull over yourself from your comfortable chair and popcorn.
-
michael sweet at 13:30 PM on 28 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Bob and Eclectic
Callitasitis strongly reminds me of a user who has been banned repeatedly. I doubt that you will be able to explain thermodynamics to them no matter what you post.
Keep in mind that the comments policy doesn't allow repetition. When Callitasitis repeats themselves repeatedly it is time to let other readers decide who has presented the better arguments.
-
Eclectic at 06:51 AM on 28 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs @776 and @777 :-
Curiouser and curiouser . . . you make two almost identical posts, just 16 minutes apart. Can I believe the evidence of my "linear optics"? (Please excuse my humorously lame misquote from a certain third party.)
And in post @778, you see another "Law" (i.e. the LobLaw of Unintended Consequences ).
Also, CallItAsItIs, you state (twice) that: "I should also point out I am not using any tricks not already used by your AGW believing comrades." [unquote, unquote]
And there we touch upon the heart of your problem. Motivated reasoning. Motivated Reasoning does produce ~ even in an intelligent person such as yourself ~ the most remarkable contortions of self-contradictory assertions. As we have seen.
CallItAsItIs, you have a great deal of your own statements to reconcile. In the meantime, I shall get me some more popcorn, and a comfortable chair.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:40 AM on 28 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Congratulations, CallItAsItIs. You actually have some sort of access to a textbook that covers "radiometery", and you know how to look in an index.
I am familiar with Petty's book, although It is not one that I have on my personal bookshelves.
I'll see your Petty, and raise you a Wallace and Hobbs, "Atmospheric Science, an Introductory Survey" (Beer's Law discussed on pages 296-297), a Pierrehumbert "Principles of Planetary Climate" (Beer's Law discussed in chapters 4 and 5), a Liou "An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation" (which has 6 sections listed in the index for the Beer-Bouguer-Lambert law), and an Oke "Boundary Layer Climates" (also multiple references in the index).
All of those four books are ones that I do have on my personal bookshelf.
And if you want to see what else I know about Beer's Law, you can read this post:
https://skepticalscience.com/from-email-bag-beer-lambert.html
Yes, Beer's Law applies to individual wavelengths/frequencies. I challenge you to find a single reference that supports your argument that "conservation of energy must hold for each frequency independently of the others."
You see, Beer's Law says nothing at all as to what happens to energy that is absorbed when photons disappear within the volume of air it includes. As far as Beer's Law is concerned, the energy simply disappears along with the photon. To apply "conservation of energy" principles, you need to include where that energy goes - which you repeatedly fail to do.
-
CallItAsItIs at 05:41 AM on 28 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Bob Loblaw @775Sure! Try A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, 2nd edition, by Grant W. Petty. He first gets into Beer's Law at page 78. I should warn you, however, that this book assumes you already know that since we are dealing strictly with linear optics, it is perfectly legitimate to break down the total EMR into individual frequencies, and consider each one as independent of the others. If this gives you heartburn, then I suggest you study up on some basic E&M.
I should also point out that I am not using any tricks not already used by your AGW believing comrades.
-
CallItAsItIs at 05:25 AM on 28 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Bob Loblaw @775
Sure! Try A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, 2nd edition, by Grant W. Petty. He first gets into Beer's Law at page 78. I should warn you, however, this book does assume that you already recognize that it is perfectly legal to consider the EMR one frequency at a time since we are dealing strictly with linear equations. If this gives you heartburn, I might suggest you first study some basic E&M and differential equations.
I should also point out that I am not using any tricks that are not already used by you and your AGW believing comrades.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:55 AM on 28 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
One more "one more". CallItAsItIs states in 769:
...please understand that I cannot pack an entire radiometry textbook into this comment space.
I challenge you to actually name just one "radiometry textbook" that you have read. Bonus points if you can point to a section of such a book that supports any of your postings here.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:52 AM on 28 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
One more. CallItAsItIs says in comment 769:
Because when we break down the EMR into the sum of contributions from the different frequencies it contain, we find that each such contribution is incoherent relative to the others.
The only things that is incoherent is CallItAsItIs's physics. Absorption and emission of radiation are independent events. Once again, I beg that CallItAsItIs read Eli Rabbet's blog post on the time scales involved in absorption, emission, and collisions with other molecules. [CallItAsItIs: the previous sentence includes the link to that blog post.]
To start, here is the opening section of Eli's post:
One of the useful things the Rabett used to do was to explain what happens to the energy when a molecule, say CO2 (carbon dioxide) although you could also say H2O (water vapor) or CH4 (methane) absorbs light. For the purpose of this post, the photon would be in the infrared region of the spectrum. This is an evergreen for two classes of bunnies
- Bunnies who don't realize that the molecule can also emit light. This is a popular one amongst organikers and analytical chemists whose experience with IR spectroscopy is in an absorption spectrum for analysis of samples
- Bunnies who think that the only way that an excited molecule can get rid of the energy is to emit a photon.
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide whether CallItAsItIs falls into class 1, class 2, or both.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:41 AM on 28 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallIiAsItIs @ 766:
I need to quote this in its entirety for context. Your comment says:
Bob Loblaw @762
The catch is that all CO2 molecules are continually emitting radiation. This represents an energy loss. And they make up for that energy loss by colliding with other molecules (such as N2 and O2) and gaining energy when those molecules have higher energy.
And how do they get this extra energy? — from Maxwell's Demons! (LOL)
I assume that you mean "other molecules" when you say "they'. Well, if you read my comment at 772 (and all of my comment at 762) and look closely at the Trenberth diagram, you will discover that the other molecules can get that energy from absorbing IR radiation, visible light, UV radiation, thermal transfers from the surface, evaporation from the surface, or simply by colliding with yet more molecules that have received energy from any of those sources.
Unfortunately, I don't think that any of that is going to sink in for you, since it becoming abundantly clear that you have an extremely strong Morton's Demon filtering your "knowledge" of physics.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:32 AM on 28 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallitItAsItIs @ 765 (where he responds to my request for his definition of "sources of energy"):
You are in no position to tell other people to "learn some physics". Let's start with one of your statements:
...we are trying to determine the warming of the atmosphere due to GHGs tapping energy from the terrestrial IR radiation rising from the surface. This means that the upwelling terrestrial IR radiation is the source.
Once again, you are wrong. Let's look at Trenberth's diagram again:
You clearly have no idea what this diagram shows. I will point specifically to two arrows in the middle of the diagram, originating at the surface. The ones labelled "Thermals" and "Evapotranspiration". Those are flows of energy from the surface ("source") to the atmosphere (sink, if you like). IR radiation (labelled "Surface radiation") is to the right, and it is not the only transfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere.
You continue with:
The sun also is a source of energy since it puts out IR radiation which is absorbed by the GHGs and converted into thermal energy in the same manner as the terrestrial IR radiation.
Once again, you ignore anything other than IR radiation. A lot of the sun's direct warming of the atmosphere comes from absorbing non-IR radiation - visible light, and UV radiation. In fact, the main reason that the stratosphere is much warmer than the troposphere is because of UV absorption by ozone. The atmosphere is not completely transparent to visible or UV radiation.
Then you state (with respect to surface heating):
The down-welling terrestrail radiation from the atmosphere is another a source, but a much weaker one.
Look at the Trenberth diagram again. Solar radiation absorbed by the surface is 161 W/m2. (On the left side.) If you look on the right side, you see that "Back Radiation" (IR from the atmosphere to the surface) is 333 W/m2. I challenge you to find one reputable source that says 333 is "much weaker" than 161.
..and if you look closely at the IR radiation flows between the surface and the atmosphere (on the right of the diagram), you will see that the net exchange is only +23 W/m2 - the atmosphere only absorbs 356 W/m2 of the 396 W/m2 coming off the surface, but sends 333 W/m2 back to the surface. Contrast that with the 97 W/m2 (17+80) transferred from the surface to the atmosphere by thermals and evapotranspiration, and add in the 78 W/m2 of solar radiation absorbed directly by the atmosphere (in the middle of the diagram) and you get a total of 175 W/m2 of energy added to the atmosphere from sources that are not surface emission of IR radiation.
And then in your closing paragraph, you state (emphasis added):
Since the contributions to the total upwelling EMR at different frequencies involve different photons, conservation of energy must hold for each frequency independently of the others.
And this is probably the root cause of your confusion. No, conservation of energy is not something that must hold for each frequency independent of others.
Once CO2 (or any other material) absorbs a photon, the energy gets transformed into another form (thermal/kinetic, chemical, etc.) and the CO2 is free to do whatever it wants to (restricted by physics and chemistry, of course) with that energy. It can emit it as radiation in any frequency of the many it is capable of absorbing or emitting. It can keep it as kinetic (thermal) energy. It can dump it off as kinetic energy to other molecules it collides with as it bounces around in the sky.
The energy contained within the CO2 molecule has no memory of where it came from. Absorption of radiation, kinetic transfer from colliding with other molecules, etc. It's all just energy once it is stored in the molecular structure of the CO2.
Energy conservation only applies to the system as a whole. Your version of "physics" is bordering on crackpot territory.
-
Eclectic at 21:55 PM on 27 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs @770 :-
If I may answer on Scaddenp's behalf ~ I would point out that what you say could have relevance on Mars with a pure CO2 atmosphere (disregarding a trace of nitrogen & argon). But on planet Earth, your explanation clearly fails the reality test.
*
CallItAsItIs @769 :-
Well, I give you points for being entertaining !
My cynical streak impels me to the suspicion that you are using AI-generated language to produce a garbled incoherence of "explanations".
Even better is your novel suggestion that atmospheric molecules cannot give or receive energy to/from other atmospheric molecules (why ~ because Second Law of T , of course, eh what, eh ).
And surely only an AI would assert that H2O molecules have no indirect or direct effect or interaction (kinetic or photonic) with nearby N2 , O2 , or CO2 molecules.
Vraiment une tour de force, mon ami. (Does the AI tackle French, as well? )
-
CallItAsItIs at 21:01 PM on 27 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
scaddenp @768
... - if you look at Trenberth diagram you will notice incoming energy flux at earth surface is 161+333 W/m2 (of course balanced by the same outflow), whereas incoming energy flux at TOA is only 341W/m2. These of course are measured values. How does your unconvential view of physics account for this?
I do not address energy balance issues other than those within the atmosphere which apply to the CO2 band saturation issue. I assume a given (but adjustable) intensity value for the 15 micron absorption band at the surface, and see how this radiation is attenuated with respect to altitude. By tuning this intensity value and possibly the absorption factor, we should (hopefully) be able to obtain a balanced energy solution that is also radiometrically correct. From what I have found so far, however, I believe it would be quite at "stretch" to avoid band saturation since we CO2 is such a strong absorber at 15 microns.
-
CallItAsItIs at 20:33 PM on 27 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Eclectic @767
Why must conservation of energy "hold for each frequency independently of the others" ?
Because when we break down the EMR into the sum of contributions from the different frequencies it contain, we find that each such contribution is incoherent relative to the others. This means that the energy flux of the entire distribution is simply the sum of the energy fluxes from each contribution. Now, if this is unclear to you, please understand that I cannot pack an entire radiometry textbook into this comment space.
And your Demonic suggestion that seems to imply that atmospheric molecules cannot (in bulk) gain energy from neighbouring molecules . . . is another novel idea that requires your explanation.
No, that idea is not so novel since the occurrence you describe would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
And all this time, you have avoided the IR role (and other roles) of H2O molecules.
That's right since I am only addressing the issue of CO2 band saturation and not H2O greenhouse warming which is completely different.
-
scaddenp at 18:44 PM on 27 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs - if you look at Trenberth diagram you will notice incoming energy flux at earth surface is 161+333 W/m2 (of course balanced by the same outflow), whereas incoming energy flux at TOA is only 341W/m2. These of course are measured values. How does your unconvential view of physics account for this?
-
Eclectic at 18:21 PM on 27 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs @765 ; @766 :-
Each of your "explanations" generates the need for more explanations.
e.g. ~ Why must conservation of energy "hold for each frequency independently of the others" ? [unquote]
[ Even the famous scientific pioneers of the 19th century would be scratching their heads over this novel idea of yours. ]
And your Demonic suggestion that seems to imply that atmospheric molecules cannot (in bulk) gain energy from neighbouring molecules . . . is another novel idea that requires your explanation.
And all this time, you have avoided the IR role (and other roles) of H2O molecules.
And you have not explained why your idea of "TOA" is so very different from that of the mainstream atmospheric physicists.
Yessir, there's much for you to explain ~ to readers and to yourself.
-
CallItAsItIs at 16:54 PM on 27 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Bob Loblaw @762
The catch is that all CO2 molecules are continually emitting radiation. This represents an energy loss. And they make up for that energy loss by colliding with other molecules (such as N2 and O2) and gaining energy when those molecules have higher energy.
And how do they get this extra energy? — from Maxwell's Demons! (LOL)
-
CallItAsItIs at 16:37 PM on 27 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Bob Loblaw @764
Come on, Bob! Learn some physics!
What we call sources of energy depends on our system and what we are trying to determine. In the case of the greenhouse effect, we are trying to determine the warming of the atmosphere due to GHGs tapping energy from the terrestrial IR radiation rising from the surface. This means that the upwelling terrestrial IR radiation is the source. The GHGs catch energy in the form of photons from this source, and convert it to kinetic energy of the atmospheric gases (including the GHGs). These GHGs, however, are not sources since they contribute no energy of their own.
The sun also is a source of energy since it puts out IR radiation which is absorbed by the GHGs and converted into thermal energy in the same manner as the terrestrial IR radiation. The atmosphere's primary source of thermal energy, however, is the upwelling terrestrial radiation since IR radiation is more at the "tail-end" of the solar spectrum.
If we are interested in determining the temperature of the "solid" subterranean earth, then the sun becomes our primary source. In this case, the earth absorbs the EMR from the sun which is mostly in the visible spectrum since that is where the peak solar emissions occur. Also, the atmosphere is transparent to visible EMR (ie. light). The down-welling terrestrail radiation from the atmosphere is another a source, but a much weaker one.
Now that we have (hopefully) gotten it straight as to what is meant by sources of energy, let's get back to the problem-at-hand of assessing saturation of the 15 micron absorption band of CO2. In this case, our source of energy is the upwelling terrestrial radiation within this absorption band. Since the contributions to the total upwelling EMR at different frequencies involve different photons, conservation of energy must hold for each frequency independently of the others. This enables us to use the Beer Lambert law to evaluate the attenuation of each frequency component of the upward-bound IR. And, as indicated in previous posts, intensity contributions within the 15 micron band become pretty miniscule at altitudes well below the TOA.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:22 AM on 27 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs:
Since you are really big on making sure we agree on basics and terminology, could you please provide us with your definition of "sources of energy"?
Try to remember the principle of conservation of energy while you are at it.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:19 AM on 27 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs @ 761:
You say:
Convection and conduction are mechanisms for transferring energy. They are not sources of energy.
And that is why the Trenberth diagram uses the title "Global Energy Flows".
It may be news to you, but radiation is also a mechanism for transferring energy. Have you never noticed that radiation travels from one place to another? It does so fairly quickly - as a rough approximation, at the speed of light.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:14 AM on 27 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallitAiItIs @ 760:
Once again, you fail to look at the entire system, and fail to understand what is being said to you.
What Charlie Brown says in 756 is correct. Indeed, his statement that "CO2 molecules collide with N2 and O2 to come to thermal equilibrium (i.e., same temperature)" means exactly the same thing as your statement "CO2 molecule releases the energy it gained from the photon absorption which then becomes kinetic energy of both molecules, thereby raising temperature. "
The catch is that all CO2 molecules are continually emitting radiation. This represents an energy loss. And they make up for that energy loss by colliding with other molecules (such as N2 and O2) and gaining energy when those molecules have higher energy.
The energy transfer via collision between CO2 and other molecules works in both directions, depending on the relative energy level of the individual molecules. (You can't talk about temperature of an individual molecule, as "temperature" is a bulk property of many molecules. Average kinetic energy.)
I have previously pointed you to this blog post at Eli Rabett's, where this is explained well.
Please read some of these additional links you have been pointed to. You continue to embarrass yourself by making elementary errors in physics. Until you unlearn your misconceptions, it is very difficult for you to get an accurate understanding of this subject.
-
CallItAsItIs at 11:07 AM on 27 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Bob Loblaw @754
Convection and conduction are mechanisms for transferring energy. They are not sources of energy.
-
CallItAsItIs at 10:58 AM on 27 November 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Charlie_Brown @756
It works like this: photon is absorbed by CO2. CO2 molecules collide with N2 and O2 to come to thermal equilibrium (i.e., same temperature). CO2 molecule emits photon. The net effect at equilibrium is a pass-through of energy unless there is a change that upsets equilibrium.
Wrong! It works like this: Photon is absorbed by CO2. Energized CO2 molecule collides with N2 or O2. In this collision, CO2 molecule releases the energy it gained from the photon absorption which then becomes kinetic energy of both molecules, thereby raising temperature. At the same time, of course, the CO2 molecule returns to it original state, ready to absorb another photon.
In your explanation, warming of any of the atmospheric gases would not be possible with violating energy conservation.
