The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever

[[But nearly every instant a CO2 molecule is heated so the temperature keeps rising until equilibrium.]]

And didn’t you say In a previous post that equilibrium doesn’t occur because of DTL?

[[Where is the evidence that CO2 captures all ir photons?

That was a mistake. It absorbs them all only within certain bands]]

Also- Do these bands cover the globe like a blanket? Or are they just local spots around the globe? IF so, how can these isolated bands separated by large distances capture all IR photons? Wouldn’t the areas where there are no bands allow the photons to blow right on by out into space? (I don’t anything about this stuff- I’m just asking for the sake of clarity, and to show if possible that the amount of CO2 isn’t large enough to cause any kind of appreciable warming)

Does CO2 form a continuous blanket around the globe? (Not sure how it could if CO2 comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere- it seems to me the atmosphere would either contain a majority of areas that are CO2 free, OR the ‘blanket’ would be so thin as to be just a molecule or two or so thick, and in such a case, saturation would be a huge problem when it comes to capturing ‘all’ ir photons- Every nano second the layer is saturated would mean a nano second ir photons have nothing impeding their rise toward space- and then- once again- you would have the fact that the cO2 molecules would reabsorbs ones it already has meaning even more ‘new’ ir photons would blow right on past the saturated CO2 molecules unimpeded- uncaptured-

and rally though- all of this is moot- because once again we’re talking so little CO2 that it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans really-

If you go to this website, watch the first video- around the 5 min mark it begins talking about SW and LW- short wave (from the sun) and long wave (From IR)- and how the rise in SW corresponds with drop in LW- the direct opposite of what all the climate models predicted- This fella, Spencer, who worked for NASA Satellite monitoring systems, has shown that the earth’s climate and oceans warming is a direct result not of CO2, but rather of cloud cover- the peaks and valleys over a 30 year period in the second video show a direct correlation between rising temps and lower cloud cover, falling temps and more cloud cover- the less cloud cover, the more of the sin’s energy that hits the earth- the rises had nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 accumulation - He even submitted his report to two of the leading IPCC scientists because he was criticizing their work specifically, and they both met with him and told Him basically ‘holy cow, you are right- we were wrong- our papers were wrong’

UIt’s an interesting listen-

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/why-the-ipcc-climate-model-is-wrong

You are stating that those 4 molecules raise the temperature of all the 9996 molecules the same amount/degree %, but this can't be as as soon as the energy/heat leaves the CO2 molecule, and transfers into neighbor molecule, it begins a rapid descent in temp as the molecule that received the energy/heat rises and become cooled-

Simply the conservation of energy. It can't just disappear, it either gets spread across the 10,000 non-CO2 molecules from the 4 CO2 molecules, or one of the 4 CO2 molecules has a probabilistic emission of an IR photon out into space or back towards the earth. The other way to get rid of energy as you pointed it motion (convection) upwards, but that is incredibly slow compared to transfer between molecules.

What is not really valid about my scenario is having all 4 CO2 molecules in the 10,000 other molecules getting hit with IR photons. The odds are much much lower than that. Might be 4 in a million or 4 in a billion. But the extra heat is still cumulative until it goes away (e.g. through convection or radiation to space)

...and the impact of entropy is so pervasive....

Entropy is an argument for dispersion of heat, not against it.

The convection spoken of in the article I believe was speaking to upper cooler molecules descending down to the area of CO2-

Convection is a (slow) process to cool the atmosphere. Thus it is a negative feedback because any time it gets warmer for whatever reason (sunshine, weather, CO2 warming), convection increases. But the important thing to realize is that sunshine is a dozen orders of magnitude more powerful than CO2 warming so it controls convection. If CO2 warming creates more convection it will probably be insignificantly more.

....in order for the impact of the slight warming to do what the IPCC claims it will do in 100 years, there needs to be hotspots in an isolated closed system in order for the temps to reach what has been predicted- the whole alarmist predictions rely on this hot spot feature-

There was a predicted hotspot in the upper tropical troposphere, I believe it was due to increase convection in the tropics. They don't talk about it much anymore since the prediction failed. But that requires correct predictions about weather because, other than sunshine warming the earth, convection is a function of weather. Models can't predict weather because weather is essentially an input because it is parameterized. I would argue the hotspot is really a model input based on convection parameters. If they want a hotspot they increase the convection parameter. It is not very meaningful and could have nothing to do with CO2 (a hotspot might form from having frequent El Nino)

Warming depends on suspending entropy and isolating the warming in a closed system globally, not just locally in spots around the globe

The entropy argument is an argument for dispersion of warming from single CO2 molecules to other non-CO2 molecules. The conservation of energy means the extra warmth in the CO2 molecules has to go somewhere. It will eventually get radiated away or convect upwards and then be radiated away. But both of those are slow compared to the 1/10 nanosecond that it takes to transfer the heat from a CO2 molecules to a surrounding non-CO2 molecule, especially convection which on the order of minutes to move heat upwards.

Does CO2 form a continuous blanket around the globe?

I would not call it a blanket but CO2 molecules end up evenly distributed around the planet.

Wouldnâ€™t the areas where there are no bands allow the photons to blow right on by out into space?

I think the satellite sensors show the IR notch everywhere around the planet. But there will be different depths for that notch depending on surface temperature and weather. For the latter, the water vapor and clouds could absorb all the photons where the notch would be leaving none for CO2 to absorb. I think the important thing missing from my description of that radiance diagram is that is a "clear sky" (and mainly dry air) radiance diagram. But due to even distribution of CO2, there is always some CO2 where there is clear sky and dry air, and in those locations a CO2 notch would be visible in a radiance measurement.

Every nano second the layer is saturated would mean a nano second ir photons have nothing impeding their rise toward space

A CO2 molecule with extra vibrational energy gets rid of that extra energy within about 1/10 ns to a non-CO2 molecule. At that point it is ready to grab another IR photon.

all of this is moot- because once again weâ€™re talking so little CO2 that it doesnâ€™t amount to a hill of beans really-

With 10^22 molecule of non-CO2 per liter and 0.04% or 10^18 CO2 molecules in the same liter, there are a lot of chances to intercept photons. Granted the molecules are tiny, but the calculations show that photons are intercepted within 100 feet or so. (Again: a couple caveats, the photons have to be the right frequency otherwise they pass through. Also as you pointed out the CO2 molecule has to be in a lower energy state in order to intercept and go to a higher energy state)

I will watch the video soon.

[[The entropy argument is an argument for dispersion of warming from single CO2 molecules to other non-CO2 molecules.]]

Agreed-

[[But both of those are slow compared to the 1/10 nanosecond that it takes to transfer the heat from a CO2 molecules to a surrounding non-CO2 molecule,]]

It doesn’t really matter the speed- because as the heat rises, colder molecules sink to take their place

[[Convection is a (slow) process to cool the atmosphere.]]

Just for clarity- is the convection where the rising heat has been replaced by cooler stratospheric molecules? The sun heats the lower layer, due to being temporarily trapped by clouds and GHG- the heat rises from ths layer, colder molecules above sink- is this the basic principle? If so colder air is much denser than warmer air, and them ore it cools the atmosphere, the less clouds there are (or do I have that backerds?) the less the atmosphere is able to contain the heat in that layer, the quicker the process?

[[Might be 4 in a million or 4 in a billion.]]

Well that’s what I was wondering simply because 0.04% of something seems an awful low amount but again I’m horrible at math

[[But the extra heat is still cumulative until it goes away (e.g. through convection or radiation to space)]]

What I question is that since the colder upper level molecules and surrounding molecules in that layer so vastly outnumber the heated molecules (even IF it is a constant heating process) and since the scenario plays out I described above, what little heat is produced simply get overwhelmed by the cooler 6 quadrillion tons of atmosphere + the how ever many tons of molecules from space (Does space even have molecules? I’m just winging it here- if so the tonnage must be massive)

[[Simply the conservation of energy. It can’t just disappear, it either gets spread across the 10,000 non-CO2 molecules from the 4 CO2 molecules, or one of the 4 CO2 molecules has a probabilistic emission of an IR photon out into space or back towards the earth. The other way to get rid of energy as you pointed it motion (convection) upwards, but that is incredibly slow compared to transfer between molecules]]

I think what we need to know is the ‘air exchange’ or ‘molecule exchange’ rate- cold to hot ratio, as well as factor in the entropy rate as heat gets transferred laterally to neighboring non CO2 molecuels

[[I would not call it a blanket but CO2 molecules end up evenly distributed around the planet.]]

Which leaves me wondering how much of a gap there is between each molecule of CO2 (provided they are in a horizontal layer roughly), and how the CO2 molecules can capture all the right wave ir photons that rise up into atmosphere if there are large gaps? It would seem to me that only the IR photons in the direct path of the CO2 molecules would be absorbed while all the rest- the majority infact of IR photons would slip on by unabsorbed?

[[With 10^22 molecule of non-CO2 per liter and 0.04% or 10^18 CO2 molecules in the same liter,]]

Again I’m horrible at math- and these figures are just throwing me for a loop here- it seems to me that the figure 10^18 is nearly full saturation of 10^22- when the fact is that that litre contains only 0.04% CO2- something just isn’t adding up it seems- to my mathematically stunted mind it looks like 10^18 would be more like 90% or so (not sure the %) of 10^22- no?

[[A CO2 molecule with extra vibrational energy gets rid of that extra energy within about 1/10 ns to a non-CO2 molecule. At that point it is ready to grab another IR photon.]]

True, but In that 1/10 of a nano second while the CO2 molecule is ‘full’ , two things it seems to me happens, one, new molecules slip past the ‘full’ CO2 molecule, and 2: as soon as the CO2 releases the energy, it is just as likely to reabsorb already absorbed IR photons (unless an absorbed IR photon becomes incapable of causing excitation in a CO2 molecule IF it has already been absorbed? And if it’ frequency changes when it gets expelled?)

Bleh to much to think about-

[[over billions of years ]]

Oh man, do I have to educate you on the creation of the world- :)

[[Another notable thing that he didn’t mention is that the bump in global temperature from the rainfall event was 0.3 to 0.5C]]

He may have mentioned it in his articles- I’m not sure if they are available or not

Just for clarity- is the convection where the rising heat has been replaced by cooler stratospheric molecules?

I don't think there is much air flow across the tropopause (between the troposphere and stratosphere). The largest amount of convection is in the lower troposphere near surface heat sources. Convection goes higher in thunderstorms and as high as the tropopause in the strongest hurricanes. In those cases the air from the convection spreads outwards in a high pressure as there is always a strong high pressure over the strongest hurricanes. Once that air gets far enough away from the hurricane it sinks. There is more subsidence (sinking air) with more convection but the subsidence is generally some distance (possibly many miles) away from the convection.

what little heat is produced simply get overwhelmed by the cooler 6 quadrillion tons of atmosphere + the how ever many tons of molecules from space...

The heat is always overwhelmed by cooling processes no matter how it is generated. If it was not, the sun would have boiled away the oceans long ago without any help from greenhouse gases.

I think what we need to know is the 'air exchange' or 'molecule exchange' rate- cold to hot ratio, as well as factor in the entropy rate as heat gets transferred laterally to neighboring non CO2 molecuels

The heat exchange is very fast (1/10 nanosecond until first collision) and air exchange very slow (takes seconds to move a parcel of air a short distance). The radiative transfer of heat is fast but not as fast as the collisions. The upshot is that the 4 in 10,000 warmer CO2 molecules give up their heat to the 10,000 surrounding non-CO2 molecules but also radiate some away and some of the heated air eventually rises. The heat eventually is radiated into space and is lost forever. There is only radiative heat loss from the atmosphere. All other heat transfer is within the atmosphere. IOW the heat can't go anywhere other than radiated away.

The CO2 molecules are spread out in all layers from the surface to the exosphere. CO2 tends to be a little heavier than other air molecules but still light enough to easily rise with the slightest air movement. There are enough of those molecules to cause the mean free path to be about 32 meters: http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html There are still IR photons that get by, a huge number that are not the right frequency to be absorbed and some portion of those that are the right frequency. It is a statistical result since the interception is only probabilistic, not deterministic.

CO2 molecules are roughly 1 in 10,000, so if there are 10^22 molecules per liter, then there are 10^18 CO2 molecules per liter. Granted they are very spread out in space but move fast giving the illusion of air pressure or "solid" air even though it is mostly empty space. But there are more than enough CO2 molecules to intercept some photons.

True, but In that 1/10 of a nano second while the CO2 molecule is 'full' , two things it seems to me happens, one, new molecules slip past the 'full' CO2 molecule, and 2: as soon as the CO2 releases the energy, it is just as likely to reabsorb already absorbed IR photons (unless an absorbed IR photon becomes incapable of causing excitation in a CO2 molecule IF it has already been absorbed? And if it's frequency changes when it gets expelled?)

Yes, IR photons slip by the 'full' (excited CO2) and the excited CO2 eventually releases a photon (a probabilistic phenomenon). When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist. It is/was just a form of energy anyway and turns into a different form of energy (molecular excitation). Another thing that is absolutely true (someone's law but I forgot who) is that the frequencies that are absorbed are exactly the same as the frequencies that are emitted. Since there is no change in frequency, that emitted photon can be absorbed by some CO2 molecule a little higher in the atmosphere.

[[When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist.]]

Ok that helps to know-

[[is that the frequencies that are absorbed are exactly the same as the frequencies that are emitted. Since there is no change in frequency, that emitted photon can be absorbed by some CO2 molecule a little higher in the atmosphere.]]

That’s also important because if the frequency doesn’t change then it can’t be absorbed by other GHG’s and this means the whole atmosphere isn’t actually warming and just the CO2 molecules are the ones warming from this capture and release (Unless other GHG’s can absorb the same frequency?)

[[Granted they are very spread out in space but move fast giving the illusion of air pressure or “solid” air even though it is mostly empty space]]

“Solid” LOCALIZED Areas- as soon as the mass moves from one space to another, it leaves the previous area CO2 free it would seem- there just isn’t enough CO2 to cover the entire atmosphere because there is only 0.04% of the atmosphere to work with- it would be like saying we put BB’s in a bowl the ratio of 0.04% of the bowl, move the bowl around so that the BB’s spin quickly around the bowl- the bowl’s total volume is not being covered by the 0.04% BB’s because there is always areas that have no BB’s in it- infact almost 100% has no BB’s in it at any given time-

The only way it could prevent almost all IR from passing through to space unimpeded was if it was so fast, and the rising IR photons so slow, that all space is covered by the 0.04% in a relatively short period while the IR photons are ‘stalled’ I nthe general vicinity

[[There are enough of those molecules to cause the mean free path to be about 32 meters:]]

32 meters what? Thick? Wide? Long? Certainly it can’t mean there is a 32 meter thick layer of CO2 around the whole globe? 0.04% of the atmosphere doesn’t give anywhere near enough mass to cover the globe- Are you saying it’s a ‘small blanket’ 32 meters long when all the molecules are added up?

[[and air exchange very slow (takes seconds to move a parcel of air a short distance).]]

Ever been sneezed on? it aint slow- lol- but anyways- is this rate constant? Or does it vary depending on weather, conditions, clouds, no clouds etc?

[[The upshot is that the 4 in 10,000 warmer CO2 molecules give up their heat to the 10,000 surrounding non-CO2 molecules]]

the question then becomes, do these 4 molecules give it up to ALL the non CO2 molecules, or just to a few? If it is to all, then there is some pretty heavy exchanging going on and the entropy issue comes into play so that the last non CO2 molecules to receive the heated molecule neighbor’s ‘bounty’ will be receiving nothing but ‘room temperature’ heat- equilibriuminated molecules at this point

I coulda sworn I replied to your last post the other day- it’s like Deja Vu all over again- maybe I just read you post and thought about it- but I coulda sworn I replied lol

Happy new year!

That's also important because if the frequency doesn't change then it can't be absorbed by other GHG's and this means the whole atmosphere isn't actually warming and just the CO2 molecules are the ones warming from this capture and release (Unless other GHG's can absorb the same frequency?)

Yes, the frequencies absorbed by CO2 are distinct from O3 and water vapor although there is some overlap with water vapor. And yes the CO2 capture and release those frequencies themselves, but most times before they can release they bump into a neighboring air molecule and transfer some energy to it. So the heat is distributed. It is distributed fairly rapidly, about 19 square mm/s according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_diffusivity which means the energy from a single higher-enery CO2 molecule can warm trillions upon trillions of other molecules in a second. However, 0.04% of those will be other CO2 molecules which may then have enough energy to emit a photon and radiate the energy up into space or down towards earth.

32 meters what? Thick? Wide? Long? Certainly it can't mean there is a 32 meter thick layer of CO2 around the whole globe?

No the CO2 is spread throughout the atmosphere top to bottom. The 32 meters is the average distance that an IR photon with the right wavelength will travel before being absorbed by a CO2 molecule. The actual distance could be close to zero meters or 64 meters or 1000 meters or never (makes it to space unimpeded) but the average distance is 32 meters. That just gives some perspective on the "blanket" (although I don't like that word).

Are you saying it's a 'small blanket' 32 meters long when all the molecules are added up?

Not a bad analogy. Think about taking a real blanket or even a sheet which is solid enough that you can't see much of any light through it. Now take apart all the fibers, turn them into some very fine dust. Now fluff up that dust layer to make it 32 meters thick. That is the CO2 "blanket". You might say that's not much of a blanket. But it is the same amount of material as you started with and still stops all or most light from getting through. And it works roughly the same way absorbing photons of heat and reemitting half of them back at you keeping you warmer than you would be without it. Also there are 1000's of these 32 meter thick blankets stacked up through the troposphere, blankets on top of blankets.

the question then becomes, do these 4 molecules give it up to ALL the non CO2 molecules, or just to a few?

The answer is all within some very short distance. The better answer is trillions at the very least. If there are 10^22 molecules in a liter, then there are 10^19 per cubic mm. That means 10 million trillion molecules could get heated in one second by the diffusion that I linked above. Might be more or less than that because I don't know how to convert diffusion in area (from the link) to diffusion in volume. But suffice to say trillions of molecules could receive that heat. It spreads relatively evenly which produces entropy. The system tries to maximize entropy by spreading the heat as evenly as possible.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.