Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: palmer

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Just for clarity- is the convection where the rising heat has been replaced by cooler stratospheric molecules?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


105 posted on 12/30/2015 9:21:12 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]


To: Bob434
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.

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?

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.

106 posted on 12/30/2015 12:23:52 PM PST by palmer (Net "neutrality" = Obama turning the internet over to foreign enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson