First part is true, there is no way to say how much the added warmth in the atmosphere affects the earth because of weather complexities. But for the second part, the warming of the bulk atmosphere is true. The reason is that the CO2 molecules bump into the O2 and N2 molecules roughly 10^10 times per second and transfer a portion of any extra energy that they contain.
About 0.1 nanoseconds after the interception of and IR photon the CO2 molecule bumps into an O2 or N2 molecule and transfers some of that extra energy to the O2 or N2. The O2 or N2 is warmer due to the CO2. All IR photons are intercepted in roughly 100 feet of atmosphere by one of the 10^41 CO2 molecules (there are 10^44 total molecules).
The alternative to the CO2 transferring some of the extra energy to the bulk atmosphere is that it reradiates it towards earth or into space. But that is a slow probabilistic process.
Here's a post at WUWT that disagrees with what I say above: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/ but the commenters add lots of corrections. The main one is that the IR flux invalidates the LTE claim. It would be true that the temperature of the atmosphere is independent of the amount of CO2 if there were no IR flux passing through it.
palmer- the heat is rising fro mthe surface of the earth- most of it does not even contact CO2- there ismpyl isn’t enough CO2 and Way too much heat molecules for what little CO2 is there to absorb it all- and even if it did absorb 100% what difference does it make? None- it releases it immediately and the molecules are no warmer than when they were absorbed
[[The O2 or N2 is warmer due to the CO2.]]
It can’t be- CO2 isn’t a furnace heating up the escaping heat molecules from earth- it can only transfer what it captures- Heat escaping from earth and meeting NO CO2 will transfer it’s heat naturally to surrounding molecules just the same as it would when absorbed then released by the CO2- there is no increase in heat
IF I turn on a room heater, it spits out warmer air, which heats the cooler air it collides with- IF the room were to contain 0.00136% CO2 in it, that warmer air coming from the ceramic heater isn’t going to get even warmer once it has left the heater and entered into the air space of the room even if it encounter’s CO2 molecules- Unless you are suggesting that CO2 acts as a furnace?
IF there were a thick blanket of CO2 preventing heat from going past the CO2, that stretched over the entire planet, then you could claim CO2 was beign prevented from
[[All IR photons are intercepted in roughly 100 feet of atmosphere by one of the 10^41 CO2 molecules (there are 10^44 total molecules).]]
There are 6 quadrillion tons of atmosphere- only a few billion tons of CO2- there is no way 0.04% of the atmosphere translates to an atmosphere saturated with CO2 particles- you are claiming that nearly all of the atmosphere is saturated with CO2- the figures are not adding up- only 0.04% of the atmosphere has CO2- (man responsible for just 0.00136% of the CO2 in atmosphere)How are you coming up with a totally different %? I have never seen a claim that nearly all the atmosphere has CO2 molecules in it-
[[About 0.1 nanoseconds after the interception of and IR photon the CO2 molecule bumps into an O2 or N2 molecule and transfers some of that extra energy to the O2 or N2.]]
The energy from the escaping heat from earth gets transferred to molecules in the atmosphere whether it bumps into CO2 or not-
I don’t know what you don’t agree with with that article on WUWT- I’ts speaking to many of the issues I’ve brought up (only in more succinct manner)
LTE speaks to localized Thermodynamic equilibrium which MUST be the case with CO2 since CO2 takes up only .04% of the atmosphere- only the immediate surrounding O2 molecules are affected by any absorbed and released photons- and these will quickly reach equilibrium because they are MASSIVELY outnumbered by the cooler molecules In the atmosphere- There simply isn’t enough CO2 to capture enough outgoing and incoming heat to cause any kind of change in atmospheric temperature except for very minor and brief localized changes which almost immediately reach equilibrium
The idea that the temp doesn’t reach equilibrium because of flux doesn’t jive- especially when dealing with such small amounts of heat transfer in localized areas- to simply say there isn’t equilibrium because the temperature is constantly changing I think ignores the obvious equilibrium is whatever the current temp is from outside sources-
To explain- and I’m venturing into unknown waters here) The localized atmosphere areas temp is constantly changing from cooler to warmer depending on the heat source location- this temp is independent of the CO2 captured/released energy- then we add in small amount of CO2 to capture and release further upward and downward heat into the mass of the local volume of atmosphere- The majority of the atmosphere is heated or cooled independent of the captured released heat (simply because there is just not enough CO2 to capture and release enough heat to move the overall temp in any direction- the bulk of temp change comes independent of CO2, and therefore sets the standard for equilibrium at that present time- the small amount of heat transferred by CO2 gets absorbed into the surrounding mass volume of molecules and gets effectively cancelled out
Let’s assume that at 1:00 pm the atmosphere is say, for the sake of illustration only, 100 degrees. This local area of atmosphere has just 0.04% CO2 in it- It captures upward IR photons, releases them, the energy results in heat of say, for the sake of illustration, 102 degrees- This 0.04% molecules of warmer heat collides with the mass of 99.96% of the area’s 100 degree molecules- instantly the 0.04% warmer molecules get cooled down to the 100 degrees of the surrounding molecules (actually it would be even less because the heat radiated out from the CO2 goes either upward, downward, or to the sides- so only a fraction o that 0.04% warmer molecules would hand around to be absorbed by the local area molecules-
Unless I’m missing a point here about IR flux? I’m assuming it means an influx of more heat from energy source whicxh causes the net temp to increase or decrease- and the thought is that since it is near constant change, that there can’t be an LTE? The argument beign that it’s really LDE?
In my mind it doesn’t matter whether a local area is I n equilibrium for 1 day, one hour, 1 second or 1 nano second- at some point, no matter how brief, there is LTE- and we can quibble about LTE or LDE all day, but the fact remains at some point there is an LTE ,and the major point is that the small amount of IR transferred energy from the 0.04% CO2 in that particular area, isn’t a large enough amount to affect the then present LTE- it all comes back to quantity- no matter howe many theories or variables we throw into the mix, it comes back to quantity- there simply is not enough CO2 in any given area to affect the equlibrium
I’ll have to read more of that WUWT article ande comments tomorrow- too tired tonight-