Posted on 10/05/2018 9:56:29 PM PDT by kathsua
Well, that mice-through-a-chain-linked-fence comparison is simple, but it doesn’t ring so true. The so-called greenhouse gases absorbed over 94% of the outgoing infrared radiation from Earth’s surface before the industrial age, and that figure is probably a tiny bit bigger today. But that’s not the whole story either. When a so-called greenhouse gas molecule absorbs an IR photon, it reemits IR. The new emissions go in random directions, some go out towards space and some go down towards Earth. On their way, they too may be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule, or maybe they’ll hit a particle of black soot or something and transfer some or all of their energy to the particle. The greenhouse gas absorptions and remissions occur at the speed of light. It’s a very busy atmosphere. A lot of the infrared emitted from Earth’s surface does make it out to space, but the notion that relatively low ppm value makes these greenhouse molecules as easy to avoid (for IR) as a chain link fence is for a mouse doesn’t do justice to how many inches of atmosphere these photons have to travel through.
Government grants specific to global warming research are corrupting scientists.
Universities are the most greedy of all.
I would think that 100 years ago government grants were few and far between.
Sorry, but I'm going to be the cockroach in the punchbowl.
The statement above is true and also false. It depends on the wavelength of the light involved.
In the infrared, the energies involved are too small to cause electrons to move to a higher energy state. Instead, they cause vibration modes in the chemical bonds in the molecule to intensify. That's just another way of saying that the molecule gets hotter. It is true that the molecule can release that energy by a re-radiating another infrared photon, just like any hot object can give up some of its energy by radiating an infrared photon. But it is not true to say that CO2 absorbing infrared doesn't become hotter. It does.
By contrast, ultraviolet photons have enough energy to cause electrons to promote to higher energy states. This can break chemical bonds and form new ones. That's why UV light can kill bacteria and give you skin cancer.
Ping
Ping
I checked, they don't even sell sheets of rock salt on ebay. So I'm forced to guess; a screen or cloth is stretched over the opening supporting a layer of table salt. And the glass is obscured or frosted so they both reflect the same amount of light.
Sure would be cool to see this experiment done.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
I believe CO2 scatters just a few discrete frequencies of IR, a very small portion of the IR spectrum. The scattering is supposedly significant, as some of this IR will make its back to earth and have a atmospheric warming effect via convection. I believe what you are saying is that if an IR photon hits a CO2 atom that is not near one of the aforementioned frequencies, it will excite (warm) the atom instead of scattering the energy, which is likely true for other atmospheric gases.
It would be interesting to find out how climate models predict warming due to CO2. I’ve looked for theory behind this warming, which should lead to the specifics on how climate models account for it, but have not been able to find anything. There is at least one open source climate model, but haven’t had time yet to dive into it.
Is anyone aware of a detailed report explaining why the temperatures were adjusted downward? I’ve read that some ocean temperature readings taken at sea were corrupted, leading to temperatures higher than what they actually were, but this should have been documented in detail. Another factor is the warming effect of urbanization, which should have led to a downward adjustment for more recent readings at some land based stations.
A different way to prove the same thing is with balloons and the “tree line”. CO2 is heavy. Fill a balloon with CO2 and it falls to the ground. Trees need CO2, and on mountains the tree line show where there is not enough.
The theory that CO2, a vital trace gas, can cause GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE when it’s concentration declines from 400 parts per million to virtually nothing by around 10,000 feet is ridiculous. The “hockey stick” theory, which depends on a feedback loop when CO2 hits 400 ppm has also been disproven by current temperature read by satellites.
If all these people actually believe that man causes global warming why don’t they off themselves for the cause?
Despite the cloak of virtue so many in the “scientific” community love to display and wear, they’re all still human beings and subject to all human frailties as the rest of us...
Dangle enough $ in front of some of these “scientists” and by golly, whaddaya know, they can find the outcome their patrons hired ‘em to find...
Some propose the desired conclusion, then work backwards cooking the data along the way, and others who’d like a piece of the action swear to it...
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.