Climate: Heating up or cooling down?
Everything is either heating up or cooling down. This is just simple observation. It is a law. Anybody can verify this for themselves quite easily by watching a bonfire. Heat is generated by combustion inter alia, and what is hot rises up and cools down.
If any climate scientist says otherwise you know he is a fraud. You know very well also that if he says heat is trapped he is not only a fraud but is after government funding.
Let me declare uneqivocably that there is no such entity as man – made Global Warming. There is Global Warming and Global Cooling and this was ordained by Great Nature long ago. Anyone who believes otherwise has been hoaxed by certain scientists, who are governed by the Material Force.
There are a thousand and one ways that man can observe heating and cooling, but there is not a single way that one can observe fixed heat. It is or would be a contradiction in terms. Once a person realises this by incessant observation the blinkers come off his eyes.
Is it important to witness to the truth? Or is it better to keel over and let others defraud us and the Human race?
Can a gas generate heat? Can any gas generate heat? Can Carbon Dioxide generate heat? No, but a gas can be heated and some can be frozen. So this does not need science, but clear thinking with a little knowledge of principles.
Can a gas trap heat? For any sane and reasonable person the question itself is totally idiotic. If heat was not flowing, if heat was not radiating, if heat was not convecting, if heat was not conducting, it would no longer be heat.
So it is complete nonsense to say that Carbon Dioxide can either generate heat or trap heat and it must follow therefore that the fell notion that mankind is heating the Planet is and wss nonsense. And for those who nod their heads and say that the heating qualities of Carbon Dioxide are exaggerated, one can only say their position is bizarre.
I do not wish to offend many Skeptics who are of that opinion, but alas their position is logically indefensible.
So here is the question I have put to my friends, which allows for no wriggle room.
CAN CARBON DIOXIDE GENERATE HEAT?
CAN CARBON DIOXIDE TRAP HEAT?
Any Professor care to answer? Any Physicist? Any renowned Politician?
For beware, this is a trap!
Trackback from your site.
Dr Pete Sudbury
| #
Hi, Here’s an answer I posted earlier, written by a physicist who understands thermodynamics a lot better than I do. I think he’s expressing the scientific equivalent of some of your comments, many of which seem to be around the careless use of language. Note his answer relates radiation density to temperature, which may supply a useful link if you are interested in understanding the role of GHGs.
1)
Any molecule having a non zero electrical dipolar momentum will interact with the electromagnetic radiation. In the QM vocabulary it will absorb and emit photons. The CO2 molecule has 3 vibration modes and 2 of them produce an electrical dipole. The vibration energies of these modes are quantized and have energy levels En. For the first excited mode E1-E0 = h.f provides the 2 photons frequencies that will be absorbed/emitted at strongest. Their wavelengths happen to be 4µ and 15 µ what puts them squarely in the IR spectrum where Earth radiates.
So the first part of your vision was correct. CO2 but mostly H20 strongly absorb and emit photons in infrared. Because of Kirchhoff’s law, this activity is a zero sum game, e.g the CO2 molecules absorb exactly as much as they emit. There is therefore no net heating of the atmosphere by IR.
2)
There is no net energy transfer by “thermalisation”. Indeed a vibrationnally excited CO2 molecule may collide with an N2 molecule, decay from E1 to E0 and transfer E1-E0 to the kinetic energy of the N2 molecule. However the inverse process exists too – an N2 molecule transfers E1-E0 to an unexcited CO2 molecule making its vibrational energy going from E0 to E1. In steady state both rates are obviously equal and there is no “heating up”. Also common sense tells us that if there were a net energy transfer, the N2 molecules’ temperature would diverge and reach an ultrarelativistic plasma rather fast.
It follows that the collisional processes are also a zero sum game
3)
The right vision is then that in a mixture of 1 GHG gaz (non zero dipole like H20) and 1 non GHG gaz (zero dipole like N2), the GHG gaz will absorb and emit in the infrared spectrum and it will absorb exactly as much as it emits. The non GHG gaz lets everything pass through. Beside the radiation process which involves only the GHG gaz, there are collisions that involve both the GHG and the non GHG gaz. The role of this process is to make sure that the radiatively active GHG gaz and the non radiatively active gaz stay both at the same temperature. In steady state there is then no net energy transfer by collision between both species.
The fact that a GHG – non GHG mixture will be warmer than the case with non GHG only is an effect of density of radiation. Indeed in a non GHG atmosphere the radiation energy density is constant from the bottom to the top because the radiation goes through with a constant rate. As the matter doesn’t interact with radiation, it just adds its own kinetic energy to the overall energy density.
In the case of GHG – non GHG mixture, the absorption/emission processes have for effect to decrease the photons’ mean free path and thus to increase the radiation energy density as compared to the non GHG case. The GHG matter interacts with radiation in this case and its equilibrium temperature will be higher than in the non GHG case because of the higher energy density. The collisions will then make sure that the non GHG gaz will be at the same temperature as the GHG gaz. The overall result is that the whole GHG atmosphere will be at a higher temperature than the non GHG atmosphere.
Have a great day!
Reply
Squidly
| #
15µ = -79.96°C (-111.93°F)
4µ = 451.29°C (844.32°F)
The only IR frequency spectrum that CO2 radiates within Earth’s spectrum is a very narrow area of 15µ, which is -79.96°C (-111.93°F). The only places on Earth that radiate in that spectrum are the extreme polls. No other place on Earth radiates at that temperature.
And clearly, as for 4µ (451.29°C (844.32°F)) there is no place on Earth, sans an active volcano that radiates within that spectrum.
Translation: HIGH emissivity! … and we know for fact that in order to increase temperature our atmosphere must reduce emissivity. However, CO2 clearly raises emissivity! … therefore, CO2 cannot possibly create warming of our atmosphere but must do the opposite!
WRONG! .. and the proof is this: Given two molecules Molecule (A) and Molecule (B), (GHG or non-GHG, in any mixture), Molecule (A) can only further excite Molecule (B), if and only if Molecule (A) is of greater vibrational state than Molecule (B). This is a fundamental LAW of our universe and very well understood. Our very universe could not exist if this were not so. There is no amount of sophistry that can get around this problem. Physicists and scientists had been trying to circumvent this very natural law for millennia (since the dawn of man). This is also precisely the reason why a perpetuum mobile is not possible in this universe.
It is a sad day when a loley old computer scientist can point out such a simple and fundamental process that completely obliterates the entire “radiative greenhouse effect”. This tiny little caveat and physical law of our universe absolutely prohibits any notion of a “radiative greenhouse effect”, and there is no way around it! … I will put this up against any physicist in the world! … I will win! … why? … because nature dictates this and nature always wins!
Have a great day, Dr. Dumbass!
Reply
Rosco
| #
One needs to evaluate claims by applying real science. I see very little of that here !
Firstly
CAN CARBON DIOXIDE GENERATE HEAT? – what does this simplistic question even mean ?
Of course hot CO2 can transfer heat to any colder material – this is indisputable. Is this not generating heat ?
No, CO2 does not produce any energy of its own. You question is not really of any value and shows a complete misunderstanding of terminology.
CAN CARBON DIOXIDE TRAP HEAT? What does this simplistic question even mean ?
Hot CO2 can absolutely retain heat far longer than ordinary air as is evidenced by the fact that hot air balloons (really hot combustion product balloons – primarily hot CO2) stay aloft for prolonged periods.
Don’t take my word for it – https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
Secondly I am sorry to inform you Squidly that you are completely incorrect when you use Wien’s law to incorrectly make the fundamental mistake of thinking the wavelength of peak emissions is the ONLY temperature of the emitting object.
The comment you quote claiming it is wrong – “Their wavelengths happen to be 4µ and 15 µ what puts them squarely in the IR spectrum where Earth radiates” – is exactly correct – indisputably !
Your comment – “The only IR frequency spectrum that CO2 radiates within Earth’s spectrum is a very narrow area of 15µ, which is -79.96°C (-111.93°F). The only places on Earth that radiate in that spectrum are the extreme polls. No other place on Earth radiates at that temperature.” – is completely incorrect – this is indispuatble !
At 4µ in a Planck curve for the solar radiation emitted at a temperature of the Sun as the often quoted value of 5778 K and scaled by the inverse square law the solar value is 9.16 at TOA – reduce it to 25% for the claimed atmospheric absorption as claimed by the IPCC and Trenberth et al etc and it becomes ~2.29.
The value for the Earth’s surface emission at 303 Kelvin at 4µ is ~2.58 – slightly higher !
I suggest the solar radiation has a far higher heating potential in the 4µ band than the terrestrial radiation as the solar radition is emitted at significantly higher temperature. To my mind DLR (if it exists) during the day is easily explained by the solar radiation.
The value for the Earth’s surface emission at 303 Kelvin at 15µ is ~21.8 whilst the solar radiation value is 0.0283 – non existent for any real purpose.
Your comment – “And clearly, as for 4µ (451.29°C (844.32°F)) there is no place on Earth, sans an active volcano that radiates within that spectrum” – is completely incorrect !
Every object at ambient temperatures (except gases) emits a spectrum of radiation from ~3µ to infinite wavelength although emissions at these extremes are very tiny according to blackbody theory.
Your comment – “the CO2 molecules absorb exactly as much as they emit.
Translation: HIGH emissivity! … and we know for fact that in order to increase temperature our atmosphere must reduce emissivity. However, CO2 clearly raises emissivity! … therefore, CO2 cannot possibly create warming of our atmosphere but must do the opposite!” – simply does not agree with well documented facts.
Firstly the Sun’s radiation cannot be ignored – it is continually streaming into the atmosphere.
Are you saying that if today’s minimum is colder than yesterday’s the maximum today will not be higher given equivalent weather circumstances ? I don’t agree with you on that.
The site – https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html – gives the thermal conductivity of air as 0.024 W/mK.
The thermal conductivity of CO2 is given as 0.0146 W/mK.
As these values are experimental values and therefore include ALL and/or ANY possible radiative effect for IR emissions from CO2 wouldn’t one expect something that radiates IR at a higher level than something we are told has zero infra-red capability to have a higher thermal conductivity ?
Surely CO2 is a better insulator which proves beyond dispute it does NOT have ANY powerful IR emission capability at all !
I’m sorry Squidly but you haven’t debunked anything.
Reply
Rosco
| #
“Are you saying that if today’s minimum is colder than yesterday’s the maximum today will not be higher given equivalent weather circumstances ? I don’t agree with you on that.”
Obvious typo alert – meant “if today’s minimum is hotter than yesterday’s the maximum today will not be higher”. Starting from a higher base means higher maximums are likely surely?
Reply
John Nicol
| #
The arguments put here are in general valid – carbon dioxide cannot generate heat. However, it can trap heat and ironically this process leads in fact to cooling of the earth. In the laboratory, one can easily observe light of a wavelength, 589.2 nanometres or 0.5892 microns from a tuned laser, or a sodium lamp – a yellow street light perhaps – passing into a vessel containing a heated sample of pure sodium, creating a dense vapour. The light is absorbed very strongly and does not emerge in the direction of its entry but comes out weakly in all directions after bouncing around inside the sample of sodium – being iorst absorbed, reradiated, re-absorbed, reradiated,…..until it escapes somewhere. The same for CO2 and the 15 micron wavelength from the ground, also warming the air around it.
BUT!! The warmed air rises taking the energy without to be radiated to space in the upper atmosphere when the density of the air becomes less dense and less able to trap the energy! This is NEVER mentioned by so-called climate “scientists”. who avoid the real physics of the atmosphere and its processes. In the upper atmosphere the air is cooled almost exclusively by radiation to space from – guess what – carbon dioxiode, again contributing to COOLING, NOT to “warming”.
As CO2 increases, the volume of air (plus CO2 of course) which absorbs and traps the ground radiation, does so within a smaller volume which is heated to a higher temperature INCREASING the rate of convection and improving the cooling effect.
So all that is said here about CO2 NOT causing warming is correct. But as a physicist with 30 years experience in experimental and theoretical gas spectroscopy in the laboratory, I just wanted to add that CO2 cools the atmosphere as shown first by another physicist in 1949 – Gilbert Plass. No one pays any attention to that work which was reported by him in a paer with the title something like ” The cooling effects of Carbon Dioxide”.
.
Reply
Rosco
| #
Now I am confused.
Dr Pete’s physicist says –
“There is therefore no net heating of the atmosphere by IR.”
John Nicol says –
“The same for CO2 and the 15 micron wavelength from the ground, also warming the air around it.”
Dr Pete’s physicist says –
“There is no net energy transfer by “thermalisation” ……. It follows that the collisional processes are also a zero sum game”
So what exactly causes the air temperature to ever rise above zero ?
Not IR and not collisions apparently.
John Nicol says –
“In the upper atmosphere the air is cooled almost exclusively by radiation to space from – guess what – carbon dioxiode, again contributing to COOLING, NOT to “warming”.”
So as I understand this sequence
At 5000 metres the density of air is 736.4 grams per cubic metre.
Well mixed GHG – CO2 – has a mass density concentration of ~0.06%.
At 5000 metres the temperature is about minus 17.47°C.
Isn’t minus 18°C considered Earth’s average radiating temperature ?
At 5000 metres CO2 has a mass per cubic metre of 0.06/100 x 736.4 = 0.44184 grams.
This 0.44184 gramms of CO2 per cubic metre cools the atmosphere whilst the remaining ~736 grams of air plays no part at all ?
And yet surely thermal conductivity measurements establish that although CO2 may radiate infra-red the effect is very small ?
Now I am confused.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Rosco, not to mention that, according to Wien’s Equations, 15µ is -79.96°C (or -111.93°F). The only places on Earth that are that cold are the extreme poles. If referring to 4µ , then we are talking 451.29°C (or 844.32°F), basically the interior of an active volcano.
Besides for all of the plethora of other physical reasons why CO2 (or any other gas) is incapable of supporting the so-called RGHE, just the mere fact of wavelength would prohibit CO2 itself from being capable, even if you believed the whole “downwelling IR reheats the surface” garbage. That “downwelling IR” could not possibly be coming from IR re-emitted from CO2.
Reply
Rosco
| #
I am sorry Squidly but Wien’s law is irrelevant. Wien’s law calculates the wavelength of PEAK emission for a given temperature – NOT the only wavelength of emission.
For this reason alone your argument is wrong.
According to black body theory and the cavity oven experiments an object (other than liquids/gases) emits radiation across a spectrum from short wavelengths to long.
At 303 Kelvin an object emits radiation at 4µm with a value of 2.58 W/m2 /µm.
The solar radiation calculated as the black body emission from 5778 K scaled by the inverse square law of Earth’s orbit has a value of 3.41 W/m2 /µm TOA.
At 15 µm a 303 Kelvin object emits 21.8 while the solar radiation has 0.0283 – virtually nothing.
You should investigate Planck curves and understand them – what you have written is wrong.
CO2 is capable of absorbing and emitting radiation at 4 µm and 15 µm at ambient temperatures – this is well established fact.
According to you 15 µm is equivalent to -79.96°C using Wien’s law – no dispute except that this is for PEAK emission.
λ = 2897.75/T => T = 2897.75/15 = ~193.18 K.
Therefore at 300 K Wien’s law calculates a value of ~9.66 µm.
But if you switch to wavenumber units Wien’s law calculates a value of ~588.3 cm-1.
Using the relationship that 1 µm is equivalent to 10,000 cm-1 we find that wavelength = 10,000/wavenumber.
So at 300 Kelvin Wien’s law calculates :-
~9.66 µm; or,
~588.3 cm-1 which is equivalent to ~16.998 µm.
Look at the curves in the well known Nimbus satellite emissions taken from Petty’s text book as here :-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kxg7i7iumfdshbm/nimbus-satellite-emissions-infra-red-earth-petty-6-6.jpg?dl=0
Notice how the peak of the Planck curve for 300 Kelvin is at ~588 cm-1 which is squarely in the region at which CO2 has the greatest absorption bandwidth of the three identified by experimental procedures.
Notice that this is at ~17 µm on the top axis wavelength scale.
Why isn’t it at ~9.66 µm as calculated using Wien’s law in wavelength format ?
You can’t argue against that using an argument that is just plain wrong.
Reply
Doreen
| #
David Keith in his own words “we may end up killing 10s of thousands” https://youtu.be/_rsvbyewB_Q
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Hey you eggheads there!
If your so good calculate this —
At sea-level I’ve managed to isolate 10million molecules of dry air.
Somehow (please just imagine) these are both free to move but by a magic force field process they’re ‘contained’ so we can observe them. They are also not near any surface!
OK this air consists of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.96% argon and other inert gases, and 0.04% of CO2. (No water in it, also no dust or other contaminating particulates). This air like all the air around it is a 18°C.
The sun shines and all the air including our special sample warms up (to your choice of temperature.) However within the sample only ~1/3 of the CO2 re-radiates the solar IR energy, ~1/3 looses it’s solar IR energy by collisions with the other molecules in the ‘magic’ sample. The last ~1/3 of the CO2 molecules loose out by not getting any solar IR. I know it makes for awkward numbers so round them to the nearest, OK.
All well and good.
I am fairly sure you super bright people can calculate –
1. the volume this special air occupies, and
2. How much warming the CO2 can achieve through this volume of air.
Now restart the same experiment but change the air to 77.75% nitrogen, 20.75% oxygen, 0.96% argon and other inert gases, 0.5% water, and 0.04% of CO2.
Now try and see any CO2 warming happening, given the same conditions as above, except both the water molecules and CO2 receive solar IR energy in exactly the same proportion as the CO2 managed above (1/3 IR active, 1/3 collide, 1/3 not insolated with IR energy.
I contend that in the real world any CO2 atmospheric ‘warming’ is buried by the water, and in the real world the free movement of the air ensures that NO appreciable CO2 warming signature can be seen, or measured.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Oh and while we are here, here’s some perspective for you —
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/giss-anntemps2017.png
Now that is ALL there is to this warming argument.
NOTE from that graphic you indicate if there is ANY CO2 figerprint or signature apparent. If you can discern it please explain how it differs from all the other variations that have happened, and why should anyone believe it is dangerous.
As far as I can see the biggest problem in “Climate Science” is the failure of perspective, and to be able to appreciate that what has happened over the last 1,000 years (and right up to this second) is well within the range of “Natural Variation”.
Reply