The absorption of thermal emitted infrared radiation by CO2
Abstract: The present study describes the absorption of thermal emission from the earth surface by CO2 in the atmosphere. It is done on a fundamental physics base. For this purpose, the vibrational-rotational structure of the CO2 molecule is described. At atmospheric temperatures a few low-lying vibrational bands of CO2 are relevant.
It is found that independently from the vibrational state of the molecule the frequency separation between the rotational lines for both P- and R-transitions is constant and about 50 GHz. Furthermore, it is found that practically about 90{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the frequency space between the rotational lines of the absorbing vibrational bands around 15-, 5- and 4.3-micron wavelength contributes relatively little to the thermal absorption.
Roughly, only 10{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of its spectrum is active and the thermal radiation that falls within these regions is fully absorbed. This is not only the case for 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere but also for much smaller concentration values.
Vibrational- rotational structure of CO2
The CO2 molecule has strong infrared absorption bands that belong to the symmetric stretching vibration v1, the degenerated bending vibration v2 and the asymmetric stretching vibration v3.
Low-lying infrared absorption bands of CO2
The population densities of the vibrational modes are conveniently described by the vibrational temperatures. They are 1800 K, 950 K and 3370 K for respectively the v1, v2 and v3 vibrations. Since these temperatures are much higher than the atmospheric temperatures only absorption from the ground and low-lying excited states are relevant to our purpose.
The most intense ones involve excitations from the ground state to the lowest states of the bending and the asymmetric vibrations (absorption from the symmetric stretching vibration is not possible because of the absence of a dipole moment). Especially the absorbed radiation power by the ground state bending mode at about 15 microns is dominant.
The absorbed radiation by the asymmetric vibration at about 4.3 micron is much less intense because the emitted radiation from the earth surface has its maximum at a wavelength of about 16-micron and drops fast for shorter wavelength. In the following table7 the low-lying infrared absorption bands of CO2 are collected.
The fraction of the molecules for j = 16 is as indicated 0.078. This number decreases according to eq. (2) with increasing and decreasing j-values. For j = 40 this fraction is 0.012. This means that emitted infrared radiation that falls within the absorption region of the line j = 40 is saturated over a distance that is about 6 times the absorption length for j = 16 i.e. about 300 m.
The fraction for j =2 is 0.02 so that also these molecules saturate the thermal emission flux within about 200 m. Thus, between j = 2 and j = 40 about 98{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of all CO2 molecules in the considered band absorb all the emitted infrared radiation that falls within their spectra within a distance of about 300 m and in the case of 200 ppm it is 600 m. The same result will be obtained by considering the R- branch.
all radiation that falls within their spectra. However, at 2-micron wavelength there is practically no emission at the considered temperature of 300 K.
The (0110 – 0200) and (0110 – 1000) bands are Fermi coupled at wavelength of about 15 microns. The wavelengths are close to those of the (000 – 0110) band and the transitions of these three bands are always observed together in the absorption spectrum. However, the considered bands belong to the population density N1(of the first excited state of the bending mode.
Conclusions
The absorption of thermal emission from the earth by CO2 occurs at wavelengths around 15, 5 and 4.3 microns. The absorption is limited to narrow frequency regions near the centers of the rotational lines. The frequency width of these absorbing regions is about 4 GHz whereas the frequency distance between the rotational lines for both P- and R- transitions for all absorbing bands is constant and about 50 GHz.
Roughly less than 10{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the infrared flux that falls within the absorption bands of CO2 will be absorbed. The analysis is performed assuming 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere for which we found saturation of absorption. This saturation occurs also for much smaller values of the CO2 content, including 200 ppm.
References
- J.Witteman:The CO2 Laser (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg) 1987
- Michael Hollas: High Resolution Spectroscopy (Butterworth-Heinemann) 1982
- Raymont T. Pierrehumbert: Principles of Planetary Climate (Cambridge University Press) 2010
- Antony E.Siegman: Lasers (University Science Books, Mill Valley California) 1986
- L.Abrams: Broadening coefficients for the P(20) CO2 laser transition: Appl.Phys.Lett,25, 609 (1974)
- R.Wood: High pressure pulsed molecular lasers: Proc.IEEE, 62, 355 (1974)
- Gerhard Herzberg: Molecular Spectra and Molecular Structure (Van Nostrand Company, Princeton, New Jersey) 1964
- E.Martin and E.F.Barker: The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide: Phy.Rev. 41, 291 (1932)
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
TL Winslow
| #
“Roughly less than 10% of the infrared flux that falls within the absorption bands of CO2 will be absorbed.”
That much? 🙂
Articles like this are like microscopically examining a turd to catalog every molecule, when all we need to know is that it stinks. Spectroscopy is a subject nobody cares about except when there’s a good punchline, such as with lasers. But the elephant in the room is the U.N. IPCC and its giant Hoover machine sucking billions and threatening our freedoms and comfort in an effort to destroy the fossil fuel industry because its CO2 emissions are supposedly so evil.
The U.N. IPCC has nothing to demonize CO2 with than their CO2-driven global warming hoax that reduces to a satellite spectrograph of the Earth’s radiation, showing the perfect Planck shape broken by CO2 at 15 microns. What they don’t tell you is that 15 micron radiation isn’t in the heating range, so who cares if CO2 absorbs it? Actually, they want you to believe way way more, particularly that CO2 reemits it and the Earth’s surface absorbs it, raising its temperature on a global basis that requires them to take over the world to stop it.
For the umpteenth time, the killer observation is that 15 micron radiation from atmospheric CO2 is at a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, which can’t melt an ice cube, much less cause global warming. Low temperature photons can’t raise the temperature of a higher temperature object. So who cares what happens to the 15 micron radiation originally from the Sun? No matter where it ends up, it can’t heat anything.
When will this sick evil IPCC hoax die? Just Say No to -80C and the IPCC.
Read my article: http://www.historyscoper.com/whereistheevidence.html
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Nice, but finding sponges that absorb more water doesn’t mean they add water to a spill.
All we see here is that CO2 can BE WARMED by radiation, not that it warms back what radiated to it in the first place.
Reply
Alan
| #
Why write a paper with half the required information missing? What happens to the absorbed radiation? Is it trapped as we are frequently told, or does it follow accepted physics and is emitted?
Reply
John Harrison
| #
I was just having this conversation with Geran the other night and promised him a quick quiz that never materialised. Got off to a bad start by misquoting the wavelengths but the essence remains the same. The 10um emission from CO2 comes from the reduction of the internal energy of the molecule and cannot therefore be related to temperature (as per visible light wavelengths emitted in chemo-luminescence or gamma radiation in the decay of the Co-60 nucleus). If you believe 10um IR can have no warming effect you could try putting your hand in way of a beam from water cooledCO2 laser emitting that wavelength to prove it but please don’t. You could, however, shine it on a blackened thermometer bulb but do stand back. Detune the laser to reduce intensity somewhat to get a modest warming. Detune it still further until you get the same intensity as from CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature will rise but by an immeasurable amount because the energy gained will quickly be balanced by the new rate of energy loss. This then is the so-called GHE and similarly the effect is all but immeasurable, certainly in daytime but possibly very slightly more significant at night. Any comments on contravention of Laws of Thermodynamics which seems to be the old standby resorted to when clinging to denial of the GHE?
Reply
geran
| #
Harrison, you still can’t get it right. The main absorption band for CO2 is centered on 15 µ, not 10 µ.
And don’t resort to those old pathetic standbys used to promoted the GHE pseudoscience, — CO2 lasers and trying to sneak in by claiming to be a lukewarmer.
A CO2 laser is a manmade device. You won’t find them in the atmosphere. Just unplug the laser and it won’t warm anything.
Learn some physics.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Geran, just look what it says here….
“The CO2 laser produces a beam of infrared light with the principal wavelength bands centering on 9.4 and 10.6 micrometers (μm).”
I don’t make the same mistake. But nowhere can I find anything which tells me that because the 10um IR in a beam of a CO2 laser is “man-made”?? that it must behave entirely differently from 10um IR which occurs in nature. Could you please forward the reference for this remarkable discovery.
Reply
geran
| #
Harrison, I knew this was going to be entertaining, when you first mentioned “laser”. You are proving me right, again.
What happens in nature can be different than what happens with a manmade device. Look at the word “laser”. It is the acronym for “Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation”. Notice Amplification and Stimulation. Such actions are “manmade”. The actions require both “design” and “external energy”. Even the emitted wavelengths can be adjusted.
A laser has NOTHING to do with the GHE. You are lost in your pseudoscience.
But, it’s fun to watch.
More please.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Geran. The CO2 laser is actually somewhere between a maser and a laser so for convenience sake everybody calls it a laser, I’m surprised you didn’t know that. Tut tut. As for laser beams you do surprise me that they are manmade and don’t occur in nature, thank you for that information. What will you come up with next to avoid and distract yourself or others from the vexatious question as to whether or not IR, even at 10um, when absorbed causes a heating effect, I was sure that was a universally accepted property of IR. So yes the 10um radiation emitted by CO2 will have a warming effect when absorbed by the Earth’s surface and that action is known by the misnomer Greenhouse Effect by most informed and open-minded scientists and yes it adds very, very, very, slightly to average daytime temperatures and reduces cooling rates at night also very slightly. Your bluster about lasers not being a natural occurrence is exactly that, trying to evade the truth of the matter that 10um or 15um IR or whatever IR wavelength you prefer will exert a warming effect when they are absorbed. That’s what IR does and that’s what the GHE is. Get over it. Time to move on.
geran
| #
That’s hilarious, Harrison.
You keep trying to push a laser as being relevant to the GHE! That demonstrates how little you know. You have become infatuated with a 10 µ photon, not realizing that an ice cube emits a 10.7 µ photon at the peak of its spectrum. It’s as if you’re trying to heat the planet with ice cubes.
Then, to top it off, you try to prove me wrong by making up things. Your desperation is even funnier than your ignorance.
Most entertaining.
More please.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi John,
A laser gets its power because of harmonics where there is no interference between the light waves and there power/amplitude combine, which doesn’t happen in natural light. It is the same as when a small repeated gust of wind blows a bridge down.
Herb
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Herb. I do know how CO2 lasers operate but some people do not really appreciate just how warming 10um IR can be unless considered at high intensity. Then as I was trying to explain to Geran we can start to consider what happens as you reduce that intensity by several orders of magnitude. The heating effect is greatly diminished but it is still there and fades into insignificance when considered along with the effects of sunlight, water vapour, convection and conduction. I see no problem GHE in itself only with the supposed magnitude of the effect, along with associated forcings, unscientifically claimed and certainly not proven by alarmists.
tom0mason
| #
Just 2 observations about CO2 lasers —
1. They require an external source of power.
2. They are not very efficient at converting the external power into IR laser output (in a range of less than 10% to nearly 20%).
(see https://www.daenotes.com/electronics/microwave-radar/co2-gas-laser and wikipedia)
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Josh,
First, hopefully this comment will end up near your comment.
If you had high school physics and are curious about what Geran ours here at PSI argue, I assume you probably also had high school chemistry. Physics and Chemistry are the two fundamental physical sciences. Hopefully, you learned in these two courses that physicists study physical phenomena and attempt to understand (explain) these physical phenomena and chemists study matter, using the physicists physical phenomena to understand (explain) matter and the changes it (matter) undergoes.
Now, Geran stated: “Study established physics, especially including heat transfer, thermodynamics, and quantum physics.” Now, the most critical is the new phenomena of quantum physics.
If you had both chemistry and physics in high school, I expect you learned the physics is more mathematical than chemistry. You only have to be able to do algebra in chemistry but the minimum level of mathematics needed for physics is the calculus invented by Newton. And the level of mathematics required for quantum physics goes beyond calculus.
So you should ask: ‘Jerry, why did you just say that the new phenomena of quantum physics is the most critical?’
The scattering of radiation (including visible solar radiation) by tiny ‘bodies’ of matter is a new phenomena not yet understood (explained) by Arrhenius. After all, the chemist, John Dalton (a school teacher) had only given us the ATOM less than a century earlier via the results of quantitative chemical experiments. I hope you studied this history in a high school chemistry class which involved first the discovery of the scientific law of the conservation of mass and then the law of constant composition of chemical compounds like carbon dioxide. And it was this second law which forced the conclusion that matter was composed of indivisible particles of matter–atoms. But before this chemists (better known in their time as alchemists) had discovered that elementary matter was not earth, water, air, and fire as most intelligent people had considered for nearly 2000 years.
So, chemists, via experimental results involving simple molecules like carbon dioxide and water and other molecules that the atoms of matter had to have a geometric ‘structure’. And there was no model of an atom which explained how it was that atoms had a geometric structure until Erwin Schrodinger, a physicist, assumed that the electron of the simplest atom (hydrogen–a proton and a electron) and applied the mathematics of radiation to this simple model and discovered that the hydrogen atom had geometry. These theory, that an electron, a particle of matter having mass and electric charge, could behave as if it were light (radiation) is the only theory, of which I am aware, that gives an atom a geometrical property.
I stop here to allow you to possibly tell me: ‘I already knew that from my high school chemistry and physics classes.’
Have a good day, Jerry .
Reply
Josh
| #
Yo Geran, I see you are one of the chief criticisers around here. I’m keen to read some article that you think is correct. I’m new here, and have only high school physics, so something that explains the physics simply and concisely would be great, including a treatment of why the mainstream view is wrong.
Oh, and less of the name calling would also be good. It diminishes the respectability and impact of this whole site.
Reply
geran
| #
Hi Josh. Since you’re new here, you may not know that I am not one that uses such tactics as name-calling. I criticize pseudoscience, yes, but that’s not personal. But, when they attack me personally, I do respond accordingly.
If you want to investigate the IPCC/AGW/GHE/CO2 pseudoscience, the first place to start is with the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation. That equation was conjured up. It has no mathematical derivation or empirical support. The equation violates the laws of physics. It is pure pseudoscience.
Study established physics, especially including heat transfer, thermodynamics, and quantum physics. Follow the articles and comments here, and at Joseph Postma’s blog. Postma is a patient teacher, if you’re sincerely trying to learn. Avoid lukewarmer sites, as they will mislead you.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Josh,
The best place to start is:
http://phzoe.com/2020/03/04/dumbest-math-theory-ever/
Reply
chris
| #
There is no denying ghe as it doesn’t exist. There still hasn’t been any experiments conducted that show that co2 sends ir light that reaches it back the way it came. If you have one, share it. The purpose behind co2 in the laser is to remove heat from the light source so that it doesn’t over heat. Fluxes don’t add and energy only flows from higher energy to lower.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Chris. I’m sorry but your comments seem to make no sense at all to me. Are you sure that you know what you are talking about. Of course GHE exists and only those who deliberately misunderstand the process claim, mistakenly, that it cannot happen because “it contravenes the Laws of Thermodynamics” Of course it doesn’t. Those who say that a cold object cannot raise the temperature of a warmer object are simply stating the obvious but in doing so demonstrate zero understanding of the so-called GHE.
Reply
geran
| #
Harrison, the GHE, as defined by the IPCC, does NOT exist. CO2 does NOT warm the surface. CO2 does NOT “slow the cooling”.
Chris did not do a good job with his sentence structure, this time, but he knows that CO2 is NOT capable of “heating the planet”. Something you have yet to learn.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Geran:
CO2 does NOT warm the surface. CO2 does NOT “slow the cooling”.
James:
All of the atmosphere, including the CO2 thereof, slows the cooling of the surface.
However, what the IPCC doesn’t want the public to know is that the contribution by CO2 is miniscule–insignificant.
James McGinn / Genius
What Causes Streaming in the Atmosphere?
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/What-Causes-Streaming-in-the-Atmosphere-eai2jq
chris
| #
James – it’s the temp of the atmosphere that determines the rate of cooling of the surface.
chris
| #
John – Geran is right that I don’t always explain myself the best. And yet again no one who believes in ghe shows anything that proves ghe. No experiments demonstrate that fluxes add. This is the corner stone of ghe. There is a reason why a person has to believe in ghe, it’s because it isn’t real. I’m willing to change my position, I just need to see some evidence that demonstrates it.
If two objects of different temps are brought toghether, what is the highest that the temp will get between them? Say that they are 100C and 80C. Would the highest that the temp can reach be 100C?
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Chris. My apologies for my apparent rudeness I am so used to responding to the likes of Squidly, Geran and Geraint who like to put up a good show of knowing all about global warming but the way they avoid scientific discussion makes me think otherwise. To answer your question about heat transfer. Assuming both objects were suspended in a vacuum then both objects would radiate energy in the form of infrared radiation (IR) Both objects would absorb the IR emitted by the other. The hotter object will be emitting energy at a greater rate than it absorbs so it will cool but the absorbed radiation will make it cool more slowly. The colder object will absorb IR energy at a greater rate than it is emitting so it’s temperature will rise. The Earth is warmed by the Sun’s radiation and cools by radiation into the near-vacuum of space. The arguments of “luke-warmers” like myself are that if some of the radiated heat is “reflected” back (absorbed thn re-radiated) and absorbed by the Earth along with the usual amount of the Sun’s radiation then as the total rate of energy absorption at the Earth’s surface is increased then average temperature must rise (ever-so slightly) until the rate of emission once again equals the total rate of absorption. That is a highly simplified narrative of luke-warmers but those who do not like luke-warmers would claim that the Laws of Thermodynamics are in some way being contravened but I have yet to receive a convincing explanation why this would be. Something about cold carbon dioxide raising the temperature of warm Earth. You must make your own judgement when you have given due consideration to both sides of the argument.
chris
| #
Hi John, and what experiment shows that if the two objects are in a vacuum that the hotter one will lose heat slower because it is accepting energy from a lower energy? In order to discover this, one of the items would have to be timed for cooling, then the manner that you described. However, the better argument would be that both items are increasing the temp of their environment. According to the Stefan Boltzmann law the energy loss to its environment slows as the temps reach equilibrium. This is ordinary thermodynamics. Something has to be demonstrated in order to prove that a hotter object is absorbing energy from a colder object. So far no such experiment exists. The better view here is that as the temp of the air is increased, the rate at which the Earth can give off energy is decreased. The SB law says that the energy density is found between an object and its colder environment.
Now here is the answer to my question about fluxes. Assume emmissivity = 1. An object at 100C emmits 1097.5W/m2. 80C emmits at 880.4W/m2. If we sum the fluxes = 1977.9W/m2 which is 159C. Thermodynamics says that an object cannot raise the temp of another object beyond its own temp. So yes, ghe violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Jonas
| #
Please clarify the statement “Roughly less than 10% of the infrared flux that falls within the absorption bands of CO2 will be absorbed”.
Maybee I do not understand you paper fully, but to me it looks as if you calculate the absorption length for different absorption bands, but how do you reach the conclusion about 10%?
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
Lasers? Did somebody mention CO2 lasers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser
“The population inversion in the laser is achieved by the following sequence: electron impact excites the {v1(1)} vibrational mode quantum state of the nitrogen. Because nitrogen is a homonuclear molecule, it cannot lose this energy by photon emission, and its excited vibrational modes are therefore metastable and relatively long-lived. N2{v1(1)} and CO2{v3(1)} being nearly perfectly resonant (total molecular energy differential is within 3 cm-1 when accounting for N2 anharmonicity, centrifugal distortion and vibro-rotational interaction, which is more than made up for by the Maxwell speed distribution of translational-mode energy), N2 collisionally de-excites by transferring its vibrational mode energy to the CO2 molecule, causing the carbon dioxide to excite to its {v3(1)} (asymmetric stretch) vibrational mode quantum state. The CO2 then radiatively emits at either 10.6 μm[i] by dropping to the {v1(1)} (symmetric-stretch) vibrational mode, or 9.6 μm[i] by dropping to the {v20(2)} (bending) vibrational mode. The carbon dioxide molecules then transition to their {v20(0)} vibrational mode ground state from {v1(1)} or {v20(2)} by collision with cold helium atoms, thus maintaining population inversion. The resulting hot helium atoms must be cooled in order to sustain the ability to produce a population inversion in the carbon dioxide molecules. In sealed lasers, this takes place as the helium atoms strike the walls of the laser discharge tube. In flow-through lasers, a continuous stream of CO2 and nitrogen is excited by the plasma discharge and the hot gas mixture is exhausted from the resonator by pumps.”
In short, by expending a lot of energy a population inversion can be created in CO2 that lases from higher levels at 10.6 and 9.4 microns, and can be amplified in a cavity to create a narrow collimated beam of high power. This has nothing to do with natural uncollimated Planck radiation absorption/emission at 15 microns.
10.6 microns corresponds to 0C (32F). 9.4 microns corresponds to 35C (95F). A CO2 laser aimed at water will penetrate only 20 microns, but since it’s collimated or focused and at high power it can raise the temperature of individual atoms via energy transfer before they can shed the heat and thus vaporize water or tissue, making it good for removing warts, but not for making coffee because of the great power waste.
This is not how a microwave oven works. It uses uncollimated 122,000 micron (12.2 cm) radiation (0.023K) that can’t heat anything via Planck radiation absorption, but if the field is strong enough the dipole water molecules will rotate to align with the field, so since the field oscillates, the water molecules will spin, heating up from pure friction, like rubbing two sticks together, heating the molecules up to the boiling point of 100C (212F) and vaporizing. No surprise, the optimal microwave frequency to match water’s spinning speed is 2.44GHz (12.2 cm). Either way, 100,000 micron radiation can’t melt an ice cube from Planck absorption any more than 15 micron radiation unless it’s from some kind of laser not Nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven
http://tobyzerner.com/microwaves/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3999431/
Too bad, atmospheric CO2’s Planck radiation isn’t collimated and is all at 15 microns, and any that strikes Earth’s surface will bounce off or be absorbed by the surface molecules, which will always be held to the same temperature as the surroundings by conduction from the surrounding molecules, making global warming impossible. What a laugh to claim that CO2 heats the oceans, when it’s clearly caused by the elephant in the room, namely, the Sun.
https://www.nature.com/articles/232131a0
How many ways can you flog a dead horse? Check the log books. You can’t handle the truth. You’re damned right I did 🙂
There’s now too great free online New Real Climate Science courses available, mine and James G. Matkin’s:
http://www.historyscoper.com/newrealclimatesciencecourse.html
http://www.historyscoper.com/matkinclimatescienceencyclopedia.html
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hello PSI and many, many thanks to TL Winslow!
TL you have made my Day even Week/Year!
I have been picking up stones looking for answers to the fundamental way that water (H20) behaves as it heats and cools. I have known for some time that H20 is a miss understood substance. It hates being alone and when alone it has the ability to combine with just about anything it comes in contact with.
That being said I first came across one of the strange properties of H20 in 1959 when I was a radar technician working on a piece of equipment ‘Cloud and Collision Warning’ by E K Cole as used in Comet II aircraft so they could avoid turbulent air and it was extraordinarily effective. The equipment emitted high power (1.5MW pulses 1microsec wide at about 8000Mhertz. The reflected energy was sufficient to show on the radar trace. It painted pictures of clouds in front of the aircraft, if the reflected energy was high the equipment punched holes in that image and the pilot knew to avoid those clouds.
Those clouds were reacting to the radar pulse exactly as you describe the water molecules when heated by a micro-wave oven.
I will spend quite a lot of time reading the papers referenced in your links.
Thank you very much.
Michael Logician
Reply
John Harrison
| #
TL. Thank you for a full and complete narrative on the operation of the CO2 laser and very informative too. However, the illustration using such a beast was show that IR wavelengths of any order can have a distinct heating effect be it 10um or perhaps 15um if you wish to consider normal gaseous CO2 emissions and can indeed, if sufficiently intense, raise temperatures. It follows that no matter what the intensity absorption of IR, no matter what the wavelength, has a warming tendency. You yourself have stated:
“any that strikes Earth’s surface will bounce off or be absorbed by the surface molecules, which will always be held to the same temperature as the surroundings by conduction from the surrounding molecules, making global warming impossible” The key phrase is “or be absorbed by the surface” that is the essence of the GHE some of the emitted energy will be re-absorbed and any absorption must exert a warming effect. That is why I would be classed as a luke-warmist because I accept that such does not contravene any laws of physics and will happen. However, you summarily dismiss it
[The Earth’s surface] “which will always be held to the same temperature as the surroundings by conduction from the surrounding molecules, making global warming impossible”
I agree with you entirely but it is not good science unless you provide the necessary evidence on which those “gut feelings” are based. It seems that perhaps you too can be classed as a luke-warmer until you assess the magnitudes and effects of the processes in the manner which proper science demands.
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
[[However, the illustration using such a beast was show that IR wavelengths of any order can have a distinct heating effect be it 10um or perhaps 15um if you wish to consider normal gaseous CO2 emissions and can indeed, if sufficiently intense, raise temperatures. It follows that no matter what the intensity absorption of IR, no matter what the wavelength, has a warming tendency.]]
Zonk! IR can only heat a material with molecules that absorb at its wavelength. For far IR that means mostly water. It will bounce off most other materials, and a few will pass it through, like glass. Merely absorbing radiation doesn’t mean a “warming tendency”. For normal inverse square law radiation such as Planck radiation where equilibrium thermodynamics applies, low temperature radiation can’t raise the temperature of a hotter body. Only lasers with narrow intense collimated beams can get around that with non-equilibrium thermodynamics and cause instantaneous vaporization, and then only of outer layers of molecules of water. You can bounce an optical laser around a ring of mirrors all day without heating anything. Nothing about this has anything to do with atmospheric CO2-driven global warming. CO2 sky radiation is only supposed to be 3 watts/sq m, which can’t melt an ice cube. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
Reply
John Harrison
| #
TL. I would have to take you to task on one phrase..
“always be held to the same temperature as the surroundings by conduction from the surrounding molecules”.
This would be torn apart by any half way decent alarmist. If neighbouring conduct heat away they themselves must be heated in turn. You are a very good scientist I would guess but perhaps a little sloppy in precision and perhaps a tendency to dismiss what you feel is the obvious without appreciating that is not proof.
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
When 15 micron radiation hits the Earth’s surface, it either bounces off or is absorbed, but as the surface is usually way hotter than -80C it can’t raise its temperature. Instead its miniscule energy will either be immediately reemitted or absorbed by surrounding molecules via conduction to maximize entropy, but do diddly to raise the temperature.. If it can’t raise the temperature it can’t raise the temperature. The surface is constantly emitting 15 micron wavelength radiation caused by solar radiation, and that swamps out anything from atmospheric CO2, so it will just cycle the additional 15 micron wavelength energy through the pump and stay at the same temperature. No matter what happens to it, 15 microns isn’t even in the normal weather range, it’s dry ice temperature, and for the IPCC hoaxers to want to take over the world to stop CO2 emissions is a sick hoax designed to fool suckers.
Only a 15 micron laser with an intense collimated beam could maybe vaporize some outer water molecules, since water’s absorption spectrum covers that region, plus a CO2 laser doesn’t emit 15 micron radiation and the sky is fresh out of CO2 lasers.
If only CO2’s absorption/emission wavelength were 7.766 microns, corresponding to 100C.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
TL. Come on TL you know very well that if a surface can emit a particular wavelength then it will also absorb it. The emission spectrum of the Earths surface extends to wavelengths much longer than 10 or 15um and therefore so will the wavelengths that it will absorb. You know that as well as I do. You also know that when a surface absorbs IR then it is “thermalised” that’s what IR does. We are agreed that the effect will probably be pretty pathetic but you cannot just say that is your gut feeling, that is not science. You would need to determine the total rate of energy transferred by back-radiation then determine what happens to that energy it cannot just magically disappear and, like it or not some of it will be absorbed by the Earth’s surface. You then need to determine what proportion of the back radiation is absorbed and hence the total energy transferred and then you can make a pretty good estimate as to what the likely heating effect might be (if any). I have read your blogs and I see that you claim to be a genius which I don’t doubt but please use your genius to solve the above and then get back to me because it is well beyond my capabilities.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
TL. You are making the same mistake as many others by relating the wavelength to a precise temperature which cannot be applied to the release of internal energy. As explained previously if there is sufficient 10 or 15um radiation incident on and absorbed by a surface the temperature of that surface will rise. Do you still doubt that? The Earth’s surface is more than capable of absorbing these wavelength as shown by examination of it’s emission spectrum. You need figures before you make a valid pronouncement or conclusion. Bluster does not wash.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
TL. You are making the same mistake as many others by relating the wavelength to a precise temperature which cannot be applied to the release of internal energy. As explained previously if there is sufficient 10 or 15um radiation incident on and absorbed by a surface the temperature of that surface will rise. Do you still doubt that? The Earth’s surface is more than capable of absorbing these wavelength as shown by examination of it’s emission spectrum. You need figures before you make a valid pronouncement or conclusion. Bluster does not wash.
Reply
geran
| #
Harrison, you’re still trying to bake a turkey with ice cubes.
And, it’s still not working for you.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
D. I’m confused as to which part in particular that my explanations contravene the second law of thermodynamics. Could you explain in a little more detail? This seems to be the resort of all those who object to luke-warmers but they all generally come down to some (deliberate?) misinterpretation of what is being described.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi John,
The problem is that luke-warmers believe that the thermometer gives an accurate indication of the kinetic energy in a gas. It can’t even give accurate measurements of kinetic energy in water, which is used to calibrate it. (0 C water has more kinetic energy than 0 C ice. !00c steam has more kinetic energy than 100 C water.) In order to compare the kinetic energy of gas molecules at different altitudes you need to use the universal gas law. As the density of gas molecules decreases with increasing altitude it is because the kinetic energy of the molecules increase. The GHE violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics because the CO2 in the atmosphere have more energy than the molecules on the surface of the Earth.
Herb
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Reading Harrisons replies to the regulars just confirmed to me what i thought when i read the article.
The man is a weapons grade smug twat, pushing the cold warms hot ”intellectual” ideology.
Reply
Bevan Dockery
| #
A simple test of the Greenhouse Effect warming the Earth is to walk out into the open on a sunny day. Your body will feel warmed from the direction of the Sun and nowhere else yet the UN IPCC 5th Assessment Report shows twice as much energy per square metre radiating down from the sky, the Greenhouse Effect, as arriving from the Sun. Stand in the shade with an open view of the sky above and you will not feel any warmth arriving from the sky above, just the local ambient temperature everywhere. Feel the temperature of objects in the shade. They will have the local ambient temperature yet objects out in the Sun will be warmer than the ambient temperature due to being heated by the Sun.
As there is no warming to be detected from the sky above, there no reason to accept the UN IPCC thesis of a Greenhouse Effect.
Cattle know this, that is why they stand aligned North-South on a cold day. If there was a Greenhouse Effect they would stand in random directions receiving the Greenhouse radiation on their backs. Termites know this when they build their ‘magnetic’ mounds pointing North-South. If there was a Greenhouse Effect they would spread their nest horizontally across the ground and save making all of that effort to build the nest upwards of a metre or two. When will we learn?
Please do the experiment before posting an answer.
Reply