The Much Misunderstood Climate Issue of CO2 Infrared Absorption
Professor W.J.Witteman [Ref. 1] provides a detailed account of the absorption of thermal emission from the Earth surface by atmospheric CO2. He found that at atmospheric temperatures only a few low-lying vibrational bands of CO2 are relevant. Further, it stated that “Especially the absorbed radiation power by the ground state bending mode at about 15 microns is dominant.”
The Conclusion states “The absorption of thermal emission from the earth by CO2 occurs at wavelengths around 15, 5 and 4.3 microns.”
HITRAN CO2 absorption spectrum
For this study, a spectrum for CO2 was calculated using the HITRAN web site facility [Ref.2] for the parameters of temperature of 12̊C and pressure 0.945 atmospheres being the estimated average conditions at about 500 metres above sea level. The result is shown in Figure 1. The section between wavenumbers 400 to 2600 cm-1 is that referred to in Witteman [Ref.1] as the region of absorption of the thermal emission from the earth.
Figure 1.
The calculated HITRAN spectrum listing gave the major peaks as:
a. wavenumber 667.661 cm-1 , that is, wavelength 14.9777 microns,
frequency 20.016 Tera Hz, amplitude 3.061 x 10-19 cm/mol,
b. wavenumber 2361.47 cm-1 ,that is, wavelength 4.2347 microns,
frequency 70.795 Tera Hz, amplitude 3.642 x 10-18 cm/mol,
c. wavenumber 3727.08 cm-1 ,that is, wavelength 2.6831 microns,
frequency 111.74 Tera Hz, amplitude 6.092 x 10-20 cm/mol,
d. wavenumber 4989.97 cm-1 ,that is, wavelength 2.0040 microns,
frequency 149.6 Tera Hz, amplitude 1.356 x 10-21 cm/mol.
From inspection of the HITRAN listing, the absorption bands were chosen by taking one thousandth of the peak line intensity as their outer limits. This gave the absorption band limits to be:
a. 13.26 to 17.07 microns,
b. 4.189 to 4.377 microns,
c. 2.663 to 2.823 microns, and
d. 1.995 to 2.036 microns.
Earth’s thermal radiation
Applying these values to the Planck function for an average Earth temperature of 15̊C (288̊K) gave the following energy values for the respective absorption bands:
a. energy density 9.174 x 10-7 Joules per cubic metre, being 0.176 of the total emission and a photon density of 6.917 x 10+13 photons per cubic metre,
b. energy density 5.618 x 10-9 J/cu.m., being 0.00108 of the total emission and a photon density of 1.198 x 10+11 photons per cu. m.,
c. energy density 6.447 x 10-11 J/cu.m., being 1.24 x 10-5 of the total emission and a photon density of 8.708 x 10+8 photons per cu. m.,
d. energy density 1.081 x 10-13 J/cu.m., being 2.077 x 10-8 of the total emission and a photon density of 1.091 x 10+6 photons per cu. m.,
for a total photon density of 6.929 x 10+13 photons per cu. m. of which the 15 micron band dominates with 99.83% of the total.
Thus the only absorption and re-emission by atmospheric CO2 of any consequence must be the photons in the 15 micron band.
The source temperatures that radiate at the CO2 absorption peaks are:
a. 193.5̊K, ie. -79.5̊C,
b. 685̊K, ie. 412̊C,
c. 1080̊K, ie. 807̊C, and
d. 1446̊K, ie. 1173̊C.
Since 99.83% of the photons that may be absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 molecules will be from the 15 micron absorption band and these represent radiation from a source at 193.5̊K, they will not heat the Earth at its average surface temperature of 288̊K. Only radiation of a wavelength less that 10.06 microns, the peak of radiation from a source at 288̊K, will cause heating of the Earth – Second Law of Thermodynamics. The probability of an atmospheric CO2 molecule absorbing radiation in one of the three shorter wavelength, ‘hot’, bands is insignificant.
Temperatures of less than 193.5̊K, ie. -79.5̊C, occur occasionally in Antarctica and the surface there is too cold to produce any significant radiation in the three shorter wavelength absorption bands.
Sun’s radiation
Applying the same absorption bands to the Planck function for the Sun’s radiation at 5772̊K adjusted by a divisor of 46,238.8 to provide for the decrease in intensity by the square of the distance apart, gave the following energy values for the respective absorption bands at the Earth’s average distance from the Sun:
a. energy density 3.0256 x 10-9 Joules per cubic metre, being 1.661 x 10-4 of the total emission and a photon density of 2.2812 x 10+11 photons per cubic metre,
b. energy density 1.789 x 10-8 J/cu.m., being 9.8506 x 10-4 of the total emission and a photon density of 3.8137 x 10+11 photons per cu. m.,
c. energy density 7.5175 x 10-8 J/cu.m., being 4.139 x 10-3 of the total emission and a photon density of 1.0154 x 10+12 photons per cu. m.,
d. energy density 5.53 x 10-8 J/cu.m., being 3.046 x 10-3 of the total emission and a photon density of 5.5789 x 10+11 photons per cu. m.
All three of the shorter wavelength, ‘hot’, absorption bands have greater energy density emanating from the Sun than that from the Earth. The greenhouse effect would apply equally well to this incoming radiation and should have caused the Earth to cool as the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increased due to an increase in the amount of radiation back into space before it could warm the Earth.
Molecular density:
In the abstract, Witteman [Ref.1], it states:
“Roughly, only 10% 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.”
Further on in the text, it states:
“The air density is about 2.78 x 1019 molecules per cm3. The present content of CO2 is 400 ppm or 0.04% so that NCO2 = 1.1 x 1016 cm3. At atmospheric temperatures practically all molecules are in the vibrational ground state.”
The total photon density from the four emission bands is shown above to be of 6.929 x 10+7 photons per cm3, that is, one photon for every 158,750,000 CO2 molecules. The effect of the absorption and re-emission of the Earth’s radiation at this rate of photons must be completely insignificant as is the current rate of increase in CO2 of 3.4 ppm per annum.
Conclusion:
The Executive Summary, page xi, of the UN IPCC report “Climate Change – The IPCC Scientific Assessment” 1990, stated:
“We calculate with confidence that:
-
some gases are potentially more effective than others at changing climate, and their relative effectiveness can be estimated Carbon dioxide has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect in the past, and is likely to remain so in the future.”
Then in the Policymaker’s Summary, page xiii, it stated:
“ What natural factors are important? ……..
One of the most important factors is the greenhouse effect, a simplified explanation of which is as follows – Short-wave solar radiation can pass through the clear atmosphere relatively unimpeded. But long-wave terrestrial radiation emitted by the warm surface of the Earth is partially absorbed and then re-emitted by a number of trace gases in the cooler atmosphere above. Since, on average, the outgoing long wave radiation balances the incoming solar radiation both the atmosphere and the surface will be warmer than they would be without the greenhouse gases”
Later reports have continued on this theme with an emphasis on the dire consequences that will arise from global warming and the associated climate change.
This analysis has shown that the greenhouse effect arising from the dominant long wavelength CO2 absorption band emanating from the Earth’s surface at 288̊K cannot cause warming of the atmosphere or the surface, but perhaps cooling.
Radiation back into space from the shorter wavelength CO2 absorption bands, emitted from the Sun, should have caused the Earth’s temperature to decrease as the CO2 concentration increased.
Within the limits of measurement, neither of these events have taken place thereby negating the UN IPCC proposition that CO2 has caused global warming or climate change. The factor of the order of 108 between the CO2 molecular density in the atmosphere relative to the photon emission from the Earth’s surface shows why there is no measurable effect. This supports the findings from the analysis of climate data from stations across the globe that have shown that the atmospheric temperature is independent of the CO2 concentration but correlates with the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration due to climate change driving the change in CO2.
Update:
On 22 October 2020, the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa Observatory was 412.05 ppm. That equates to a density of 1.145 x 10+16 molecules of CO2 per cubic centimetre. The four main absorption bands for CO2 emit 6.929 x 10+7 photons per cm3, that is, one photon for every 165,300,000 CO2 molecules from Planck’s law for a source temperature of 15̊C. Consequently all of the radiation from the four bands emitted from the Earth’s surface for an average temperature of 15̊C would have been absorbed within a few hundred metres of the surface, leaving the vast majority of the CO2 molecules in their vibrational ground state.
Increasing or decreasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration by a few hundred ppm would make no difference to this outcome other than decreasing or increasing the altitude at which complete absorption takes place. This supports earlier results from the analysis of data at a number of CO2 stations across the globe that satellite lower troposphere temperature was independent of the CO2 concentration. It also negates the current reason to stop the use of fossil fuel and shows that the CO2 climate sensitivity metric used in climate simulation computer models is unwarranted, which is one reason why the model predictions are always wrong.
Furthermore the main absorption peak for CO2 is at a wavelength of 14.97 microns, the peak for radiation from a source at -79.5̊C. That would likely cause cooling of the atmosphere, not warming except for the fact that the amount of energy involved is infinitesimal when spread through the Earth’s troposphere.
The UN IPCC, the Greens and the Socialist Left have caused unnecessary pain, anguish and expense with their unjustified claim that increasing CO2 concentration has been the cause of the increase in the Earth’s atmospheric temperature over the past century as the Earth recovered from the Little Ice Age.
References:
- W.J.Witteman, The absorption of thermal emitted infrared radiation by CO2.
https://principia-scientific.org/the-absorption-of-thermal-emitted-infrared-radiation-by-co2/
- HITRAN website, http://www.hitran.ioa.ru , a collaboration between
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CFA), Cambridge, MA, USA,
V.E. Zuev Insitute of Atmosperic Optics (IAO), Tomsk, Russia
National Research Tomsk State University (TSU), Tomsk, Russia
About the author: Bevan Dockery, B.Sc.(Hons), Grad. Dip. Computing, retired geophysicist, formerly: Fellow of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists, Member of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Member of the European Association of Exploration Geophysicists, Member of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
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.
Alan
| #
The claimed evidence for climate change is based on changes to the average temperature of the earth’s surface. It does not matter how much radiation from the earth’s surface is absorbed by the atmosphere and how much is then returned to the surface. It is impossible for the returned radiation to cause further heating of the surface. The laws of thermodynamics apply.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
That is the fun of junk science, it can be disproved in multiple ways. Not only is there no gas at any concentration that can worm the surface, the spec idic gases they demonize simply cannot do what they say. It would be the same as building a dog pen for my new puppy by putting up three widely spaced posts and calling it a pen, with no fencing.
We have to stop talking about the greenhouse effect, as it is a propaganda term made up to pretend atmospheric gases are acting on the climate. Gravitational compression that creates our basic temperature (just as it does on Venus) and then solar input (insolation), radiative processes (the largest of which is the huge global water cycle heat engine) and ocean cycles that move the needle up or down.
I calculated three years ago that CO2 has only three IR bands, equivalent to -80, 400, and 800 deg C and it was nice to see very similar numbers here—I am a biochemist and venturing carefully into thermodynamics.
At global temperatures, CO2 will ALWAYS be emitting -80 deg C IR and thus constantly trying to cool the planet. Notice how fast the air chills down after sundown or how fast little breezes kick up in the fast-moving shadows of clouds on a sunny day with scudding clouds—easy evidence that these “radiative gases” (CO2 and water vapor) serve to cool the planet. During daytime, they are saturated with insolation and thus have no effect, except, possibly to deflect some insolation from reaching the surface again cooling the climate.
It also turns out to be the world’s best refrigerant for purpose in refrigeration. What a great thing, a nontoxic, stable, cheap, and nonflammable refrigerant. Mercedes Benz is using CO2 in their new auto A/C and a number of new skating rinks are using only CO2.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Charles,
A day ago I asked Bevan: “Have you ever used one of the inexpensive IR thermometers now commonly available to measure the temperature of the sky?”
He has not yet answered this question. So I ask you the same question to see if you will answer it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Chris
| #
The problem is that since there is the two bottles experiment there will be those who believe that there is the greenhouse effect. They will only listen to those who say that the greenhouse gas effect is real. These scientists take advantage of the ignorant through this experiment. They do not interpret the results. The only interpretation is the vague co2 causes one bottle to be hotter than the other.
A better interpretation is that since the temp diff between the hotter and colder bottles is only about 2C that means that about 50% co2 causes 1C temp increase. The atmosphere becomes poisonous to humans at around 10% and there currently is only about .04%. So before we would see a 1C rise in temp in the atmosphere due to co2 increases humans would be extinct. Therefore all temp rise in the atmosphere is due to something else.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Bevan,
Have you ever used one of the inexpensive IR thermometers now commonly available to measure the temperature of the sky? In 1966 R.C. Sutcliffe, meteorologist wrote (Weather and Climate): “Long-wave radiation from the earth, the invisible heat rays, is by contrast totally absorbed by quite a thin layer of clouds and, by the same token, the clouds themselves emit heat continuously according to their temperatures, almost as though they were black black bodies.”
I do not claim that all that Sutcliffe wrote is necessarily valid, but I have to ask: have you considered any possible influence by clouds upon the transmission of the radiation emitted by the earth through the ‘natural’ cloudy atmosphere to space?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Bevan Dockery
| #
No Jerry, I have never used an IR thermometer. In my Physics laboratory practise it was all mercury thermometers. However, since then I have used magnetometers, gravity meters, gamma spectrometers and more in the hope of detecting what is under the Earth’s surface.
As all matter absorbs and emits radiation in proportion to its temperature, clouds must do likewise and so affect the atmosphere in general, dependent on the local conditions in a complex fashion. As the water absorption spectrum overlaps that of CO2, presumably it reduces the effect from CO2 ?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Bevan,
If you want to see what’s under the earth’s surface, why didn’t you first dig a hole like the North Dakota geologist John P. Bluemle did during his career. Or better yet, go to https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/ where there are automated weather stations which have continuously measured and reported the average surface temperature for the previous hour as well the maximum and minimum surface temperatures for the previous hour. And then go to the the soil temperatures that are measured and reported each hour at the soil depths of 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 cms.
And then, after you have studied the surface temperatures and the five soil temperatures for each hour of a 24 hour day, or two, at several sites during each of the four seasons, report back to the readers of PSI the results of your study. A very simple exercise which will take an investment of your time. But a good scientist needs to be willing to invest a lot of time if he/she is to be successful.
The data is there just waiting for someone besides myself to study it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
As I understand it, cheap, readily available thermopiles are designed to meet an industrial demand for infrared thermometers that exclude radiation by water vapor and CO2, precisely the parts of the IR wavelength spectrum needed to gauge climatic absorption and emission. The market specifically demands that they do not measure the infrared radiation absorbed by either gas, so most infrared thermometers measure only the infrared range from 8 to 14 micrometers, leaving only a very truncated radiant energy range for atmospheric purposes. They were developed for industrial use to quickly measure temperature of objects moving on a production belt or for the calcining of concrete, and they need to exclude as much as possible of the extraneous wavelengths absorbed and emitted by atmospheric water vapor and CO2.
And no matter how much they could be improved, infrared thermometers cannot replicate the Earth’s actual rate of energy loss or gain by thermal radiation amidst major concurrent transfer mechanisms. The Earth’s surface loses more energy by the additional combined effects of water evaporation, thermals and adiabatic convection currents than by thermal radiation – much more than the instrument can sense. These cheap convenient thermopiles best serve the consensus goal by minimizing the effect of Earth’s non-radiant thermal mechanisms. So whatever rate of energy loss the IR thermometers measure, they are a poor reflection the Earth’s surface loss of energy – water doesn’t evaporate from them, and convection currents don’t affect them, and they can’t sense much less calibrate the energy release of thermals.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Nice, Bevan.
The fact that one needs to input Pressure + Temperature to get absorption is the biggest tell of all.
There is ZERO evidence that absorption determines the 2 things needed for it.
Reply
Weekly_rise
| #
I agree that the issue of CO2 absorption is much misunderstood. However, I am not sure that this article helps to resolve the confusion.
CO2 does absorb most strongly in the 15 micron range. We do see that atmospheric emission to space in this wavelength occurs at cold temperatures (i.e. at high altitude). However, radiation received at earth’s surface from the atmosphere does not come only from the topmost layer, so it is first wrong on its face to say that radiation emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere is only coming from very cold temperatures – emission is occurring in every layer. It is also incorrect to claim that this radiation somehow violates the second law of thermodynamics, since the net flow of heat is always from the surface to the atmosphere to space.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
It’s also wrong to say there’s a two-way flow of photons. Photons only flow from hot to cold. The “net” is the only thing happening.
Reply
Weekly_rise
| #
Do you have a source for this? I’m not aware of any physical mechanism that prevents photons emitted from a colder object from being absorbed by a warmer object. All matter above absolute zero is emitting photons that are being absorbed by other matter, hot objects just emit photons more quickly than cold objects so it is impossible for there to be a net flow of photons from cold to hot.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
That’s a philosphical position, not a scientific one.
Planck had ONE wave per wavelength between two opposing walls in his cavity.
He was able to derive photon density in a cavity using only this. Believing in two-way photon flow doubles the photon density, and renders his formula incorrect. He is not incorrect!
The aimless photon theory has no scientific basis, despite its rhetorical popularity.
There is also NO way for any electronic device to detect anything other than a “NET” transfer.
It’s also impossible for a molecule to be absorbing and emitting at the same time. A rapid flip flop between absorb/emit would also reduce time average flux. It makes no sense, and it doesn’t happen.
Reply
Weekly_rise
| #
A single molecule cannot absorb and emit simultaneously, but a body comprised of many, many molecules will at any time have some molecules that are absorbing and some molecules that are emitting.
I don’t believe this is a philosophical assumption, since you are indeed positing the existence of some physical mechanism that prevents photons from a colder object from flowing toward a hotter one.
In your comment are you referring the Planck’s law? Because it too refers to a net flow of energy between an object and its environment.
Zoe Phin
| #
“will at any time have some molecules that are absorbing and some molecules that are emitting.”
Brilliant. So say half a surface area is absorbing, and half is emitting. The flux is now senseless. So would a 15C object emit ~390 W/m^2 or 195 W/m^2? Or is it really emitting 780 W/m^2 over half a surface, thus giving the effective emission of 390 W/m^2?
You see makes no sense.
“prevents photons from a colder object from flowing toward a hotter one.”
There is no potential for photons to flow.
“I don’t believe this is a philosophical assumption, since you are indeed positing the existence of some”
Question where you got your idea!
It was a simplification for education.
It doesn’t actually exist.
Photons don’t flow from cold to hot any more than water flows uphill.
The Nile is actually flowing from the sea to its source. But the net flow is from source to sea.
When you’re walking 3 mph, you’re actually moving backwards 3mph and forward 6 mph. The net walking rate is forward.
We can apply this nonsense to anything.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoe,
The make believe sciences is the “photon” and that radiated energy can be treated as kinetic energy.
According to Planck the energy of light is a function of frequency. The lower the frequency the greater the energy.
If an object radiates energy, its energy decreases so the wavelengths of the light emitted should become longer (conservation of energy). Therefore the “photon” should be changing wavelength gradually (analog not digital) and as energy equalizes then rate of energy loss slows the change in wavelength emitted should slow. Have you ever observed this?
The light an object emits or absorbs depends on the wavelength and whether an object absorbs or emits energy depends on the amplitude of the wave transferring the energy. If the amplitude of the wave in the surrounding electromagnetic field is greater than the amplitude of the vibration across the bond in the object, the object will absorb energy from the surrounding field. If the amplitude of the vibration across the object’s bond is greater than the amplitude of the wave in the surrounding field, the object will transfer energy to the surrounding field. Equilibrium is achieved when the amplitude of the objects equals the amplitude of the field. Objects do not equalize with other objects they equalize with the surrounding field.
If there are two objects with different energy that emit wavelengths the other object does not absorb, they will still reach equilibrium but they both will equalize with the surrounding fields
Herb
Zoe Phin
| #
E=hf, Herb
Weekly_rise
| #
A surface flux is the energy per unit area of the object per second, so we cannot talk about the instantaneous state of the object and the flux in the same way. Additionally, the temperature of an object at equilibrium is determined by the outgoing flux needed to balancing the incoming flux, since temperature and radiant intensity are related via the Stefan-Boltzmann law. So if the flux emitted by a 15 degree object is not 390 W/m^2, then the object is not at equilibrium and its temperature will be changing.
“There is no potential for photons to flow.”
Photons emitted via radiated do not need to flow down a potential temperature gradient, as does heat during conduction, they are simply emitted in all directions. Cold stars shine at warm stars.
Zoe Phin
| #
Does a surface area consist of molecules?
You just said that molecules can’t absorb and emit at the same time! I’m surprised you still don’t see the implication of this.
“Additionally, the temperature of an object at equilibrium is determined by the outgoing flux needed to balancing the incoming flux”
The outgoing flux needs to be over the entire surface area. But you just said that ~half will be absorbing, not emitting. So your flux is coming from ~half the molecules. So the flux needs to be double to account for non-emitting (absorbing) molecules.
Do you see?
“Photons emitted via radiated do not need to flow down a potential temperature gradient, as does heat during conduction, they are simply emitted in all directions. Cold stars shine at warm stars.”
That’s a philosphy, not physics. You won’t find this type of silliness outside climate “physics”.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoe,
Planck’s law: Energy of light equals Planck’s constant times the frequency.
There is another attribute of waves beside wavelengths and frequency which is amplitude. The energy of a wave is in its amplitude. How the energy is delivered is determined by the frequency and wavelength. Would you rather be hit by a giant wave of water or the same amount of water in many smaller waves?
Herb
Zoe Phin
| #
Definitely a giant wave for my boogie board.
Weekly_rise
| #
Zoe,
A flux is a rate of flow per unit area, it is not occurring on a per-molecule basis, and it is not an instantaneous quantity, but a time averaged one. For a given surface area, over the course of a single second, X number of photons are emitted, and Y number of photons are absorbed. The net transfer of photons will be X-Y. As we can derive from the Stefan Boltzmann law, the radiant intensity (number of photons per second) emitted from a colder object will always be lower than the number of photons per second emitted from a warmer object, and thus, if X represents the flux from the warmer and Y the flux from the colder colder, X will always be greater than Y and the net flow of photons will always be from hot to cold. This satisfies the second law.
However, since Y is always greater than 0 for any object that is above 0 K, the sum of X-Y will always be smaller than the net sum if Y was not present. Thus, while a colder object cannot cause the net flow of energy from a warmer object to reverse, it can lower the net flow of photons from the warmer object.
“That’s a philosphy, not physics. You won’t find this type of silliness outside climate ‘physics’.”
I believe this is purely physics. By saying, “a photon emitted by a colder object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object” you are implicitly positing the existence by some physical mechanism that prevents this. I do not believe such a mechanism is exists – molecules cannot identify the temperature of the object that emitted an incoming photon, and decide whether they must accept or reject it.
Zoe Phin
| #
What experiment verifies your philosophical position?
Do you even understand that Planck’s Law can ONLY be derived from wave theory, not corpuscular theory. Do you?
I think this discussion went over your head.
Weekly_rise
| #
Zoe,
The discussion so far has been comfortably under my head, I am happy to report.
I have experimental proof of my position that you can replicate in your own kitchen! Take a room-temperature IR thermometer and point it into your freezer and see if it displays a temperature reading lower than the ambient air temperature of your kitchen.
Zoe Phin
| #
No one doubts there is heat transfer from the IR thermometer to something colder. That’s not what you have to prove, genius.
Weekly_rise
| #
Zoe,
An IR thermometer works by measuring the infrared light being emitted by an object. That is, light from the colder object is being absorbed by the warmer detector, and no laws of thermodynamics are being broken to do it, in seeming stark opposition to the model of the universe you subscribe to.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Weekly_rise,
Have her explain how gravity preferentially works on denser objects.
Herb
geran
| #
Weekly says: “I do not believe such a mechanism is exists – molecules cannot identify the temperature of the object that emitted an incoming photon, and decide whether they must accept or reject it.”
The “mechanism” that determines whether or not a photon will be absorbed is its wavelength. The incoming photon’s wavelength must be compatible with the target molecule, or a mismatch occurs causing reflection.
Zoe Phin
| #
LOL, no weekly_rise, that’s not how an IR thermometer works.
An IR thermometer works by measuring a voltage gain or drop. A drop means the thermometer is transfering heat. A secondary non-radiation based thermometer is used (alternate method also exists) to find base temperature. An optional emissivity parameter is needed for accuracy. The whole device measures NET IR off from a base.
You could not be more wrong.
Weekly_rise
| #
Zoe,
I am quite correct, and I would enjoy very much if you could provide me a source showing otherwise.
An IR thermometer focuses infrared light onto a thermopile, which converts the thermal energy to electrical energy. You can find countless videos on YouTube deconstructing such devices, or buy an inexpensive one yourself so you can examine all of the components.
Again, the function of an IR thermometer handily proves that a warmer object can receive radiation from a cooler object, completely contradicting your viewpoint.
Zoe Phin
| #
OMG, you are clueless halfwit.
Weekly_rise
| #
Zoe,
petty insults are the resort of a person who realizes they are wrong but lacks the courage to admit it. It is ok for you to be wrong and it is ok for you to be continually learning. I’m happy to accept your desperate personal attacks as an adequate concession.
geran
| #
An IR thermometer is not an example of “cold” warming “hot”, in the sense of a violation of 2nd Law. The IR thermometer is designed to absorb IR, based in external energy.
Take away the design or the battery, and it doesn’t work.
Zoe Phin
| #
Insults are also reserved for people too ignorant to realize how ignorant they are. You will eventually realize why you were insulted, and feel it was appropriate.
Weekly_rise
| #
Geran,
The IR thermometer was not being presented as an example of ‘cold warming hot.’ It was presented to demonstrate that warmer objects can absorb light emitted by colder objects, a point which Zoe has maintained is physically impossible.
geran
| #
I wasn’t trying to argue with you, Weekly. I just wanted to clarify. Many Warmists have tried to claim an IR thermometer means they can violate 2nd Law, and then claim a cold sky can warm a warmer surface.
An IR thermometer does not violate 2nd Law, but cold sky warming hotter surface DOES violate 2nd Law.
Zoe Phin
| #
The most disgusting thing is that you still have no idea how an IR thermometer works. You haven’t read what’s inside. This ignorance gives you confidence, and that’s why you were justifiably insulted.
There is not a single electronic devive that can detect anything but local temperature and NET IR. Period.
I suggest you don’t argue with someone that literally read the manual. Do you even have enough brains to download the manual of the integrated chip inside an IR thermometer? Can you find what it truly measures, and can you find the formula used to convert what it finds into “remote” temperature?
Can you? Until you can, you should apologize for being a confident ignoramous.
Good luck, -Zoe
Weekly_rise
| #
Geran,
I think there is often confusion on both sides on this particular topic. The atmosphere is not warming the earth in the sense of causing a net downward IR flux – the net flux is always from the surface to the atmosphere and space. But the atmosphere does produce a higher equilibrium temperature than would be expected for a grey body with no atmosphere.
But this fact alone does not explain why varying concentrations of the absorbing gases can alter the surface temperature – one has to consider the three dimensional structure of the atmosphere and the lapse rate to do that.
Zoe,
If you wish to actually provide an explanation of an IR thermometer that contradicts what I described I am all ears, but just insisting that such an explanation exists and that it’s up to me to go hunt it down is rather empty. I’m certain I understand well how IR thermometers work.
Zoe Phin
| #
Weekly_rise,
Can you repeat what you said?
Your input is so valuable. Since you’ve researched less, you must know more.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Weekly_rise,
The laws of thermodynamics deal with the flow energy.
Heat is kinetic energy which is a function of mass and energy. A more massive object in equilibrium with another object will have less energy so energy can still flow from an object with less kinetic energy to an object more kinetic energy. The sun is the source of energy for the Earth. The upper atmosphere is “colder” because there are fewer molecules (less mass) not because the molecules have less energy. All the energy coming from the sun to the Earth flows through the extreme “cold” of space and coverts to kinetic energy (heat) when it encounters matter.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Folks,
Since I introduced the device termed an IR thermometer into this conversation and since I claim to a scientist whose knowledge is totally dependent upon observation and measurements with instruments about which I generally know little to nothing, I feel obligated to offer my two cents worth about instruments which measure something.
Bevan wrote he only used the standard laboratory mercury thermometer. And I believe he and most of you know how it functions. But I believe some of you do not consider it had to be calibrated. A very careful procedure because a calibration always requires two temperatures to create a scale. In the case of temperature one of the standard calibration temperature is that of if the melting temperate of pure ice (solid water). But the other common calibration temperature is the temperature of boiling water and this where things are not so simple. For it is known the temperature of boiling water can easily be seen to depend upon the atmospheric pressure. Which brings another instrument (barometer) into play and its accurate (a relative term because nothing can be measured with absolute accuracy.
Because I have never worked with the Bureau of Standards I have no idea how they work this problem out. But I do know that a certified Bureau of Standards Thermometer is not cheap.
And what I know from my laboratory experiences is there are few instances when one has to worry about a tenth of a degree. Plus or minus a degree F (180F divisions versus only a 100C for the two calibration temperatures of water) is often precise enough for government work (a common saying)
And I checked my IR thermometer’s calibration by pointing it a car window covered with melting frost. And to my amazement its display was 32.0F.
So I am convinced that some technologists, who knew what they were doing designed and manufactured it and calibrated it; maybe just I did.
And I knows it displays temperatures above and below its ambient temperature. If it is pointed at something whose ‘temperature’ is lower than its ambient temperature, I know that something inside it is going to cool and if it is pointed at something warmer than its ambient temperature, I know something inside it is going to warm. And I believe that the temperature of the something at which it is pointed is transmitted through space as an intensity of IR photons. Which IR photons I do not know or care.
For I have enough experiences of using my IR thermometer to convince me that it does what it is claimed to do. And no amount of argument is going to change this. For I believe argument has no place in science. It is what is observed or measured that is important.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Folks,
I have supplied Bevan with the link to some really quality measurements of surface temperatures and temperatures made at five soil depths. The latter support the validity of the surface temperature measurements and clearly show the storage of the solar energy absorbed during the daytime that supplies the energy which is emitted during the nighttime from the surface. Which absorption, storage, and emission is seldom discussed. And there are lots of sites to choose from. I am fortunate to be within 50 miles of one so I can compare what is measured there with what I observe and measure outside my home. I only have to point my IR thermometer downward to measure the earth’s surfaces. Because there has been much debate (argument) about the ability to measure a surface temperature-is a reason I suggest everyone coming to PSI to get their own IR thermometer and play being a scientist (even if you have little to no science backgraound).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The primary means of heat transfer and the equalization of energy in the troposphere is done by collisions between molecules, not radiation. The wavelengths absorbed and emitted by CO2 is irrelevant just as the wavelengths emitted and absorbed by water molecules, when a liquid, are irrelevant. The nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere absorb over 90% of the uv energy coming to the Earth from the sun converting it to kinetic energy, which is transferred to CO2 by collision.
Reply
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
Firstly, infrared radiation is emitted after the sun sets, and carbon dioxide exhaust is already fully charged with THERMAL energy, not IR, during the production/combustion process.
Secondly, even if carbon dioxide were to obtain 100% of its thermal energy via IR, the result can only be a cooling of the atmosphere:
Thermodynamics AWOL Proves Marxist Operation To Destroy The West’s Industrial Base
Climate change mechanics conspires to do away with the physics of the atmosphere, where action and reaction is abandoned. When a new gas molecule is introduced into the atmosphere, dislocation takes place, where if the new molecule is denser than the atmosphere (contains less heat energy), such as carbon dioxide, the gas molecule sinks displacing upwards the warmer nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby immediately cooling the area of dislocation. As warmer nitrogen and oxygen molecules rise, they in turn push downwards cooler nitrogen and oxygen molecules, further cooling the atmosphere.
Conversely, if the new gas molecule has more heat energy than the nitrogen-oxygen based atmosphere (such as methane), the new molecule rises, displacing relatively cooler nitrogen and oxygen molecules downwards, which displaces upwards relatively more heat retaining nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation.
Thermodynamics in action in the atmosphere that keeps the Earth cool when increased radiation isn’t the new variable introduced.
Thirdly, nitrogen and oxygen constitute by volume 97.0494% of the atmosphere’s gasses (when water vapor is included in the calculations making for a more precise calculation), they must therefore retain that volume amount of heat energy, but 18.4 Wm2…
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1200px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
…only constitutes 5.1% of the Earth’s Energy Budget of 358.2 Wm2. Nitrogen and oxygen’s absorption of infrared radiation would only infinitesimally affects this missing heat energy.
The missing energy levels for nitrogen and oxygen direct our attention to another aspect of the scientific fraud taking place: Misidentified outgoing energy types. IR is assigned an energy magnitude of 358.2 Wm2, and thermals 18.4 Wm2. The opposite is closer to the truth, where IR is assigned 18.4 Wm2, and thermals 358.2 Wm2.
At my blog, bead the articles…
‘House of Cards: The Collapse of the ‘Collapse’ of the USSR’
‘Playing Hide And Seek In Yugoslavia’
Then read the article, ‘The Marxist Co-Option Of History And The Use Of The Scissors Strategy To Manipulate History Towards The Goal Of Marxist Liberation’
Solution
The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology/blackmail, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
My blog…
https://djdnotice.blogspot.com/2018/09/d-notice-articles-article-55-7418.html
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Why bother?
Since the end of the LIA CO2 is not and has not substantially ‘warmed’ the atmosphere.
For the last 20+ years CO2 has continued its rise at more or less the same rate as for the last 100 years, however global temperatures have not risen. Hiatus anyone?
Oceans are the great factor that majorly affects both global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. The human influence on these measures are minuscule.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
On a less scientific note………..
I placed a tub of dry ice [about 100% CO2] at my picnic site.
People put their bottled drinks into the tub of ice.
Now I ask you… “Did the dry ice make my drinks hotter?”
Of course not.
But according to the GHG Theory the CO2 was supposed to “trap” the heat from the drinks and back radiate it and make the drinks hotter.
How does the IPCC explain that?
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
“How does the IPCC explain that?”
Gases in a vaccum work differently. Only someone outside the international space station can do a proper experiment. Unfortunately, the few dollars needed for this experiment is not in the budget. You will just have to take our word for it.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hello People,
I can’t understand the confusion on this simplest of subjects!
There are many misunderstandings of second law of thermodynamics, but there is no limit to “beliefs.”
Someone even said: “The lower the frequency the greater the energy.”
Sorry, I can live even with my carbon tax (Canada), but I strongly object to a nonsense…
JaKo
Reply
T.C. Clark
| #
Just curious….does everyone here agree that if you enter an enclosed room that has a one watt light bulb on one wall and a thousand watt bulb on the opposite wall….and you turn on the one watt and it dimly lights the room so that you can see the walls….and then you turn on the thousand watt bulb which floods the room with brightness which overwhelms the contribution of the one watt as far as your eyes can tell….do you acknowledge that the one watt bulb still emits photons which do illuminate the walls despite the inability of you eyes to discern the one watt’s light contribution?
Reply
geran
| #
You have to be careful with the wording T.C., as Warmists always try to claim different fluxes add. They need that to happen to promote the GHE pseudoscience.
In your example, the 1Watt bulb would continue to emit photons, but the effect would be overridden by the 1000 Watt bulb.
Reply
T.C. Clark
| #
Yes, the effect on our eyes…. but it is like we don’t see stars in the daytime because of the sun light…we see some stars pre dawn before the sunrise but the rising sun overwhelms our eyesight ability and the star light is still present in the day time…..despite our eyes being unable to see it.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi T.C. and Geran,
T.C., you have to be careful what you write. You wrote: “and you turn on the one watt and it dimly lights the room so that you can see the walls.” For what if I ask: Are you filling the room with more and more photons as the light remains on? What will be your answer? Geran, what will be your answer?
Since I don’t know your answers I will wait for them before taking the next step.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
T.C. Clark
| #
Jerry, the lights are incandescent bulbs…tungsten filaments…and it is not me personally filling the room…it is the emission of photons from the hot filaments…and some IR radiation is emitting from those filaments too…but of course our eyes do not see the IR. As long as electricity is applied to the filaments, the photons will emit…until of course the filament burns out.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Please forgive me for my sloppy writing. But now I must correct your writing. Photons do not emit, they, as you wrote, are emitted from the filament. Maybe filaments, I may not be familiar with your bulb. Yes, it is important to accurate define the system to which we are commonly referring.
My question now is: Do the walls you see get brighter and brighter? Or, were they initially only dimly lite and never changed as more and more photons (both visible and invisible IR) continued to be emitted by the filament(s? I suggest we turn off the electricity before the filament(s) burn out. Such a possibility, relative to the questions I ask, only confuses the purpose of my questions. Which , regardless of your answers, will be: What happens to the photons that are continuously emitted into the room, your eyes, for a reasonably short time (5 minutes?
Reply
CD Marshall
| #
I think what is missing in this conversation is the Bose-Einstein statistic and how it regulates the energy of bosons.
That energy isn’t reversible. Solar photons can’t be reversed back into ‘solar photons’ after absorbed by the Earth just as a magnetic dipole molecule (unless duplicating a photon) is breaking down absorbed energy and re-emitting that energy in smaller energy packets. Always going downhill, the beauty of the COE law in motion preventing a system from being overloaded with higher energy particles AND preventing exactly what is claimed by the GHGE.
My 2 cents are now tossed in.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi CD,
Einstein is said to have stated: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
Can you really consider that what you wrote is simpler than what T.C. and I have written about a quite simple system which T.C. proposed. Which, as a first approximation seemed a good place to begin our conversation. Which I am trying to keep simple as we define reasonably precisely what is occurring in the system. Which I will further define is 98.6F so T.C or I in the room do not change its ambient temperature.
My purpose in joining T.C. and Geran’s conversation was to eventually to get the generally accepted fact that the photons are moving at the carefully measured speed of light. Which means if the photons are not absorbed, must bouncing around the room which has atmosphere in it to produce a ‘twilight’ in the room which possibly is not bright enough for our eyes to detect. For our eyes are not equipped to be a quantitative light meter but a qualitative sensor which can differentiate between very dim, moderately dim, etc.
But the system proposed bu C.T. is the system where the consequence that photons are moving at the speed of light is critically important. It is in the stratosphere when studying the ozone system I happened to see that it the speed of photons had a critical consequence.
A simplified view of the ozone system of the stratosphere is ozone molecule is dissociated into an oxygen molecule and an oxygen atom by the absorption of certain ultraviolet photons. But quickly the oxygen atom collides with an oxygen molecule to reform an ozone molecule. And this decomposition of the ozone mole and the reformation of another ozone cycles.
But until a few days ago I had not seen how fast the reforming reaction of another ozone molecule had to be as the solar photons passed so, so, rapidly through the stratosphere on their way to the earths surface for these potentially cancer causing UV photons to be removed from the solar radiation before it reaches the earth’s surface where we live.
Two other quotes of Einstein are: “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” and “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” Ponder these quotes in relationship to the ozone system. We can only imagination the rapidity of the reaction which reforms the ozone molecule for a oxygen atom and an oxygen molecule.
I stop here because I need to go to bed. But. depending on possible comments I might continue the ozone story.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Your explanation of ozone is incorrect.
It is uv light coming from the sun that splits oxygen molecules into oxygen atoms and it is a loss of energy by O3 that causes it to decompose, not the addition of more energy.
In the second highest layer (by composition) of the atmosphere (the top layer being helium and hydrogen) the composition consists of oxygen atoms and helium, a result of the energy added to O2 by uv light exceeding the bond strength of the oxygen molecules. There are few molecules here so as the oxygen radiate energy back into space they rarely reform oxygen molecules (which would immediately absorb uv energy and split). The next layer contain N2O where the uv light partially breaks the N2 molecule and an oxygen atom combines to form the nitrous oxide.
In the stratosphere, where the uv energy is distributed to more molecules, instead of the N2 having a bond split an oxygen molecule has one of its bonds broken allowing an oxygen atom to combine with it and form O3. The concentration of O3 in the ozone layer is 10 ppm, not enough to absorb significant uv. The O3 is not being converted to O2 and an oxygen atom by absorbing more energy but by the molecule radiating energy which allows more stable bonds to form (2 O3 > 3 O2). The ozone “hole” forms in the winter where there is no more uv energy to create O3 molecules and the existing O3 molecules break down by radiating energy.
Look at the composition of the layers of the atmosphere and the energy needed to create those chemicals. It clearly shows that the uv energy is being absorbed by the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere and the compounds formed are radiating some of that energy back into space causing new compounds to form that have less energy (more stable)..
As the energy is distributed to more molecules at lower altitudes the energy levels of the individual molecules decreases and the chemical composition of the atmosphere changes through the loss of energy.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “Your explanation of ozone is incorrect.
It is uv light coming from the sun that splits oxygen molecules into oxygen atoms and it is a loss of energy by O3 that causes it to decompose, not the addition of more energy.”
Herb, in your ‘understanding’ of the ozone system in the stratosphere do ozone molecules ever absorb UV photons just as oxygen molecules are dissociated by ‘absorbing’ higher energy UV photons?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Ozone molecules with their longer bond lengths may absorb some of the longer uv waves but that is not breaking the molecules but adding energy stabilizing them.as the O3 radiates energy, O3 is unstable and quickly spontaneously decomposes. If you use a uv light to produce O3 you will have O3 as long as the light is on. Turn off the light and the O3 quickly disappears.
Have a good day,
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
What is the evidence that I should accept that which you so boldly only state as if it must be the ‘truth’?
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I just noticed, because I first didn’t read everything that you wrote. A big mistake always.
“Turn off the light and the O3 quickly disappears.” This is the conclusion that my pondering about what has been observed has ‘forced’ me to conclude. Which was the reason I tried to begin this conversation.
For as Galileo is said to have stated as translated by someone: “I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.”
Have a good day, Jerry
T. C. Clark
| #
Jerry, you used the word “bounce” in regard to photons…are photons elastic? What happens in a mirrored room if you turn on a 1000 watt bulb for a short time? Does the light forever reflect back and forth?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi T.C.,
It’s amazing what one (I) observed lying in my bed. My bed room was your ‘dark’ room before you turned on the electricity to the one watt light bulb. Which became a direct source of photons. In my bedroom there were several indirect sources of photon which produced ‘diffuse’ light. The principal source of light was a nightlight on a wall which faced away from the door way beside the light. Hence, somehow the photons being emitted by the nightlight were redirected by the opposing wall so they entered the bedroom through the door way and illuminated the ceiling of the bedroom.
I could go on describing what I observed (due tothe photons) which I could have never imagined. But it was very simple to see everything that could be seen in my bedroom.
A problem I believe, but don’t know, that you have that you do not question the reflection of the photons from a mirror which is different from the wall which redirects the photons so they pass through the doorway into the bedroom.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi T.C.,
It’s amazing what one (I) observed lying in my bed. My bed room was your ‘dark’ room before you turned on the electricity to the one watt light bulb. Which became a direct source of photons. In my bedroom there were several indirect sources of photon which produced ‘diffuse’ light. The principal source of light was a nightlight on a wall which faced away from the door way beside the light. Hence, somehow the photons being emitted by the nightlight were redirected by the opposing wall so they entered the bedroom through the door way and illuminated the ceiling of the bedroom.
I could go on describing what I observed (due tothe photons) which I could have never imagined. But it was very simple to see everything that could be seen in my bedroom.
A problem I believe, but don’t know, that you have that you do not question the reflection of the photons from a mirror which is different from the wall which redirects the photons so they pass through the doorway into the bedroom.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Brett Keane
| #
A fuller understanding of Thermodynamics and Gas Kinetics must include the fact that Electromagnetic Flux, which is what we allude to, is a Vector Flux only. Like a Pilot encounters with Cross-wind Drift etc. It ALL moves in the Local Field, or nothing does, effectively.
Also, The unavoidable basic Quantum efflux is only triggered by greater ie warmer input. That is why we do not have the Rayleigh or any other Catastrophe eg an IR one. The mechanism is by molecular Quantum Oscillators, which I notice the marxist gatekeepers try to ignore. Yet still, Il Muove, or not as the case may be.
Forget any ideas of matter not caring about cooler input: it surely does or we would not exist. Brett Keane, NZ
Of course Maxwell, in about 1868, (Kinetics of Gases and Ideal Gas Laws), demonstrated how, Physically and Statistically, Atmospheres cannot self-heat. Once again, Gases Move, especially Water Vapour/Latent Heat. Uplift can pass 100mph, ask Glider Pilots….
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Brett,
Yes, yes!! If one wants to know how the atmosphere moves, “ask Glider Pilots.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Brett Keane
| #
Yup, and that uplift has many times the POWER needed to transfer all IR to where it has a Free Path to Space at c.2K.
A reason, I have deduced, for radiation having the negative 4th Power force of Kinetic Vibrations: It has to maintain a Field all spread out while KE is a Point Source, concentrated. Gases lack Mass by nature. So, relatively slow uplift can and does get to the edge of Space and a Free Path out.
It is still debatable whether how long a pure Nitrogen atmosphere for instance would last – would it have to evaporate itself to shed energy (q.v Allmendinger re Raman Spectroscopy etc)?
Much to learn of course, but Maxwell taught us all we need for our planet.
The IPCC speaks with a Forked Tongue as it seeks to use Marxist lies to destroy Western Civilisation. It is to the death, though not necessarily. Brett Keane, NZ
Reply
Brett Keane
| #
I should have added that Gases lack SURFACES also. This means the SB/Black Box emittances etc. CANNOT be used in what is a theoretical manner anyway. Can work for solids but not for Gases.
Brett Keane NZ
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Weekly_rise
October 28, 2020 at 6:43 pm | #
I agree that the issue of CO2 absorption is much misunderstood. However, I am not sure that this article helps to resolve the confusion.
CO2 does absorb most strongly in the 15 micron range. We do see that atmospheric emission to space in this wavelength occurs at cold temperatures (i.e. at high altitude). However, radiation received at earth’s surface from the atmosphere does not come only from the topmost layer, so it is first wrong on its face to say that radiation emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere is only coming from very cold temperatures – emission is occurring in every layer. It is also incorrect to claim that this radiation somehow violates the second law of thermodynamics, since the net flow of heat is always from the surface to the atmosphere to space.
Doesnt matter where the radiation comes from in the atmosphere, its always from a colder source.
Its never of a wave length that is ”heat” to the surface, the wavelength maybe absorbed but it is not of sufficient frequency to raise the internal frequency of the absorbing molecule and is therefore instantly re-emitted at the exact same wavelength it was absorbed at,……… i though everyone knew that. ..
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gary,
A 200 gram object moves at 10 m/sec so its ke is 1 X 10^4 (g m^2)/sec^2. A 1 gram object following it is traveling at 100 m/sec so its ke is .5 X 10^4 g m^2)/sec ^2. Even though the 1 gram object has less kinetic energy (colder) when it strikes the 200 gram object it will transfer energy (increase velocity) to it while its energy/velocity will decrease.
In an unconfined gas like the atmosphere the universal gas law says (P from gravity is constant) an increase in the kinetic energy (t) of the gas molecules will result in an increase of the volume (V) of the gas. The lower the density (with increasing altitude) the greater the kinetic energy of the gas molecules.
The density of the atmosphere is 1.2 kg/m^3. The density of salt water is 1027 kg/m^3. A gram of atmospheric molecules will transfer energy to 900 grams of water. The flow of ke is from the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth. The sun’s uv energy is heating the atmosphere which adds heat to the surface of the Earth.
Herb
Reply
Brett Keane
| #
Nope, UV heats Ocean depths and soil etc mainly. Day land surface reaches 35-60C as any Farmer knows. This conducts to the base atmosphere which rises rapidly as a Fogging experiment can demonstrate. Soil being far more massive than Air, ir keeps jetisonning warm air after dark until equilibrium is reach
But I see above that the warmista will not learn. Tough. Brett Keane
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Brett,
All matter absorbs radiated energy.Since the O2 and N2 in the atmosphere do not absorb visible light or longer radiation they must absorb shorter radiation. This is why over 90% of the uv coming from the sun is absorbed in the atmosphere before reaching the Earth’s surface. The uv is converted to kinetic energy by the molecules and radiated infall directions. At night when the visible light is no longer heating the surface it still receives radiated heat from the atmosphere keeping it warm (unlike the moon).
Water is the main absorber and means of transport of heat on Earth. The reason cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights is because water droplets in the clouds are radiating more heat to the Earth not because the water at -50 C is somehow magically able to reflect heat.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Good to see you’re back. Good because you provide comments about possible phenomena which I do not need to be the one who introduces a topic in this good conversation.
You wrote: “water droplets in the clouds are radiating more heat to the Earth not because the water at -50 C is somehow magically able to reflect heat.”
It one looks at the data of atmospheric soundings one finds that the cloud droplets could have a temperature of -50C, But that temperature puts the clouds near the top of the troposphere when the only clouds of water are ‘thin’ cirrus (ice) clouds. But nearer the earth’s surface there can be clouds in an atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen molecules whose temperatures are appreciably lower than the temperature of the atmosphere only 1.5m above the earth’s surface.
I know why you wrote -‘not’ because the water at -50 C is somehow magically able to reflect heat–But I doubt if many PSI readers why the word ‘not’. It is because I regularly quote Richard Feynman who taught his Caltech physic students that cloud droplets ‘strongly scatter’ (not reflect) photons when the diameter (size) of the cloud particles is greater than the wavelength of the photons being scattered. Hence, if the size of the cloud particles are greater than the majority of the IR photons’ the cloud particles will scatter the IR photons much more strongly than these cloud particles can scatter the photons of visible light.
For you do not accept this teaching of Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner in Physics. But thank you for providing me another opportunity to review what Feynman taught in the early 1960s; about which I have ‘not’ commonly read other physicists writing. And I have no idea why this is. Unless it is because these physicists do not go outside with their IR thermometer when their is a continuous ‘thick’ overcast at any altitude and point their IR thermometers all over this overcast and read the same (within a degree or two) temperature as they can coventually measure of the atmosphere at about 1.5m above the earth’s surface.
Maybe some physicists have and they simply do not want to admit that Eeynman’s idea about cloud scattering is totally supported by simple observation. Now that we have the common technology of the IR thermometer.
Have a good day, Jerry .
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The water droplets scatter light because of their shape (spherical) and because reflect about 10 % of the light striking them and absorb about 90%. The direction of the reflected reflected light is a result of the convex surface of the droplet and the direction the light comes from. The absorbed light is refracted and does not pass straight through the sphere so when it strikes the concave inner surface of the droplet 90% is again transmitted causing the exiting light to be at a different angle than the incoming light. The 10% reflected by the concave inner surface travels to the other side of the droplet and continues the process (creating rainbows). The best way to see what is happening is to shine a laser pointer into a clear glass sphere and observe the red dots that are emitted.
In a cloud the light coming from one droplet will enter other droplets and will again have its direction changed producing the scattering effect. This causes the clouds to appear white at the edges but dark in the center where the light is continuously being absorbed.
Water is not a good reflector of heat but very good at absorbing it and distributing it to all the molecules in the droplet. There wouldn’t be refraction but a dispersion of heat to all the molecules in the droplet. When the heat in the droplet exceeded the heat of the gases around it (at night) the heat in the droplet would be radiated in all directions and neighboring droplets (containing the same heat) would not absorb heat making the cloud as a whole radiate the same heat.
Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between radiation and reflection. A wall painted red that reflects light can have the same appearance as red glass that radiates red light.
Have a good day,
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Only read you first statement: “The water droplets scatter light because of their shape (spherical) and because reflect about 10 % of the light striking them and absorb about 90%.”
For you reread what you wrote. I would hope you could see these spherical water droplets would soon evaporate. But than again, maybe not, for I have read that you wrote that water molecules do ‘not’ evaporate from a liquid water surface.
I will read further because sometimes we agree about some important ideas that seem not to be common knowledge and should more commonly considered by others.
But here I had to totally disagree with you opening statement and I would hope no reader would agree with it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Read a bit further and found: “The absorbed light is refracted”. I make many mistakes too. But I am not sure you consider this a mistake. So, I have ask: If the light (photons) are absorbed, how can the light (photons) be ‘refracted’?
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb.
Evidence that you do not consider that you have made any mistakes is your last statement: A wall painted red that reflects light can have the same appearance as red glass that radiates red light.” Boy, that red glass that radiates red light must have a very high temperature.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
What I mean by absorbed is that the light enters the droplet, not that it is reacting with the bonds of the water molecules. Perhaps transmitted is a better term but the light does react with the water droplet structure, just as it refracts in glass (lenses) and it is this which causing the scattering. The path of a longer radio wave or shorter uv wave would not have their path changed by the droplet structure.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Brett,
Almost missed your comment. I doubt if every farmer knows that land surface temperatures reach 35-60C unless they are using an IR thermometer. But they maybe using IR thermometers because soil temperatures are important to the planting of crops. So these farmers probably also know that the surface temperature can fall, during the nighttime, significantly below the air temperature being measured 1.5m above the surface. Again, some crops are very sensitive to freezing temperatures when just emerging above the surface, so the farmer needs to know, from experience, when the soil has developed a reservoir of energy during the daytime to prevent the surface temperature of the soil to fall to 0C temperature during .calm nights.
So ask a farm as well as a g; oder pilot about atmospheric movement and the natural radiation system.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Old eccentric herb with his upside down world of sun heats sky and sky heats surface etc etc, ever sat in the sun herb, cos you should try it.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi John O’ and PSI readers,
Readers, you are reading this because John O’ and others founded PSI because they believed that that scientific idea known as the Greenhouse Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide was an absolutely wrong scientific idea. And we know that John O’ tirelessly efforts are what has kept PSI ‘alive’. Please Donate!!
I question people who ask for donations unless I know they are not going to personally profit from any donation I give them. But in the case of John O’, I know he cannot enjoy the luxuries which money could give him because I have seen his tirelessly efforts day after day for years now.
Tomorrow we, in the USA, are having an Election for the President of the USA. Which outcome will likely influence many of your lives regardless of which nation in which you now live. On our money is the phrase; “In God We Trust.” For in the beginning some English people migrated to North America, a newly discovered continent by other ‘sailors’ from other nations, to have the freedom to worship whatever God they chose to worship or not worship in whatever way they chose to worship.
Now I have met a man who stated that he could not believe in the Creator God because this Creator God knew some angels had already rebelled against Him and that made no sense to this man. However, a fact is he knew, according to the history book that is titled the ‘The Holy Bible’, that this Creator God had created humans with the freedom to know the difference between Good and Evil. And this history book is about the battles between these two forces.
Which battle continues in this USA Election for President. So, pray that Good wins again as it has to this day before the Election. And if you have no God, pray to the Unknown God as some Greeks did according to the history book known as The Holy Bible.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Folks,
This is a report of what I observed this morning with my common weather station and my IR thermometer relative to the dew I observed on a car parked on the street in front my house. Which observations I hope will convince any reader about the practical validity of an IR thermometer’s measurements.
But I first begin by reviewing what R. S. Sutcliffe, in his 1966 book ‘Weather and Climate’, wrote: “The answer is that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids, or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapour. These are the ‘nuclei of condensation’, and are effective as soon as the air becomes even slightly supersaturated. As a matter of fact, there are many observations of clouds in air whose relative humidity is considerably below 100 per cent, evidence of nuclei which hygroscopic.” (hygroscopic—affinity for water vapor)
This morning when my weathers station reported an outdoor relative humidity of 85 per cent and an air temperature of 40F. And when I went outside there was liquid droplets of dew on both the car’s side window and the paint inches below the window. The temperatures measured by the IR thermometer were variable as I scanned the two dew covered surfaces and the range was in the low 30s. But these variable temperatures was not the important observation, what I consider to be important was that there was a general difference between these variable temperatures of about 2F, with the painted surface having the greater temperature.
For it is common knowledge that the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law has a variable factor (emissivitv) which depends upon the nature of a surface and its value can vary between 0 and 1. Hence, my IR thermometer has an adjustable emissivity which, as purchased, had been set to 0.95. For many common surfaces have a measured emissivity near 0.95. But if one require’s a temperature even closer than a degree or two, one can find a table which lists these measured emissivities for specific surfaces set the IR thermometer for that specific surface.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The same nuclei that you maintain causes the water droplets to form would also act to inmate ice formation and preventing the super cooling of water. This would result in clouds being composed of ice, not water.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: R. S. Sutcliffe, in his 1966 book ‘Weather and Climate’, wrote: “The answer is that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids, or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapour.
James McGinn: Sutcliffe’s shortcoming is his misplaced faith in meteorology which is really not a trustworthy scientific institution. The absurd notion that H2O magically becomes gaseous at temperatures well below it’s boiling temperature is superstition that has never been tested/verified empirically. Likewise for this silly notion that ‘nuclei of condensation’ are necessary for rain. It’s just meaningless speculation from a paradigm that has always played fast and loose with curious mix of facts and fiction.
James McGinn / Genius
About My Coming Video
h ttps://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/About-My-Coming-Video-ej9q4s
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I was reasonably certain that Sutcilffe’s meteorological knowledge would elicit your comment.
I offer you and any reader a simple demonstration. I requires a common transparent “throw-away-plastic plate, a coffee mug (white proffered but not necessary), and boiling water. Fill the mug two-thirds full with the boiling water and place the plate on top of the mug, and observe what happens over the next hour.
I will not prejudice readers’ observations by telling them what they will see. But I challenge you, James, to explain to PSI readers, who do this experiment and simply observe, what is seen without proposing the existence of gaseous water molecules.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
if nanodroplets are equally as invisible as gaseous H2O, then what is the point of your experiment, moron?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
How many water molecules in your nanodroplets? How many water molecules on on the surfaces of your nanodroplets? If you do not answer these questions I and other readers will have to conclude that you, a genius, don’t know.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Answer the question I asked, asshole.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You are right, I am a moron. For I let you get by without your describing what you observed occurring during the hour period. So I doubt that you actually did the experiment (demonstration).
Reply
Gary AShe
| #
James is right, i dont care what ”the science” says.
H20 below 0c is a solid,
0,01c to 99.99c a liquid and a vapour of nano droplets released via expansion..
also the reversing gaseous phase of steam.
Both vapour and steam are the same in nature both are nano droplets lighter than air until they condense to be heavier than air.
Vapour starts to form at low temperature whilst steam at a very high temperature.
At 100c h20 is an invisible gas… .
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Gary,
You wrote; “Both vapour and steam are the same in nature both are nano droplets lighter than air until they condense to be heavier than air.”
What is your nano droplet which is ‘lighter’ than air? I asked Herb ‘how many water molecules are in his nano droplets? He did not answer. Now I ask you the same question. And another question is: Will you answer?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Actually water nanodroplets in the atmosphere are always heavier than (the mostly N2/O2) gasses in earth’s atmosphere. This would leave us scratching our heads wondering how/why moisture nanodroplets (which are, indisputably, heavier than air molecules) stay levitated in earth’s atmosphere. I think it is simply because the polarity of the H2O molecules is interacting with the electric charge in the atmosphere. In other words, seems to be the case that water nanodroplets do have the ability to levitate as a consequence of the electric field. i suspect this is caused by electrostatic factors in earth’s atmosphere. These being both of terrestrial (earth’s electric field) and extraterrestrial origins (the solar wind which constantly electrifies earth’s atmosphere).
Convection is a myth. Movement of air in the troposphere has nothing whatsoever to do with convection or “advection.” Rather it has to do with vortices.
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/The-Public-Believes-Plainly-Dumb-Things-About-the-Atmosphere-eacv0k
Reply