Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by sculptor, Sep 28, 2019.
Nor have I. In general the atmosphere expands when it gets warmer.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
So, I want to make sure that I’m thinking about this right. Greenhouse gasses absorb IR at certain wavelengths. All of the greenhouse gases combined absorb something close to 90% of the IR radiation coming from the earth. When the IR is absorbed, the energy could be transferred to another molecule by collision, or it is re-emitted until it either goes up and out, or is transferred back to the surface. The IR is not heat itself, so like a microwave heating an already hot object, IR back radiation from the cold atmosphere can heat the earth.
Different amounts depending on the wavelength.
Right. So when it is free to escape, 100% of the IR energy leaves. When it is absorbed and has to be re-emitted, much less escapes, since some heads back down to Earth. Again, amounts depend on wavelength and altitude.
Sort of. It's more like light. But yes, the IR emitted downwards warms the Earth.
reflecting the radiation back out again
one of the disturbing points is the larger amount of radiation that is received at the poles.
it is reflected back in massive amounts from the highly reflective ice and snow
as that gets more air pollution on it,
soot, dust, ash ...
it melts exponentially as it attracts more radiation while it ALSO fails to reflect radiation.
if you have seen my thread on glacial melt/calving
my interest is specifically in if there is a critical fail point where glaciers will lose their ability to stick together and them on mass crumble(the land-sea damn parts over water) which would vastly shift the time lines toward global sea level rise.
my mathematics is not good enough to keep up with the physicists on the Co2 and atmospheric physics.
however given i am able to find enough data(when i get the time & energy & inclination) i can calculate probable time lines on sea level rise.
my general rough belief is that sea level rise may potentially by 500% faster than previous anticipated based on compounded potential exponential effects.
"Conduction" by what means?
Never mind - all means of conduction are much slower than electromagnetic radiation.
And what exactly is at equilibrium in this description, such that the equilibrium prevents IR back radiation? Note that the CO2 concentration is increasing as long as people keep dumping it into the air - it is not at "equilibrium" between its sources and sinks, and will not be for some time to come. That's kind of the problem.
What "CO2 layers" are those people talking about? The CO2 (and H2O, and CH4, and a couple of other significant ones) dumped into the lower atmosphere by the various industrial and natural sources at the surface of the planet rapidly mixes with the entire lower atmosphere (not instantaneously, of course - concentrations vary somewhat near and far from large point sources - but more rapidly than the lower atmosphere mixes with the upper strata). There is no layer of CO2 - it's a minor component of the entire lower atmosphere and any layers thereof, the major components at all heights and layers being nitrogen and oxygen.
Heating the lower atmosphere does expand it, but also increases its pressure, increases its absorption of water and other evaporating and sublimating substances, increases its ability to carry particulates, and so forth. Only some of the extra absorbed energy goes toward expansion.
- - - -
Quite a bit of the surface particulate load on a warming ice or snow field is stuff left behind as the water evaporates and the ice sublimates. Snow is not particularly clean, any more than rain is. Yet another positive feedback underestimated in the past - the IPCC prediction bias is conservative, lowball, for a variety of reasons.
wide quickly spreading diseases...
i am aware of the idea of rock etc in glaciers. i was not aware of the relative amount of material.
i have wondered if we might get some ancient disease/virus from it melting
my impression was the ipcc was attempting to sell the idea to those who didn't want to buy it and only went there to see if they needed to do something to try and shut them down.
it appears that the general tone has not changed
it has just morphed slightly to align with growing consumer concern around product purchases.
a consumer product driven demand will not change the industry.
it is good to combine it with other initiatives, however, governments must take bold new steps.
most politicians will never take bold new steps unless it is to line their own pocket or give themselves fascist power.
i just hope the few good ones force the other majority bad ones to change before its too late.
it seems the religious mainstream conservative policy is to claim it as gods will as they stick their head in the sand while playing the freedom of religion card as a joker.
wanted to add
i commend the ipcc on their ability to sell sun tan lotion to cave dwellers
however, the rub is this
by the time you have closed the sale, the sunburn will be fatal thus your job would have been a failure other than to create a conversation club around boo boo feelings of the altra un caring.
i am not insinuating your work is worthless or pointless
someone had to start the conversation that no one wanted to be seen talking about.
you did it
the wheels are moving
production of science is happening
however, like most of these things, as leaders start to try and remove teeth, de-claw and subvert power & media toward their own ego and to line their own pockets.
hold fast to your blazing sword.
no one else knows how to use a flash light or how to cut a path to a destination other than the fossil fuel place they have just come from(circles of firey failure)
i guess there is a sense of
will you be the clarion call to arms
the klaxon death knell foot note to the species
Thanks for the response.
Im pretty sure that he was trying to imply that the temp in the atmosphere would be at equilibrium? As in he is thinking that the IR absorbed by c02 is going to be transferred to neighboring particles through collisions before it can be re-emitted...
So, when IR is absorbed by c02, how likely is it that it is actually re-emitted? How likely that the excited c02 transfers that energy via collision instead of emission? And, is it safe to say that the IR is potential heat energy?
Perhaps "atmosphere" is too vague a term?
If memory serves, there is little or no agreement on exactly where the atmosphere stops and space begins.
different layers have different depths at different latitudes
If one expands, does the whole of the atmosphere expand?
If one expands does it do so at the expense of a different layer?
Ha. I actually posted some nice graphics illustrating the different layers...
good points. So, does the expansion of the Troposhere lead to shrinkage higher up? I think the answer may be yes. The mesosphere has been cooling, which is thought to be caused by the buildup of co2 lower in the atmosphere not allowing as much radiation To escape into the mesosphere.
Ok... check this out. A more detailed response from the guy I’ve been talking to elsewhere.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's an interesting question. I got nowhere with a quick internet search on this.
I have read the greenhouse effects works mainly by absorbing IR from the ground and re-emitting it in random directions, so that it bounces around within the atmosphere, and between the atmosphere and the ground, rather than escaping straight into space. But I suppose collisional deactivation would have a similar net effect, with the difference that it would lead to a warming of the air (i.e. the O2 and N2 that cannot absorb or emit IR) rather than a warming of the ground.
I feel sure this point is dealt with somewhere: it is just a matter of finding a good source.
Some of the IR energy absorbed by CO2 is transmitted to other molecules in the air, sure - that's partly how the air gets warmer. What is this guy trying to say?
He appears to have a lot of private meanings for his words - "thermals" and "congruent" and so forth. I'm not sure what he is talking about. 'Thermals shooting out via conduction' refers to no physical process I can identify securely, and what he thinks happens when a "thermal" is "lost" via "conduction" is hard to say.
Pretty good isn’t it? And he gets upset with me when I don’t know what the frack he’s talking about! I have figured out that he is thinking about c02 as a radiator of heat. When IR is absorbed by c02, it then “glows” with heat that can be transmitted by conduction and IR emission simultaneously.
it’s my understanding that if a c02 molecule absorbs a photon, it is either re-emitted in some random spherical direction, or the energy is transferred to another particle via a collision. That photon cannot be both at the same time, which is what is being suggested.
the point is to refute the notion that adding more Co2 will NOT produce global warming"
because the available IR is already absorbed(illogical)
this is the use of a double negative
clearly stating they are seeking to invalidate the idea that someone is proposing that more Co2 wont increase global warming
they speak in circles attempting to counter someone else's thinking pattern.
this is clearly designed to personally interact with a specific person.
my impression of your comments was that, they are proposing increased Co2 WONT increase global warming...
however they clearly state their intent in their commentary is to refute that idea.
maybe they get confused with whom they are trying to sell what ever they are selling to
suggesting the global atmosphere all works the same way(at any given point in a relative cubic meter) is playing with non linear physics laws.
keeping in mind Co2 is being used as an indicator considering the massive impact of methane
he reads like a christian scientist trying to disprove something
however the context is missing something
the inferance to overt simplification is almost clone like to advanced scientific reason, however, the terminology as you illustrate seems to suggest a different set of properties to my simple science mind.
Co2 is able to radiate and directly transfer via contact ...
it appears the suggestion is that Co2 is capable of conducting the greenhouse effect outward to eliminate the radiation of heat back toward the surface.
which is simply not logical.
radiation doesn't only travel in one direction from a Co2 molecule in the atmosphere(or does it?).
life span of the energy needs to be defined by a simple number to show the value of radiation vs potential energy lost/transferred via contact
relative to the component value of the associated chemicals/molecules
[entropic values & properties etc]
what is Co2s' kinetic half life ? (is that a real thing?)
I posted a link to a study a few posts above. In response to ex chemist. Check that out and let me know what you think.
this guy isn’t a dummy. He can think but he is prone to leaning towards the less accepted side of things I guess you could say.
The expansion itself doesn't lead to shrinkage, but the greater greenhouse effect does. (Both effects are swamped by the very large change in volume caused by daytime vs nighttime heating, and by solar wind activity.)
This is what started the argument. It took me a while to find it
Separate names with a comma.