 |
Green World Trust
No greenwash here. Just truths as we find them, open to discussion and change
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
FerdiEgb
Experienced User
Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Stabroek, Belgium
|
 Posted: 21 May 2009 10:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
In addition, found that the yield of a CO2 laser is about 20%, that means that about 80% of the energy need to be cooled away. That doesn't mean that CO2 absorption itself is 20% re-emission / 80% absorption, as the transforming of electrical energy via N2 to CO2 IR emission involves several steps. My rough estimate is about 50% emission, 50% heat absorption in this case... See:
http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasercc2.htm#cc2cc28 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Derek
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 209
Location: Manchester, England.
|
| Posted: 22 May 2009 05:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ferdinand - Thank you for the response and link, I will have a good read of the link in particular.
I want to put a piece together this bank holiday combining the various points put here, titled
"Does CO2 trap heat,
(or merely reduce the rate of cooling somewhat)"
hqmonaro - in your response to Richard111 above, "adding it up" seems
to lead to the words in my brackets above.
You have nicely repeated my earlier points however, for that I thank you. 
Consider the CO2 effect with no known link to H2O levels and you'll get there a lot quicker.
Recent observations and work show the actual relationship between CO2 and H2O levels in the atmosphere is showing the opposite
of that assumed by Hansen (and modelled by all GCMs).
Patently the "relationship" is more complex and dynamic than the linear and oversimplified assumptions as modelled at present.
It is the main reason why GCMs are referred to as Garbage In Garbage Out.
H2O is THE main GH gas (although whether by IR or latent heat should be open to question),
get that wrong, inescapably the rest falls with the wrong assumptions.
Another piece for me for this weekend.
In simple terms it all comes down to
does the greenhouse have a roof. ?
Not a complete one, the IR window(s) is always open.
BTW - Latent heat movements....
_________________
An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hqmonaro
Experienced User
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: 22 May 2009 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Derek wrote: | Ferdinand - Thank you for the response and link, I will have a good read of the link in particular.
I want to put a piece together this bank holiday combining the various points put here, titled
"Does CO2 trap heat,
(or merely reduce the rate of cooling somewhat)"
|
It does, that effectively makes the earth warmer. Slow down the cooling more, warm it up more, since it continually heated by the sun.
| Quote: |
hqmonaro - in your response to Richard111 above, "adding it up" seems
to lead to the words in my brackets above.
You have nicely repeated my earlier points however, for that I thank you.
Consider the CO2 effect with no known link to H2O levels and you'll get there a lot quicker.
Recent observations and work show the actual relationship between CO2 and H2O levels in the atmosphere is showing the opposite
of that assumed by Hansen (and modelled by all GCMs).
Patently the "relationship" is more complex and dynamic than the linear and oversimplified assumptions as modelled at present.
It is the main reason why GCMs are referred to as Garbage In Garbage Out.
|
What particular code in the models are you complaining about? The models are very complex, hence the need state of the art supercomputers to do the job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model
| Quote: |
H2O is THE main GH gas (although whether by IR or latent heat should be open to question),
get that wrong, inescapably the rest falls with the wrong assumptions.
Another piece for me for this weekend.
In simple terms it all comes down to
does the greenhouse have a roof. ?
Not a complete one, the IR window(s) is always open.
BTW - Latent heat movements.... |
H2O is not a forcing, but a feedback. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard111
Experienced User
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 433
|
| Posted: 22 May 2009 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hqmonaro - "H2O is not a forcing, but a feedback."
Please specify which phase of H20 you refer to; solid, liquid or gas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard111
Experienced User
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 433
|
| Posted: 22 May 2009 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FerdiEgb - Thank you for the link to the Tyndall pdf. This is a fascinating read, still reading it. The man's achievements, considersing the knowledge base at that time, are astounding. He had to make all his own equipment. I was amazed that the sensitivity of his galvanometer could respond to the iron in the dye of the green silk insulation on the wire he used.
I was startled by the magnitude of his heat sources, 100C to 400C, he states this is because of the lack of absorption of some of the gases he works with. I wonder how sensitive the thermo-electric pile was? (how it works even?)
It appears to me he was doing "broadband" absorption testing as the source end was coated with lampblack. He mentions several times how absorption rises linearly during the start of testing and then tapers off. I haven't read enough yet to see if he referred to the concept of saturation.
Thanks also for the link to the CO2-laser, never knew such a thing existed. Reading about the overheating problems made me wonder, in Tyndall's setup, how much of the "calorific rays", absorbed by the test gases, went into the copper of the test tube.
Still looking for data on what percentage of absorbed radiation is coverted to conductive heat and what effects air density has on this mechanism. Intuitively, (non-scientific I know) I would expect more conductive transfer at low altitude where molecule spacing is much closer and at high altitude almost all absorption would be reradiated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hqmonaro
Experienced User
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: 22 May 2009 01:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard111 wrote: | hqmonaro - "H2O is not a forcing, but a feedback."
Please specify which phase of H20 you refer to; solid, liquid or gas? |
The gas he referred to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 209
Location: Manchester, England.
|
| Posted: 22 May 2009 02:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, so hqmonaro has the by far and a way main greenhouse gas (water vapour) as a "feedback". ?
Of what, and how.
Hmmm, no consideration of latent heat as of yet. ?
OK, OK, hqmonaro, as you state above
| hqmonaro wrote: |
It does, that effectively makes the earth warmer.
|
that CO2 does trap heat. HOW. ?
It is a bank holiday, I could do with a laugh......
It will help to remember we live on a water planet, 71% of the surface being ocean,
the "greenhouse effect" is very, very different from the day to the night side
(which are virtually constant in size, but vary in land / ocean amounts or rather ratio).
Also any atmosphere - surface considerations should be day / night,
and atmosphere - land or ocean.
So that is four major "greenhouses" to consider, at least...
Day - Atmosphere - Land.
Day - Atmosphere - Ocean.
Night - Atmosphere - Land.
Night - Atmosphere - Ocean.
Oceans for example are at night a massive heat source, but during the day a sink, varying due to oceanic cold and warm phases / currents.
Ferdinand - Has CO2 vibrating more, because presumably in the time elapsed (no reason given why)
between absorbtion and re-emission the molecule has to do something..
Apart from the time the CO2 holds onto the photon, (why please - it is a very important point to your suggestion),
how does 0.04% (CO2) vibrating more warm the rest of the atmosphere noticably.
ie 99.96%. ?
If warmed as proposed by Ferdinand's previous "explanation" in this thread
at what frequency does the rest of the atmosphere emit photons as he suggests. ?
Surely not at the very frequency most of the atmosphere is transparent to.
I fail to see the (or as presented your), logic and reasoning Ferdinand,
1) No reason given why the CO2 "holds onto" the absorbed photon.
2) The proportion of 0.04% vibrating more heats 99.96% seems ludicrous.
3) If the re-emitted photon is 100% of what was absorbed, then the extra vibration heating the 99.96% as you suggest
seems to contradict the law(s) of energy conservation.
It appears something for nothing, which you then seem to suggest "runs away" heating the rest of the atmosphere.
If what you have said is correct (OR EVEN VAGUELY BELIEVABLE) then your name in history is assured.
You have created heat from nothing.
4) The photons the rest of the heated atmosphere emit as you suggest, wouldn't they actually lead to more cooling. ?
So destroying your own suggested heating mechanism....
5) How is this suposed "heat trapping" effect of CO2 measured, and how is it converted into a CO2 measure. ?
Let us leave that alone for the time being.....
_________________
An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race.
Last edited by Derek on 22 May 2009 02:55 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 209
Location: Manchester, England.
|
| Posted: 22 May 2009 02:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hqmonaro wrote: |
H2O is not a forcing, but a feedback. |
Actually an assumed feedback by one James Hansen of NASA.
As temperature rises so the level of H20 (gas) rises, so increasing the heat retained or "trapped" (supposedly).
This is the (ASSUMED) warming blanket central to AGW.
Assumed, modelled, and unobserved IN REALITY....
(Reality is where it counts after all is said and done..)
Infact the opposite has been observed just where Hansen's assumption said it should be occurring.
Quite simply, it ain't, he's wrong.
Unfortunately it is the base warming mechanism used by all the IPCC GCMs.
G.I.G.O.
_________________
An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jij
Joined: 21 May 2009
Posts: 3
Location: London
|
| Posted: 22 May 2009 04:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FerdiEgb wrote: | Thus sorry for what you don't like: that humans are fully responsible for the bulk of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is very solid, all available evidence points to that and nothing in the observations contradicts that.
The fact that the increase is a near fixed percentage of the emissions is from a process technical view quite remarkable: it points to a simple first order linear process in dynamic equilibrium. Thus with all the (even non-linear) many different processes that influence the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, the sum of everything happens to be a quite simple process: if you disturb it by something, it tries to go back to the original equilibrium in a simple mathematical way.. |
Hi Ferdinand,
Sorry for the intrusion. I haven't posted on here before, but we're having a similar discussion on another forum and I found this page on google. I was wondering if you would entertain a question or two from myself.
I also started reading the reports from Segalstad which make a lot of intuitive sense. However, to my mind there are two primary exchanges of CO2 taking place continuously
(i) atmosphere↔ocean
(ii) atomsphere↔biomass
Now, the IPCC's and I think your view is that (i) happens very slowly, so the that the equilibrium of atmospheric gaseous CO2 and aqueous CO2 and it's buffers is only attained after a very long period of perhaps 50 to 200 years.
Whereas (ii) the atomsphere↔biomass exchange happens in huge quantities every year, but of course this does not sequester CO2, it merely exchanges it, therefore is not adding or subtracting a net amount of atmospheric CO2. Taken together these two will exchange around 18% of the atmosphere's CO2 every year. So there is a very quick turnover, giving CO2 ‘lifetime’ of 5 years on so (see Segalstad many references to back this up).
And ...
Currently we know that the atmosphere contains around 840 gigatonnes of carbon and the ocean contains around 35,000GT
So if we stop emitting any more CO2 and wait for 200 years then the 1,000 gigatonnes of carbon we've already put in the atmosphere will reach equilibrium with the oceans according to Henry's Law with only:
840÷3,840 = 23GT remaining in the atmosphere and
35,000÷35,840 = 976GT dissolving into the oceans and being buffered.
So if all our emissions so far reach equilibrium in the linear Henry's Law, atmospheric CO2 will rise by only 22GT, i.e. and increase of only 2.6% on the current atmospheric level of 840GT.
But this is not what we have seen in the Mauna Loa data etc. Atmospheric CO2 has apparently risen by around 50% for what we have emitted. Not 2% or 3%
So the assumption must be that this (i) atmosphere↔ocean equilibrium is not reached quickly, and the 18% of the atmosphere's CO2 that is exchange each year is almost all by (ii) atomsphere↔biomass.
However this assumption of the relative strengths of the two exchanges does not fit in the very strong short term correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperatures. Just look a the fit between the very warm El Nino years and the increase of CO2:
There's no 100 year lag there. More like a few weeks.
So my question is how can temperatures possibly effect the atmospheric CO2 concentration so quickly unless the (i) atmosphere↔ocean exchange is very large? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard111
Experienced User
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 433
|
| Posted: 22 May 2009 06:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Steve Fitzpatrick over at WUWT has a post:
A look at human CO2 emissions -vs- ocean absorption
on a similar idea.
| Quote: | | In this post I offer a simple model that shows why net absorption of CO2 by the ocean is most likely the main ocean effect. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FerdiEgb
Experienced User
Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Stabroek, Belgium
|
| Posted: 22 May 2009 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Derek wrote: | Ferdinand - Has CO2 vibrating more, because presumably in the time elapsed (no reason given why)
between absorbtion and re-emission the molecule has to do something..
Apart from the time the CO2 holds onto the photon, (why please - it is a very important point to your suggestion),
how does 0.04% (CO2) vibrating more warm the rest of the atmosphere noticably.
ie 99.96%. ?
If warmed as proposed by Ferdinand's previous "explanation" in this thread
at what frequency does the rest of the atmosphere emit photons as he suggests. ?
Surely not at the very frequency most of the atmosphere is transparent to.
I fail to see the (or as presented your), logic and reasoning Ferdinand,
1) No reason given why the CO2 "holds onto" the absorbed photon.
2) The proportion of 0.04% vibrating more heats 99.96% seems ludicrous.
3) If the re-emitted photon is 100% of what was absorbed, then the extra vibration heating the 99.96% as you suggest
seems to contradict the law(s) of energy conservation.
It appears something for nothing, which you then seem to suggest "runs away" heating the rest of the atmosphere.
If what you have said is correct (OR EVEN VAGUELY BELIEVABLE) then your name in history is assured.
You have created heat from nothing.
4) The photons the rest of the heated atmosphere emit as you suggest, wouldn't they actually lead to more cooling. ?
So destroying your own suggested heating mechanism....
5) How is this suposed "heat trapping" effect of CO2 measured, and how is it converted into a CO2 measure. ?
Let us leave that alone for the time being..... |
About the different points:
1) The capture of a foton only enhances the energy of the molecule. It may result in an immediate release of a new foton (in general at a lower frequency - that means energy level - than the captured one, the difference is more vibration, thus a higher temperature), or it may be delayed, it may give it's extra energy to another molecule present in the neighbourhood by collission. The photon's emitted it may be in the visible range, it may be in the heat rays range... All depends of the typical molecule's electron energy levels and/or the vibrational energy levels.
UV light capturing can add that much energy that it breaks the vibrational spring between two oxygen atoms in an O2 molecule and split it in two atoms, which can recombinate with oxygen to form ozone... Even with the energy that the is needed to break up the O-O bond, the total stratosphere heats up about 1°C during solar maxima vs. solar minima, because of this capturing of UV by O2 (and O3, once formed).
2) proportion has nothing to do with heat retention or loss in the total mass: if you heat 0.001 mass part of the atmosphere 1,000°C warmer than the rest, after some time the whole mass will increase 1°C (assuming equal heating capacity). If CO2 captures only 1% of all outgoing energy, the cooling of the total atmosphere at night would be 99%, not 100% anymore. Theoretically (based on measurements at lab scale), CO2 doubling captures about 4 W/m2 extra, good for an increase of about 0.9°C at the surface...
3) Nothing is for free, including energy. As said in 1), emitted photons in general are always lower in energy than captured ones. The heat emissions from the surface have a broad spectrum, a small part of that is captured by CO2, which results in re-emissions (at lower energy level, see the N2/CO2 laser), heating up of the same CO2 and distribution of the heat from CO2 to all molecules present, which again results in increased emissions of heat waves, proportional to the increase of temperature.
4) Without a heat source, the whole atmosphere (and everything on earth) would cool down by radiation to absolute zero. The sun heats up the atmosphere ánd the surface during the day. After dark, the cooling gets in, but is tempered by convection (heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere), water vapor (as heat carrier), clouds (as heat reflectors) and GHGs (water vapor, CO2 and others) as outgoing wavelength trappers/re-emitters.
5) The heat trapping of CO2 is measured as a deficiency in IR transmission at certain wavelengths through a tube. The deficiency is proportional to the logarithm of the concentration of CO2 in the mixture... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FerdiEgb
Experienced User
Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Stabroek, Belgium
|
| Posted: 22 May 2009 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jij wrote: |
Hi Ferdinand,
Sorry for the intrusion. I haven't posted on here before, but we're having a similar discussion on another forum and I found this page on google. I was wondering if you would entertain a question or two from myself.
|
Hi jij,
I have read the discussion at the Dawson blog now. Have subscribed and will respond more in detail there in next days...
More tomorrow here...
And see my different comments on Segalstad in this forum...
But first have a look at the basics of why humans are responsible for the increase in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hqmonaro
Experienced User
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: 23 May 2009 03:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Ferdinand - Has CO2 vibrating more, because presumably in the time elapsed (no reason given why)
between absorbtion and re-emission the molecule has to do something.. |
Everything takes a finite amount of time. Nothing happens instantaneously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 209
Location: Manchester, England.
|
| Posted: 23 May 2009 06:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FerdiEgb wrote: |
1) The capture of a foton only enhances the energy of the molecule. It may result in an immediate release of a new foton (in general at a lower frequency - that means energy level - than the captured one, the difference is more vibration, thus a higher temperature), or it may be delayed, it may give it's extra energy to another molecule present in the neighbourhood by collission.
|
You still assert with no explanation regarding re-emission of the absorbed photon by CO2 "or it may be delayed". How or why is it delayed. ?
My original understanding was also that the re-emitted photon must be of a lower energy (frequency) level,
because as you suggest the extra vibration must be "paid" for.
But as the re-emission by CO2 is almost instant, I have been informed the energy level remains "unchanged".
Hence I repeat this is an important point of yours,
why and for how long does the molecule of CO2 "hold onto" the photon (or rather increased energy level).
The "holding onto" by CO2 is presumably the "heat trapping" mechanism you keep suggesting,
but as of yet you have given no explanation. ?
| FerdiEgb wrote: |
2) if you heat 0.001 mass part of the atmosphere 1,000°C warmer than the rest, after some time the whole mass will increase 1°C (assuming equal heating capacity). If CO2 captures only 1% of all outgoing energy, the cooling of the total atmosphere at night would be 99%, not 100% anymore. Theoretically (based on measurements at lab scale), CO2 doubling captures about 4 W/m2 extra, good for an increase of about 0.9°C at the surface...
|
OK, so how much is CO2's temperature raised by absorbing a photon,
then we can divide it by 400 / 1,000,000, or rather 2500. !
You say cooling would be 99% (it is probably nearer 96% but close enough for this discussion),
then you assert CO2 "captures" and hence warming of 0.9C. ?
This is the whole point, without a "heat trapping" mechanism for CO2,
it is the rate of cooling that is slowed somewhat,
no heat is "captured".
| FerdiEgb wrote: |
3) Nothing is for free, including energy. As said in 1), emitted photons in general are always lower in energy than captured ones. The heat emissions from the surface have a broad spectrum, a small part of that is captured by CO2, which results in re-emissions (at lower energy level, see the N2/CO2 laser), heating up of the same CO2 and distribution of the heat from CO2 to all molecules present, which again results in increased emissions of heat waves, proportional to the increase of temperature.
|
No increase in temperature just a slight slowing in the rate of cooling,
without a heat source it would merely take a little longer to cool to absolute zero.
You have already said this, so you have already said heat is not trapped.
| FerdiEgb wrote: |
4) Without a heat source, the whole atmosphere (and everything on earth) would cool down by radiation to absolute zero. The sun heats up the atmosphere ánd the surface during the day. After dark, the cooling gets in, but is tempered by convection (heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere), water vapor (as heat carrier), clouds (as heat reflectors) and GHGs (water vapor, CO2 and others) as outgoing wavelength trappers/re-emitters.
|
Nicely worded Ferdinand. But to make what you are saying above a little clearer,
I would emphasize we live on a water planet. At night the oceans are a major source of heat.
I would also add that heat movements in the lower atmosphere are mostly by convection, to a lesser extent conduction, and least by radiation.
Also given atomic wieghts it is obvious CO2 is found lower down in the atmosphere.
Turbulent convection does a good job of mixing it to quite a high level, but none the less, CO2 is a heavy atmospheric gas comparatively.
Many a child has seen and been upset by this basic principle,
when the helium (comparatively a light atmospheric gas) filled balloon floats away to heaven.
A CO2 filled balloon would just not be as much fun would it...
This means the rate of cooling due to radiation is slowed more lower down in the atmosphere.
"trappers/emitters" - AGAIN you use the term "trap", yet again with no explanation, or mechanism for CO2.
I wouldn't want to misunderstand what you meant Ferdinand, but your words above,
seem, well, carefully chosen not to enlighten.
| FerdiEgb wrote: |
5) The heat trapping of CO2 is measured as a deficiency in IR transmission at certain wavelengths through a tube. The deficiency is proportional to the logarithm of the concentration of CO2 in the mixture... |
"heat trapping" AGAIN.... Yet you yourself say it is re-emitted by CO2 at a lower frequency.
If IR is absorbed, and by implication, re-emitted almost immediately, at a different frequency by CO2,
THEN IT IS NOT TRAPPED.
What is being measured is the amount absorbed, at specific frequencies, assumed absorbed by CO2 only,
not whether it is "trapped".
CO2 merely slows the rate of cooling slightly,
as of yet no "heat trapping" mechanism has been explained.
Why the need to keep asserting a "heat trapping" mechanism for one of the minor GH gases in the atmosphere,
of the least important known methods the planet uses to cool itself in the lower atmosphere. ?
_________________
An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race.
Last edited by Derek on 23 May 2009 06:46 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hqmonaro
Experienced User
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: 23 May 2009 06:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
""heat trapping" AGAIN.... Yet you yourself say it is re-emitted at a lower frequency.
If it is absorbed, and by implication, re-emitted almost immediately, at a different frequency,
THEN IT IS NOT TRAPPED.
What is being measured is the amount absorbed, at specific frequencies, assumed absorbed by CO2 only,
not whether it is "trapped".
CO2 merely slows the rate of cooling slightly,
as of yet no "heat trapping" mechanism has been explained.
Why the need to keep asserting "heat trapping" of one of the minor GH gases in the atmosphere,
of the least important known methods the planet uses to cool itself in the lower atmosphere. ?"
You are nit picking. It's just an expression to simply explain what is happening. No one thinks the CO2 is accumulating energy indefinitely. As you say, it slows the rate of cooling. When that happens with a blanket, you feel warmer.
The greenhouse effect is vital for our lives, it's the reason the earth isn't a snowball. But it's like the recommended diet, keep it balanced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
