Why the CO2 greenhouse effect is a myth
chemist
its temperature.The temperature of a gas is due
to the motion of its molecules.The IR is absorbed
internally in the molecule.
Read Kinetic theory of Gases.
It takes more energy to warm CO2 than air
this extra energy is that th absorbed in the flexing
and stretching of its molecule.
Apart from that
Greenhouse gas experiments show that argon
warms faster than air and that methane warms
more slowly than air.Such results show they do
not measure the so called "greenhouse effect"
but indicate that the temperature differences
are due to conductivity effects
(low MW gives a higher conductivity)
The very strong correlation between CO2 and
temperature in the last 30 years is evidently
due to the fact that GW is increasing the CO2.
Earl Evleth
bad6fa75-2c6d-4ec2...@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, "chemist"
<tom-b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> The IR that CO2 absorbs should not increase
> its temperature.The temperature of a gas is due
> to the motion of its molecules.The IR is absorbed
> internally in the molecule.
You are certainly NOT a real chemist or scientist.
The heating effect comes from the process called
thermalization. When CO2 or any other molecule
absorbs IR light, a vibrationally excited state
is generated. So absorption at 2200 cm-1 from
the v = 0 to v = 1 state of this particular mode
creates a CO2 molecules with 2200 cm-1 in energy.
At room temperature the thermal energy is
around 200 cm-1. When the vibrationally hot
CO2 molecule strikes, let's say, a N2 molecule
in air, the 2000 cm-1 in energy is redistributed
in the form of CO2 and N2 recoiling with the energy
in kinetic energy form in both. Further collisions
of the translationally hot CO2 and N2 will eventually
produce a system at a new equilibrium temperature
higher than before.
All energy of any form eventually ends up as thermal energy.
Water falling from a waterfall will heat the water below,
a falling rock once is stops will do the same thing.
Heat if the end of the rood of energy.
> Read Kinetic theory of Gases.
Yes, have done, and have taught the same to students.
And you sir?
> Greenhouse gas experiments show that argon
> warms faster
Nonsense, argon has no IR absorption, like N2 and O2
it is not a greenhouse gas.
polar bear
I suspect that when CO2 absorbs IR, that it emits IR in a random
direction, almost immediately. It may even be more accurate to say
that the CO2 "scatters" the IR, but I will keep using the term
"absorbs" because people are familiar with it.
The IR can be repeatedly absorbed and emitted many times by the CO2 in
the atmosphere.
Eventually, because the direction is random, the IR will end up either
going back toward the earth, or going off into space.
Because of the random nature of the scattering process, approximately
half of the IR will end up going back toward the earth, and
approximately half of the IR will end up going off into space.
This scattering of the IR by the CO2, would be something like Rayleigh
scattering.
Rayleigh scattering is the scattering of light or other
electromagnetic radiation by particles much smaller than the
wavelength of the light. It can occur when light travels in
transparent solids and liquids, but is most prominently seen in gases.
Rayleigh scattering of sunlight in clear atmosphere is the main reason
why the sky is blue.
Earl Evleth
05486556-641c-436d...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com, "polar
bear" <polar.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suspect that when CO2 absorbs IR, that it emits IR in a random
> direction, almost immediately.
No, in general the lifetime (half life) of any vibrationally excited
molecules is too long so it gets hit by another molecules, which
redistributes the energy into thermal energy by recoil.
PII: 0584-8539(94)E0110-V
of their vibrationally excited states are rapidly reduced to their
equilibrium values ... participate in 105 collisions during one radiative
half-lifetime. ...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0584853994E0110V
Generally the vibrational lifetimes are in the order of milli to
microseconds.
So they do not fluoresce. They get quenched before they have a chance
except in outer space where the gas densities are very los.
> It may even be more accurate to say that the CO2 "scatters"
> the IR, but I will keep using the term "absorbs" because people
> are familiar with it.
scattering is due to something else. Rayleigh scattering (which makes
the sky blue) depends on the frequency of the scattered light (to
the 6th power as I seem to remember)
it is not at all strong in the IR region. Raman scattering is still
again different and not an IR event.
>
Roger Coppock
> The IR that CO2 absorbs should not increase
> its temperature.The temperature of a gas is due
> to the motion of its molecules.The IR is absorbed
> internally in the molecule.
That does it. You, Mr. Tom Bolger, are not
now and have never have been a chemist.
Ouroboros_Rex
"chemist" <tom-b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bad6fa75-2c6d-4ec2...@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> The IR that CO2 absorbs should not increase
> its temperature.
cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo
The temperature of a gas is due
> to the motion of its molecules.The IR is absorbed
> internally in the molecule.
> Read Kinetic theory of Gases.
> It takes more energy to warm CO2 than air
> this extra energy is that th absorbed in the flexing
> and stretching of its molecule.
And is then transfered as heat.
> Apart from that
> Greenhouse gas experiments show that argon
> warms faster than air and that methane warms
> more slowly than air.Such results show they do
> not measure the so called "greenhouse effect"
cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo
> but indicate that the temperature differences
> are due to conductivity effects
cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo
> (low MW gives a higher conductivity)
> The very strong correlation between CO2 and
> temperature in the last 30 years is evidently
> due to the fact that GW is increasing the CO2.
And vice versa. Otherwise isotopic studies would show it is only surface
(non-fossil) CO2.
Ouroboros_Rex
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:C3E07FD5.1105E3%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
Thank you very much - these posts cleared up a lot of loose ends for me
regarding transfer from vibrational mode!
Ouroboros_Rex
"polar bear" <polar.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:05486556-641c-436d...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Something to consider under this radiative transfer idea is that it might
well hit another CO2 molecule on the way out. =)
Earl Evleth
<i...@casual.com> wrote:
> Thank you very much - these posts cleared up a lot of loose ends for me
> regarding transfer from vibrational mode!
Basically it is not different that throwing a vibrating spring model of
CO2 into a box of ping pong balls, the vibrating CO2 with hit some of the
balls around and pretty soon the CO2 will start moving around. In
fact mathematical models are constructed to do this kind of trajectory.
You end up with ping balls bouncing around. Physical chemists love
to model these kinds of things just for the fun of it, even though
they know what the answer must be.
In fact real systems are quantize with respect to the vibrations,
so you have a zero vibrational level in CO2 and a number of
excited vibrational levels. One can calculated from Boltzman's
law what fraction of the CO2 are vibrationally excited.
At room temperature there are essentially none
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_distribution
This is harder to model!
Ouroboros_Rex
That leads me to my next question, which is probably stupid. Is it true
that after the division of energy from the collision, the results are then
incapable of setting up vibration in other CO2 molecules? Is that energy
then a permanent resident in the thermal domain?
Or am I still making some fundamental error?
Whata Fool
>Nonsense, argon has no IR absorption, like N2 and O2
>it is not a greenhouse gas.
So maybe you can elaborate on how N2 and O2 (usually
called air) buffers any GHG effect, there must be some kind of
race where the air absorbs energy quicker than the CO2 can
radiate it away?
It might be too much to ask a fan of J. Hansen to discuss
the possibility that the air would be warmer if there were NO
GHGs, or whether that says that CO2 _cools_ the air instead
of warming it, or, at least both warms and cools the air, which
might suggest that the temperature of the air would be more
stable if there were NO GHGs at all.
And CO2 has such a small effect compared to water droplet
clouds that it plays a very small part in daily or even annual
changes in climate or average temperature.
Earl Evleth
<i...@casual.com> wrote:
> Is it true
> that after the division of energy from the collision, the results are then
> incapable of setting up vibration in other CO2 molecules? Is that energy
> then a permanent resident in the thermal domain?
Mostly. At room temperatures the kinetic energy of translation is much
lower than the vibrational energy of CO2 in its lowest vibrational state.
So any excited CO2 is vibrationally "hot" and will want to give
up that and become cool and pass that energy off to the other
molecules around it.
Other molecules which are very large (take a protein) have low energy
vibrations, it comes with size. For instance a very long molecule will
have a mode in which the ends of the molecule are going up while the middle
is going down. This will have a low energy, for instance in the order
of 50 or 100 cm-1 were the thermal energy is 200. But this not the case
with CO2 or water in the gas phase.
Earl Evleth
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>> Nonsense, argon has no IR absorption, like N2 and O2
>> it is not a greenhouse gas.
>
> So maybe you can elaborate on how N2 and O2 (usually
> called air) buffers any GHG effect, there must be some kind of
> race where the air absorbs energy quicker than the CO2 can
> radiate it away?
Argon, N2 and O2 absorb no infrared light. They have no direct effect
on the energy flux to and from the earth. O2 absorbs in the UV region
below 200 nm, but there is little energy in that region emitted from
the sun and nothing from the black body emission of the earth.
However, with regard to transport of thermal energy N2 and O2 dominate,
there are the hot or cold air we feel in a breeze. I'd say in modeling
transport of thermal energy forget CO2, but in modeling absorption of
energy forget the N2 and O2. I will say I have not modeled this
kind of thing but have done computer modeling in other areas.
I personally shutter at the complexity of doing so in the climate
area. But I am old and out of that loop.
> It might be too much to ask a fan of J. Hansen to discuss
> the possibility that the air would be warmer if there were NO
> GHGs,
I don't see how. If we removed the CO2 the earth will freeze.
Any model which progressively calculates the temperature at
lower CO2 concentrations will give lower equilibrium temperatures.
If you put water vapor into the mixture, same thing. It becomes
more complicated with clouds and even more so if cosmic rays
are catalyzing their formation. Then the albedo increase
comes into play. Same with water, if ice and snow form
and remain the albedo goes up and the system cools off.
> or whether that says that CO2 _cools_ the air instead
> of warming it, or, at least both warms and cools the air, which
> might suggest that the temperature of the air would be more
> stable if there were NO GHGs at all.
I see the CO2 as simple, more CO2 more heating, less CO2
cooling. It is the water which is a switch hitter, not CO2.
If I were an anti I would concentrate on water, clouds, cosmic
rays. CO2 only has a small forcing, it is cancelled out in
any period where volacanic emissions put dues and sulfates
into the air.
> And CO2 has such a small effect compared to water droplet
> clouds that it plays a very small part in daily or even annual
> changes in climate or average temperature.
Water plays a complicated role, not just vapor. Look at the albedo
of ice on Greenland, 70-80% of the sun light (in the summer) is put
back into space. Yet, when it melts, the ocean albedo is low
all the energy is retained. That alone says that as liquid
water you have a strong absorber, as solid a strong reflector.
CO2 only plays it in one direction.
CO2 has a nearly constant concentration in the atmosphere, water
vapor content varies all over the map, low in the Sahara, high
in the rain forest and arctic regions.
chemist
YOU ROGER, KNOW SWEET FA ABOUT PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY
I suggest you read it up, especially the Kinetic Theory of Gases.
John M.
What we would like to read is your CV, Tom. Where is this available,
please?