Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What would happen on Earth with an atmosphere of 50% CO2 an 50% water vapour?
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Nelson
Nov 19, 2011, 9:28:28 AM11/19/11
to
Please consider what would happen on Earth starting with an atmosphere
of Carbon dioxide mixed 50:50 with water vapour. My estimate is that
the sun would visually dim very little but the whole IR band of
radiation would fall by some 38%. Therefore there would be 38% less
heat
reaching the ground.
That atmosphere would warm and convection currents would start to
operate. Due to expansion of gases the rising vapour would cool at the
saturated lapse rate some 5 °C/km). Soon a distillation process would
begin and Earth would regain something like the current temperatures
but actually cooler due to a decrease in thermal energy reaching the
ground.
At night the heat retention of the carbon dioxide and water vapour
atmosphere would save the planet from excessive temperature
fluctuations as observed on the Moon of 123°C to -238 °C.
of Carbon dioxide mixed 50:50 with water vapour. My estimate is that
the sun would visually dim very little but the whole IR band of
radiation would fall by some 38%. Therefore there would be 38% less
heat
reaching the ground.
That atmosphere would warm and convection currents would start to
operate. Due to expansion of gases the rising vapour would cool at the
saturated lapse rate some 5 °C/km). Soon a distillation process would
begin and Earth would regain something like the current temperatures
but actually cooler due to a decrease in thermal energy reaching the
ground.
At night the heat retention of the carbon dioxide and water vapour
atmosphere would save the planet from excessive temperature
fluctuations as observed on the Moon of 123°C to -238 °C.
Martin Brown
Nov 19, 2011, 11:49:58 AM11/19/11
to
On 19/11/2011 14:28, Nelson wrote:
> Please consider what would happen on Earth starting with an atmosphere
> of Carbon dioxide mixed 50:50 with water vapour. My estimate is that
> the sun would visually dim very little but the whole IR band of
> radiation would fall by some 38%. Therefore there would be 38% less
> heat
> reaching the ground.
You have fundamentally failed to understand that the bulk of the
> Please consider what would happen on Earth starting with an atmosphere
> of Carbon dioxide mixed 50:50 with water vapour. My estimate is that
> the sun would visually dim very little but the whole IR band of
> radiation would fall by some 38%. Therefore there would be 38% less
> heat
> reaching the ground.
radiation coming from the sun is characteristic of a black body at 5500K
strongly peaked in the visible with a tail into uv and ir. The incoming
radiation in a clear sky would be barely affected and it will warm the
ground. The tricky bit is predicting the effect of clouds.
The higher proportion of CO2 and H2O would block *outgoing* thermal
infra red radiation characteristic of temperatures of around 300K.
Reasonably nice graphic presentation of the main components at:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
>
> That atmosphere would warm and convection currents would start to
> operate. Due to expansion of gases the rising vapour would cool at the
> saturated lapse rate some 5 °C/km). Soon a distillation process would
> begin and Earth would regain something like the current temperatures
> but actually cooler due to a decrease in thermal energy reaching the
> ground.
Almost certainly clouds would form and rain would fall until the
> That atmosphere would warm and convection currents would start to
> operate. Due to expansion of gases the rising vapour would cool at the
> saturated lapse rate some 5 °C/km). Soon a distillation process would
> begin and Earth would regain something like the current temperatures
> but actually cooler due to a decrease in thermal energy reaching the
> ground.
atmosphere contained water vapour at a concentration that was roughly
consistent with the prevailing ambient temperature at each latitude.
After that you would have weather characteristic of those temperatures.
Snow and ice would be considerably rarer.
It only remains to estimate the temperature of an atmosphere of CO2 at
0.5bar (ie 50% instead of 400ppm). 50/0.4 = 125 which is close enough to 2^7
Doubling CO2 concentration gives a optimistic 2K increase and possibly
as much as 5K if we are unlucky increase in global mean temperature. So
the ambient temperature would be in the ball park of 14K to 35K higher
than at present (best guess at present about 20C). This could in a worst
case scenario allow lakes in the tropics to boil. It is also getting a
bit borderline for having permanent ice at the poles in the worst case
scenario. There are a few online simulators that will let you play with
model planets - this is pushing them to their limits.
>
> At night the heat retention of the carbon dioxide and water vapour
> atmosphere would save the planet from excessive temperature
> fluctuations as observed on the Moon of 123°C to -238 °C.
The main effect would be from clouds. And they are a double edged sword.
> At night the heat retention of the carbon dioxide and water vapour
> atmosphere would save the planet from excessive temperature
> fluctuations as observed on the Moon of 123°C to -238 °C.
In daytime they do reflect away a fair proportion of the incident
sunlight. But equally they also stop long wave radiation from escaping
and reflect back a proportion of sunlight that has penetrated. If you
get mostly high cirrus or status clouds then they can enhance the
greenhouse effect by trapping heat. Clear skies allow the ground to cool
rapidly at night as astronomers are well aware.
You should also be aware that Venus has a high very CO2 concentration
and a surface temperature sufficient to melt lead. And this is despite
having the highest albedo of any planet in the solar system of 0.9
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Szczepan Bialek
Nov 19, 2011, 1:30:53 PM11/19/11
to
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
news:S6Rxq.33177$Us1....@newsfe16.iad...
> >
> Doubling CO2 concentration gives a optimistic 2K increase and possibly as
> much as 5K if we are unlucky increase in global mean temperature.
Last Post wrote:
> Doubling CO2 concentration gives a optimistic 2K increase and possibly as
> much as 5K if we are unlucky increase in global mean temperature.
"o Tyndall was the first to correctly measure the
infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen,
oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is
the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the
atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other
gases is negligible."
To be precise the water vapour is not a gas. In the Earth atmosphere water
is in form of areosol.
S*
Martin Brown
Nov 20, 2011, 9:24:53 AM11/20/11
to
On 19/11/2011 18:30, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:S6Rxq.33177$Us1....@newsfe16.iad...
>>>
>> Doubling CO2 concentration gives a optimistic 2K increase and possibly as
>> much as 5K if we are unlucky increase in global mean temperature.
>
> Last Post wrote:
> "o Tyndall was the first to correctly measure the
> infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen,
> oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
> methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is
> the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the
> atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
> temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other
> gases is negligible."
Water is a major factor, but CO2 and CH4 are the ones that we can
> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:S6Rxq.33177$Us1....@newsfe16.iad...
>>>
>> Doubling CO2 concentration gives a optimistic 2K increase and possibly as
>> much as 5K if we are unlucky increase in global mean temperature.
>
> Last Post wrote:
> "o Tyndall was the first to correctly measure the
> infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen,
> oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
> methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is
> the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the
> atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
> temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other
> gases is negligible."
control. Around 70% of the planet is covered with oceans so the lower
atmosphere will always have plenty of water vapour in the troposphere.
>
> To be precise the water vapour is not a gas. In the Earth atmosphere water
> is in form of areosol.
> S*
Water vapour is present as both an aerosol (solid phase and droplets) in
> To be precise the water vapour is not a gas. In the Earth atmosphere water
> is in form of areosol.
> S*
clouds and as a gas in vapour phase.
The measurement of relative humidity gives you a rough idea of how much
water vapour is present in the atmosphere. When the dew point is reached
and the atmosphere becomes (super)saturated then water comes out as
either fog or dew on cooler surfaces like car roofs and grass.
Being November in the UK it is foggy today (first time this season).
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Szczepan Bialek
Nov 20, 2011, 12:21:51 PM11/20/11
to
news:O48yq.33967$Us1....@newsfe16.iad...
number of people dependent. People "reworked" the carbon from the soil into
gaseous CO2.
>Around 70% of the planet is covered with oceans so the lower atmosphere
>will always have plenty of water vapour in the troposphere.
Here we can control locally by ionization and another ways. Watering work
like the oceans.
>> To be precise the water vapour is not a gas. In the Earth atmosphere
>> water
>> is in form of aerosol.
in form of agregates (heavy ions).
aerosols only.
"Water vapour present in the atmosphere" is "strongest absorber of radiant
is not the gas.
May it be right?
S*
> On 19/11/2011 18:30, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
>> news:S6Rxq.33177$Us1....@newsfe16.iad...
>>>>
>>> Doubling CO2 concentration gives a optimistic 2K increase and possibly
>>> as
>>> much as 5K if we are unlucky increase in global mean temperature.
>>
>> Last Post wrote:
>> "o Tyndall was the first to correctly measure the
>> infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen,
>> oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
>> methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is
>> the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the
>> atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
>> temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other
>> gases is negligible."
>
> Water is a major factor, but CO2 and CH4 are the ones that we can control.
Yes. We can control but in very long periods. The content of CO2 is the
>> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
>> news:S6Rxq.33177$Us1....@newsfe16.iad...
>>>>
>>> Doubling CO2 concentration gives a optimistic 2K increase and possibly
>>> as
>>> much as 5K if we are unlucky increase in global mean temperature.
>>
>> Last Post wrote:
>> "o Tyndall was the first to correctly measure the
>> infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen,
>> oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
>> methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is
>> the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the
>> atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
>> temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other
>> gases is negligible."
>
> Water is a major factor, but CO2 and CH4 are the ones that we can control.
number of people dependent. People "reworked" the carbon from the soil into
gaseous CO2.
>Around 70% of the planet is covered with oceans so the lower atmosphere
>will always have plenty of water vapour in the troposphere.
like the oceans.
>> To be precise the water vapour is not a gas. In the Earth atmosphere
>> water
>> S*
>
> Water vapour is present as both an aerosol (solid phase and droplets) in
> clouds and as a gas in vapour phase.
The Earth has an excess of electrons. So below 100C most molecules H2O are
>
> Water vapour is present as both an aerosol (solid phase and droplets) in
> clouds and as a gas in vapour phase.
in form of agregates (heavy ions).
>
> The measurement of relative humidity gives you a rough idea of how much
> water vapour is present in the atmosphere. When the dew point is reached
> and the atmosphere becomes (super)saturated then water comes out as either
> fog or dew on cooler surfaces like car roofs and grass.
May be that "water vapour is present in the atmosphere" in form of very fine
> The measurement of relative humidity gives you a rough idea of how much
> water vapour is present in the atmosphere. When the dew point is reached
> and the atmosphere becomes (super)saturated then water comes out as either
> fog or dew on cooler surfaces like car roofs and grass.
aerosols only.
"Water vapour present in the atmosphere" is "strongest absorber of radiant
heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
temperature."
Gas do not absorb of radiant heat. So water vapour present in the atmosphere
temperature."
is not the gas.
May it be right?
S*
Martin Brown
Nov 21, 2011, 5:31:00 AM11/21/11
to
On 20/11/2011 17:21, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:O48yq.33967$Us1....@newsfe16.iad...
>> On 19/11/2011 18:30, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
>>> news:S6Rxq.33177$Us1....@newsfe16.iad...
>>>>>
>>>> Doubling CO2 concentration gives a optimistic 2K increase and possibly
>>>> as
>>>> much as 5K if we are unlucky increase in global mean temperature.
>>>
>>> Last Post wrote:
>>> "o Tyndall was the first to correctly measure the
>>> infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen,
>>> oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
>>> methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is
>>> the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the
>>> atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
>>> temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other
>>> gases is negligible."
>>
>> Water is a major factor, but CO2 and CH4 are the ones that we can control.
>
> Yes. We can control but in very long periods. The content of CO2 is the
> number of people dependent. People "reworked" the carbon from the soil into
> gaseous CO2.
More like burning the fossilised carboniferous forests and gas & oil.
> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:O48yq.33967$Us1....@newsfe16.iad...
>> On 19/11/2011 18:30, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
>>> news:S6Rxq.33177$Us1....@newsfe16.iad...
>>>>>
>>>> Doubling CO2 concentration gives a optimistic 2K increase and possibly
>>>> as
>>>> much as 5K if we are unlucky increase in global mean temperature.
>>>
>>> Last Post wrote:
>>> "o Tyndall was the first to correctly measure the
>>> infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen,
>>> oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
>>> methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is
>>> the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the
>>> atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
>>> temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other
>>> gases is negligible."
>>
>> Water is a major factor, but CO2 and CH4 are the ones that we can control.
>
> Yes. We can control but in very long periods. The content of CO2 is the
> number of people dependent. People "reworked" the carbon from the soil into
> gaseous CO2.
>
>> Around 70% of the planet is covered with oceans so the lower atmosphere
>> will always have plenty of water vapour in the troposphere.
>
> Here we can control locally by ionization and another ways. Watering work
> like the oceans.
Even allowing for Englush not being your native language this is
>> Around 70% of the planet is covered with oceans so the lower atmosphere
>> will always have plenty of water vapour in the troposphere.
>
> Here we can control locally by ionization and another ways. Watering work
> like the oceans.
indecipherable.
>
>>> To be precise the water vapour is not a gas. In the Earth atmosphere
>>> water
>>> is in form of aerosol.
>>> S*
>>
>> Water vapour is present as both an aerosol (solid phase and droplets) in
>> clouds and as a gas in vapour phase.
>
> The Earth has an excess of electrons. So below 100C most molecules H2O are
> in form of agregates (heavy ions).
Rubbish. Water vapour in the atmosphere might cluster a bit, but plenty
>>> To be precise the water vapour is not a gas. In the Earth atmosphere
>>> water
>>> is in form of aerosol.
>>> S*
>>
>> Water vapour is present as both an aerosol (solid phase and droplets) in
>> clouds and as a gas in vapour phase.
>
> The Earth has an excess of electrons. So below 100C most molecules H2O are
> in form of agregates (heavy ions).
of it is present as individual molecules as the gaps in the atmospheric
IR spectrum of the sun amply demonstrates.
>>
>> The measurement of relative humidity gives you a rough idea of how much
>> water vapour is present in the atmosphere. When the dew point is reached
>> and the atmosphere becomes (super)saturated then water comes out as either
>> fog or dew on cooler surfaces like car roofs and grass.
>
> May be that "water vapour is present in the atmosphere" in form of very fine
> aerosols only.
No. That would give distinctive nano particle effects that are not
>> The measurement of relative humidity gives you a rough idea of how much
>> water vapour is present in the atmosphere. When the dew point is reached
>> and the atmosphere becomes (super)saturated then water comes out as either
>> fog or dew on cooler surfaces like car roofs and grass.
>
> May be that "water vapour is present in the atmosphere" in form of very fine
> aerosols only.
normally observed. Mie scattering for instance.
>
> "Water vapour present in the atmosphere" is "strongest absorber of radiant
> heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
> temperature."
>
> Gas do not absorb of radiant heat. So water vapour present in the atmosphere
> is not the gas.
This is complete garbage. Monoatomic and diatomic molecules do not have
> "Water vapour present in the atmosphere" is "strongest absorber of radiant
> heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
> temperature."
>
> Gas do not absorb of radiant heat. So water vapour present in the atmosphere
> is not the gas.
the right modes of oscillation to absorb in the near or far infrared.
Triatomic and higher polyatomic molecules do have suitable lower energy
assymetric oscillations available to excite. Simple example
Symmetric stretching:
O2 O=O O==O O=O O==O
Minimum energy required is enough to stretch O=O bond.
CO2 O=C=O O==C==O O=C=O O==C==O
Minimum energy required is enough to stretch two C=O bonds at once
Asymmetric CO2 oscillation
CO2 O=C==O O==C=O O=C==O O==C=O
Requires a lot less energy to oscillate because one bond is stretched
when the other is compressed. Bending is harder to draw in ASCII art.
Some online animations of triatomic molecules normal modes:
http://www.jce.divched.org/jcewww/articles/www0001/
>
> May it be right?
> S*
No it is incomprehensible gibberish.
> May it be right?
> S*
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Szczepan Bialek
Nov 21, 2011, 1:16:49 PM11/21/11
to
news:vLpyq.38202$Uw7....@newsfe02.iad...
That is also the number of people dependent.
watering and burning gas & oil.
"In this example, we employ a simple matrix algorithm described by Gwin (2)
to characterize molecular vibrations for both linear (carbon dioxide) and
non-linear (sulfur dioxide) triatomic molecules"
Tyndall made the measurements.
>>
>> May it be right?
>> S*
>
> No it is incomprehensible gibberish.
You wrote: "Water vapour in the atmosphere might cluster a bit,". So I am a
bit right.
This bit should be dependent on the electric voltage. There are devices to
produce the ionised air. There are the clusters of water molecules.
Electrons from thr Sun's storms can work in the same way.
S*
>>
>>> Around 70% of the planet is covered with oceans so the lower atmosphere
>>> will always have plenty of water vapour in the troposphere.
>>
>> Here we can control locally by ionization and another ways. Watering work
>> like the oceans.
>
> Even allowing for Englush not being your native language this is
> indecipherable.
Sticky air and the heat waves are caused by producing the water wapour by
>>> Around 70% of the planet is covered with oceans so the lower atmosphere
>>> will always have plenty of water vapour in the troposphere.
>>
>> Here we can control locally by ionization and another ways. Watering work
>> like the oceans.
>
> Even allowing for Englush not being your native language this is
> indecipherable.
watering and burning gas & oil.
to characterize molecular vibrations for both linear (carbon dioxide) and
non-linear (sulfur dioxide) triatomic molecules"
Tyndall made the measurements.
>>
>> May it be right?
>> S*
>
> No it is incomprehensible gibberish.
bit right.
This bit should be dependent on the electric voltage. There are devices to
produce the ionised air. There are the clusters of water molecules.
Electrons from thr Sun's storms can work in the same way.
S*
Martin Brown
Nov 21, 2011, 5:44:34 PM11/21/11
to
> This bit should be dependent on the electric voltage. There are devices to
> produce the ionised air. There are the clusters of water molecules.
> Electrons from thr Sun's storms can work in the same way.
> S*
dimers and possibly higher clusters because of hydrogen bonding. The
measurements and models suggest around 0.8% at 90% RH and 50C rising to
around 2% for 95% RH and 20C see for example this paper in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v260/n5547/abs/260131a0.html
This has nothing at all to do with "electrons from the suns storms" and
everything to do with the molecular orbital structure of H2O.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Szczepan Bialek
Nov 22, 2011, 4:55:00 AM11/22/11
to
news:fvAyq.31599$Pm3....@newsfe12.iad...
the excess of electrons. All areosols have the excess of electrons.
But the boiling point has also something to do.
CO2 has -78C. H2O +100C. Which of them can form an areosol in our
atmosphere?
>The measurements and models suggest around 0.8% at 90% RH and 50C rising to
>around 2% for 95% RH and 20C see for example this paper in Nature:
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v260/n5547/abs/260131a0.html
>
> This has nothing at all to do with "electrons from the suns storms" and
> everything to do with the molecular orbital structure of H2O.
I have found also the link "without" electrons:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/712/
If Authors do not mention the electrons that do not mean that the excess of
electrons in the atmosphere do not exist. Am I right?
I am not an expert. I am trying ony to fit to the Tyndall's result.
S*
> On 21/11/2011 18:16, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
>> news:vLpyq.38202$Uw7....@newsfe02.iad...
>>> On 20/11/2011 17:21, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>>>
>>>> May it be right?
>>>> S*
>>>
>>> No it is incomprehensible gibberish.
>>
>> You wrote: "Water vapour in the atmosphere might cluster a bit,". So I am
>> a
>> bit right.
>
> No you are wrong and spouting complete gibberish. And doing it again
> below.
>
>> This bit should be dependent on the electric voltage. There are devices
>> to
>> produce the ionised air. There are the clusters of water molecules.
>> Electrons from thr Sun's storms can work in the same way.
>> S*
>
> Water in nearly saturated conditions and moderate temperatures forms
> dimers and possibly higher clusters because of hydrogen bonding.
All areosols must be charged. Without charge they fall down. The Earth has
>> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
>> news:vLpyq.38202$Uw7....@newsfe02.iad...
>>> On 20/11/2011 17:21, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>>>
>>>> May it be right?
>>>> S*
>>>
>>> No it is incomprehensible gibberish.
>>
>> You wrote: "Water vapour in the atmosphere might cluster a bit,". So I am
>> a
>> bit right.
>
> No you are wrong and spouting complete gibberish. And doing it again
> below.
>
>> This bit should be dependent on the electric voltage. There are devices
>> to
>> produce the ionised air. There are the clusters of water molecules.
>> Electrons from thr Sun's storms can work in the same way.
>> S*
>
> Water in nearly saturated conditions and moderate temperatures forms
> dimers and possibly higher clusters because of hydrogen bonding.
the excess of electrons. All areosols have the excess of electrons.
But the boiling point has also something to do.
CO2 has -78C. H2O +100C. Which of them can form an areosol in our
atmosphere?
>The measurements and models suggest around 0.8% at 90% RH and 50C rising to
>around 2% for 95% RH and 20C see for example this paper in Nature:
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v260/n5547/abs/260131a0.html
>
> This has nothing at all to do with "electrons from the suns storms" and
> everything to do with the molecular orbital structure of H2O.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/712/
If Authors do not mention the electrons that do not mean that the excess of
electrons in the atmosphere do not exist. Am I right?
I am not an expert. I am trying ony to fit to the Tyndall's result.
S*
0 new messages