The CO2 Blanket?
-
A greenhouse traps its IR/ LWR with its glass enclosure. The UV comes in, warms the interior which starts radiating and that radiation is trapped by the enclosure. Simple, basic stuff.
According to at least some AGW alarmists CO2 acts like a blanket. Clouds can act like a blanket depending on the type and abundance. But that blanket just keeps the norm. It doesn't make it any warmer.
CO2 is heavier than air. The miniscule traces of CO2 are nothing like cloud cover and nothing like a blanket.They re-emit their absorbed energy in any direction, not just back towards the source, for example the earth. If all of the CO2 aligned such that their collective re-emittance was towards space then there is zero greenhouse effect. It wouldn't matter if the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 1% if that was the case. And at 400 parts per million, even if you could get them all aligned to re-emit towards the earth, it's a very inefficient process that includes cooling when the energy is released.
And guess what? All of that energy escapes anyway.
The fact is neither scenario is likely. That is because the CO2 is constantly being moved around and with that the angle of re-emittance is always changing. And the area the re-emitted energy can affect is very small. Unless the CO2 is very close to the earth there is no way its re-emitted energy will reach the earth. It's most likely going to get moved right along by winds and convection currents. That is how the majority of the heat the atmosphere is moved- winds and convection currents. The re-emitting from CO2 is very, very minor in comparison and is overwhelmed by it.
CO2 only absorbs 8% of the total black body radiation produced by the earth. 8%- that's it. 92% leaves unimpeded by CO2. That is a number you will never hear AGW alarmists say.
How long does the CO2 hold onto the energy? Not long at all. It gets energized and gives it away- badda-bing, badda-boom- gone. Some of it's energy is transferred via contact with other atmospheric gasses. Only some of it's absorbed energy is re-emitted as IR/ LWR. You are not going to get warmer if the energy the CO2 releases is less than the surrounding air.
How far does that re-emitted energy travel? It isn't powered by much so it cannot be very far before it dissipates without leaving any noticeable effect.
Then there is the following:
Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands.
Without an atmosphere the surface would be roasting. The Moon doesn't have an atmosphere and guess what the sunny side's temperature is? 253 degrees F!!!!! NASA
It is our magnetic shield, atmosphere and oceans which greatly attenuate and regulate that signal. The greenhouse gasses, mainly water vapor just slow the return of the energy back into space. Deserts are cold at night due to the lack of humidity and total lack of cloud cover. CO2 doesn't have any effect there.
Urban heat islands exist as do Urban CO2 domes. Looks like the gasses don't mix as much as we are led to believe which would make CO2 a local and not global issue. IF it was an issue to begin with, which apparently it is not.
CO2 does not act like a blanket. It does not trap any heat. All the alleged greenhouses gasses do is slow the ascent of the radiated heat from the surface of the earth to space.
A greenhouse traps its IR/ LWR with its glass enclosure. The UV comes in, warms the interior which starts radiating and that radiation is trapped by the enclosure. Simple, basic stuff.
According to at least some AGW alarmists CO2 acts like a blanket. Clouds can act like a blanket depending on the type and abundance. But that blanket just keeps the norm. It doesn't make it any warmer.
CO2 is heavier than air. The miniscule traces of CO2 are nothing like cloud cover and nothing like a blanket.They re-emit their absorbed energy in any direction, not just back towards the source, for example the earth. If all of the CO2 aligned such that their collective re-emittance was towards space then there is zero greenhouse effect. It wouldn't matter if the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 1% if that was the case. And at 400 parts per million, even if you could get them all aligned to re-emit towards the earth, it's a very inefficient process that includes cooling when the energy is released.
And guess what? All of that energy escapes anyway.
The fact is neither scenario is likely. That is because the CO2 is constantly being moved around and with that the angle of re-emittance is always changing. And the area the re-emitted energy can affect is very small. Unless the CO2 is very close to the earth there is no way its re-emitted energy will reach the earth. It's most likely going to get moved right along by winds and convection currents. That is how the majority of the heat the atmosphere is moved- winds and convection currents. The re-emitting from CO2 is very, very minor in comparison and is overwhelmed by it.
CO2 only absorbs 8% of the total black body radiation produced by the earth. 8%- that's it. 92% leaves unimpeded by CO2. That is a number you will never hear AGW alarmists say.
How long does the CO2 hold onto the energy? Not long at all. It gets energized and gives it away- badda-bing, badda-boom- gone. Some of it's energy is transferred via contact with other atmospheric gasses. Only some of it's absorbed energy is re-emitted as IR/ LWR. You are not going to get warmer if the energy the CO2 releases is less than the surrounding air.
How far does that re-emitted energy travel? It isn't powered by much so it cannot be very far before it dissipates without leaving any noticeable effect.
Then there is the following:
Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands.
Conclusions
This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming caused by an increase of absorptivity of infrared radiation (IR) by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature.
On the overlapping absorption spectral bands of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the carbon dioxide propitiates a decrease of the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture in the atmosphere, not an increase, as AGW proponents argue 1, 2, 3.
Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.What? How can that be? HINT- CO2 is being used as a commercial refrigerant- it is a high quality natural refrigerant. Go figure.
Without an atmosphere the surface would be roasting. The Moon doesn't have an atmosphere and guess what the sunny side's temperature is? 253 degrees F!!!!! NASA
It is our magnetic shield, atmosphere and oceans which greatly attenuate and regulate that signal. The greenhouse gasses, mainly water vapor just slow the return of the energy back into space. Deserts are cold at night due to the lack of humidity and total lack of cloud cover. CO2 doesn't have any effect there.
Urban heat islands exist as do Urban CO2 domes. Looks like the gasses don't mix as much as we are led to believe which would make CO2 a local and not global issue. IF it was an issue to begin with, which apparently it is not.
CO2 does not act like a blanket. It does not trap any heat. All the alleged greenhouses gasses do is slow the ascent of the radiated heat from the surface of the earth to space.
posted by Joe G @ 10:07 AM
4 Comments:
At 11:15 AM,
Unknown said…
http://hannahlab.org/climate-skeptics-nasif-nahles-shaky-math/
Even I found a mistake in an equation (top of page five, there's a mismatch in the number of ( )s.)
Then there is this:
https://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/04/an-exercise-in-how-climate-denial-works/
At 11:24 AM,
Joe G said…
OK Jerad, how long does CO2 hold on to the energy it absorbs? Show your work
How far does the re-emitted energy travel? Show your work
Then we have:
Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”?
A possible cause of global warming
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Read it. It makes a great case that the warming is natural.
Then there is:
Where, Exactly, Is The Man-made Climate Problem?
Why haven't any of the climate alarmists predictions come true? That alone should tell you something is amiss
At 2:32 PM,
Unknown said…
OK Jerad, how long does CO2 hold on to the energy it absorbs? Show your work
I'm not sure the exact answer to that question but the Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Under the global warming potential subheading addresses some things close to that issue.
How far does the re-emitted energy travel? Show your work
Since energy cannot be destroyed it would travel until it's reabsorbed or travels into space.
Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”?
A possible cause of global warming
I think you will find that issue well discussed in the literature.
Why haven't any of the climate alarmists predictions come true? That alone should tell you something is amiss
I'm not interested in the 'alarmists'. But the opinion of the serious scientists are worrying. And, to be fair, not having been 'here' before the models are only very approximate predictions. But, as far as I can see, the weather does seem to be more volatile and unpredictable. And there is a definite warming trend on average. I'm getting really worried about what things will be like in 20 or 30 years.
At 7:53 AM,
Joe G said…
Under the global warming potential subheading addresses some things close to that issue.
No, it doesn't. So let me give you a clue- it is instantaneous. It doesn't hold onto it.
Since energy cannot be destroyed it would travel until it's reabsorbed or travels into space.
So it cannot be attenuated? Why do walkie-talkie's have a limited range, Jerad?
I think you will find that issue well discussed in the literature.
LoL! That WAS the literature- it was the name of then paper along with the author.
But the opinion of the serious scientists are worrying.
Not really as it isn't based on science. You clearly didn't read the link I provided. You cannot tell the difference between the alleged natural warming and the alleged warming caused by CO2 increases.
But, as far as I can see, the weather does seem to be more volatile and unpredictable.
Not here. The winters are still freezing, the spring still melts away the snow and ice, the summers are hot and in the fall it starts getting cooler and the leaves fall off of the trees.
There are larger temperature changes from day to day then the alleged warming since 1880.
In 20 - 30 years the winters will still be freezing, the spring will still melt away the snow and ice, the summers will still be hot and in the fall it will still start getting cooler and the leaves will fall off of the trees.
Post a Comment
<< Home