Mean free path. Here's one diagram
In the CO2 absorption notch between 600 and 700 the mean free path is about 30-40 meters according to a now-dead link that I had.
Posted on 08/06/2018 6:00:22 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
Grant Money
The Lefties will cheer when the Rapture occurs. “All of those stupid Xtians are out of the way.” And they will be foolishly ignorant of what is rapidly approaching.
I liked the movie’s storyline better - “Event Horizon”.
And what happened to “The Day After Tomorrow”? No freezy overnight?
Now when the Martians reinvade earth, we’ll have something to worry about (a 10th remake of “The War of the Worlds”).
There's's a movie about that. They ate Chicago and then got tricked into flying into Lake Michigan and they drowned.
There's's a movie about that. They ate Chicago and then got tricked into flying into Lake Michigan and they drowned.
Please tell me this unbridled arrogance or elaborate joke is not for real.
Real scientists have to smile at the new example of Mark Twain's famous quip : "Such large returns in conjecture from such small investment in fact."
I suppose this exercise suggests that since it is inevitable, we might as well accept that the GLBTQWERTYXYZ perverts are destined to rule the world.
Hmmmm.
Might as well start, say... next year?
"If we can save just one child."
Re: We just got through the lowest CO2 in the earth’s history.
Yes.
About 20,000 years ago, which was also the coldest period during the last glacial, the level of CO2 went to 180 parts per million.
Most botanists agree that 150 parts per million is the point where a massive die off photosynthetic plants will begin.
And when edible plants and grains start dying, a massive die off of human beings is not far behind.
Curiously, after reaching maximum low temperature, the Earth warmed for 800 years BEFORE the level of CO2 began to rise from 180 ppm.
OH BOY! I couldn’t wait to read this article. I’ll bet that these “experts” could not even figure out how to use a can opener yet spew forth the vomit of fake science. How can anyone be so ignorant and stupid as to believe a single word of this article? Many do and they are making plans right now to dig holes to hide in along with a months supply of crackers and water.
Nothing curious about that. The deep oceans warm which takes many centuries and that allows less absorption in the upwelling locations and more ocean emissions in some cases. That natural increase in CO2, which is ongoing, should not be confused with manmade CO2. Manmade CO2 is 2-3 ppm per year or most of the observed rise. Natural CO2 from natural warming is perhaps 1/100th of the observed rise, or about 5-10 ppm per degree C of warming.
no proponent of the “global warming” hypothesis has ever explained exactly how carbon dioxide has this amazing property of heating up the planet? T
I don't know about that. I know that the only physical mechanism of CO2 which supposed drives "global warming" does not actually explain it. CO2 has an unusually wide fluorescence band in the infrared. Fluorescence is a property of many molecules. The fact that this activity takes place within the infrared is irrelevant. Fluorescence involves the transfer of energy from one form to another, but does not--cannot--increase the overall energy level of the system. And so on. The physical properties of CO2 do not support the hypothesis that it increases the energy of the atmosphere, as it would have to do to in order to cause global warming.
I was being sarcastic.
According to the popular press, temperature ONLY goes up when humans add CO2 to the atmosphere.
Actually, I'm not sure anyone has ever written a verifiable explanation for the sudden warming that began about 20,000 years ago.
I know I have not seen a convincing explanation, but I am a motivated layman, not a scientist.
Bottom Line - the basic math of man made global warming does not make sense to me.
At 400 ppm, CO2 molecules are just 1 of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere (not including highly variable water vapor).
I don't know how to calculate the average “vacuum” between atmospheric molecules, but it would not surprise me if half of the infrared radiation emitted by Earth passes straight through the atmosphere without passing through ANY molecules of ANY type.
So, some fraction of the total infrared radiation collides with 0.04% (CO2) of the atmosphere, and some minuscule fraction of IR is radiated back to Earth, which causes the oceans to warm and release “unnatural” amounts of IR reflecting water vapor, which creates catastrophic global warming.
I find it very, very hard to believe that is happening.
Mean free path. Here's one diagram
In the CO2 absorption notch between 600 and 700 the mean free path is about 30-40 meters according to a now-dead link that I had.
I should also mention that the greenhouse effect won’t work without N2 and O2. The CO2 can certainly grab a photon based on the mean free path. But it won’t give it up again. The energy has to transfer to bulk gases and by some unevenness they have to transfer enough extra energy back to a CO2 molecule that it will spit out a photon in the same IR band. What we do know is they always do that, no matter what temperature the atmosphere is (as long as it is above 0K). The amount that they do that depends on temperature. The capture of outgoing photons raises the temperature.
Thanks.
That’s very helpful. Mean Free Path is a brand new concept for me.
I still get hung up on the basic numbers, though.
The average temperature on Earth is about 60 degrees F.
If CO2 doubles from 400 to 800, CO2 - by itself, no water vapor - will add about 1 degree F to air temperature.
1 degree F is about a 2% increase from 60 degrees F.
So, somehow, an increase of atmospheric CO2 from 0.04% to 0.08%, triggers a 2% temperature increase, all by itself, even though huge amounts of IR are still leaking directly into space.
Perhaps I don’t understand the energy transfer?
My understanding is that a photon, in the IR wavelength, is absorbed by a CO2 electron, which causes that electron to jump to a higher energy shell.
My assumption has always been that the electron-photon collision creates heat, which CO2 then transfers to its N2 and O2 neighbors.
Is that idea completely wrong?
And it's only a 0.2% increase considered in Kelvin (288.7 to 289.3). Depends on the baseline.
My assumption has always been that the electron-photon collision creates heat, which CO2 then transfers to its N2 and O2 neighbors.
That's exactly right. The collision energy transfer is many orders of magnitude faster than the re-emission of a photon by that same CO2 molecule.
My understanding is that a photon, in the IR wavelength, is absorbed by a CO2 electron, which causes that electron to jump to a higher energy shell.
Yes, photons are absorbed and emitted by electrons jumping up or down discrete energy levels. The trick is that the excited molecular states (vibrational energy shared with the bulk gases) have very long lifetimes compared to the excited electron states. Thus the CO2 molecules do not emit photons very often, so the atmosphere warms instead of energy being scattered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.