Posted on 08/17/2019 11:09:33 AM PDT by Kid Shelleen
There are about 10^44 molecules in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is 200,000,000 square miles times about 10 miles thick or 2 billion cubic miles. That's 5.6x10^16 cubic feet. Since there is 0.041% CO2, that's 4x10^41 CO2 molecules in the whole atmosphere. Divide by the number of cubic feet, and that 7x10^24 CO2 molecules per cubic foot. Granted they are infinitesimally small, but that's a lot of molecules that can intercept the IR photon as it passes through that cubic foot of air.
termites, which produce 50 billion tons of CO2 per year-
Yes: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/218/4572/563.abstract?sid=ecbb2a97-081d-494f-a327-9aaacab08a5f but then more recent work says 4 billion tons https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JD095iD04p03619 There's a lot of uncertainty in the estimates. If you propose natural sources like that, it will have to be a combination of sources. There's no one natural source that can explain the rise, unlike fossil fuel burning.
[[but that’s a lot of molecules that can intercept the IR photon as it passes through that cubic foot of air.]]
I think you are missing the point- it’s only a ‘lot of molecules’ i n a very small area- The rest of the atmosphere is molecule free (of CO2)- over 99% of atmosphere is CO2 molecule free-
To illustrate the importance of how little there are- and make it a bit more clear, imagine, for the sake of argument, that all the CO2 molecules are on one side of the earth- say above Australia- just for the sake of clarifying the point of how little impact it’s having- i realize there are patches all around the globe based on how much CO2 certain cities expel, but they are very small)
Now, this small patch of atmosphere, 0.00136% of the total atmosphere (assuming for sake of argument all the CO2 is concentrated at this point above Australia, takes up about I dunno- 1/100’th of the atmosphere above Australia (I don’t know what the exact figure would be, but it would be very small area)
so let’s say this patch takes up i dunno- three miles of atmosphere total- all the Ir escaping hte earth directly beneath this patch gets trapped-
However, and this is the important point, all the IR escaping the earth to the sides of this patch, have absolutely nothing but spotty cloud cover to prevent it from escaping past the patch- some will get trapped by cloud cover i guess (i don’t know if cloud cover can actually hinder IR or not- I think it can) but where there is no cloud cover- there’s nothing to trap the Ir and hold it-
So, all you have is that small 3 mile patch of atmosphere where the Ir is getting trapped by CO2- everywhere else i n the world, CO2 escapes the earth unhindered except for where there are small patches of cloud cover- the clear skies have nothing to hinder the escaping IR-
That small patch above Australia can in now way cause the warming of the rest of the world- because the rest of the atmosphere contains No CO2- over 99% is CO2 free
[[If you propose natural sources like that, it will have to be a combination of sources. ]]
True- it’s not only termites that release CO2- many natural sources do- I just cited the termites because folks are unaware that they would be such a massive CO2 force- they actually outweigh humans by a large margin- something i never realized before- nature is just incredible in the impact it has o n the world- and many things get overlooked because they seem inconsequential, when in reality they have a large impact)- in very large quantities- and again, back to the purging or turnover of oceans, they too very well might be releasing CO2 despite not warming enough as per that wattsup article-
[[Since there is 0.041% CO2, that’s 4x10^41 CO2 molecules ]]
Two points- that 0.041% is all greenhouse gases- not just CO2- point 2 while the 4x10^41 looks impressive, it’s still only 0.00136% of the atmosphere that man’s CO2 amounts to- That’s still not even a piddly 1% of the atmosphere
The whole argument that ‘Yes, but a little has a dramatic impact’ is simply not true- CO2 isn’t a poison like cyanide is where just a small fraction of a % can be deadly- to a few people- alarmists have tried making that claim before- and at first glance, a statement like that makes it seem like we should be shocked because “CO2 could be deadly”- but when you actually break down the fact that yes, cyanide could be deadly at a very small amount- BUT It’s ONLY deadly to a few people- it couldn’t possibly be deadly to the whole world’s population- they are trying to make an alarmingly shocking claim about CO2 by comparing it to cyanide, but that argument fails for the reason pointed out above- So, even though CO2 isn’t even a poison, even being generous to the alarmists and allowing them such a silly argument, even their ‘shock’ alarmism falls flat-
The bottom line is- no matter how you slice it, there is still far too little CO2 to destroy the earth- Heck- We’ve been at 1000 ppm and life flourished- We’re certainly nowhere near to a ‘tipping point’ as many alarmists claim- and nature is self balancing anyways- when it gets close to dangerous levels, which by the way will be far above 1000 ppm, nature will correct itself- We’ll all be fine-
4x10^41 CO2 molecules in the entire atmosphere means 10^24 CO2 molecules per cubic foot, every cubic foot across the earth and 10 miles up.
Now, this small patch of atmosphere, 0.00136% of the total atmosphere
CO2 is 0.041% of the total atmosphere.
That small patch above Australia can in now way cause the warming of the rest of the world- because the rest of the atmosphere contains No CO2- over 99% is CO2 free
Correct. But CO2 is not concentrated over Australia, it is spread everywhere, and there are 10^24 molecules in every cubic foot. Note however, those molecules are incredibly small, so they still let most IR photons through that cubic foot of atmosphere. But by 40-50 meters, an average photon will bump into a CO2 molecule and turn into vibrational energy which will immediately transfer to neighboring N2 and O2 molecules.
and again, back to the purging or turnover of oceans, they too very well might be releasing CO2 despite not warming enough as per that wattsup article
Right, but purging is from past warming centuries ago that finally percolated to the deep ocean. There was not enough warming centuries ago to account for even 1/10th of the current warming.
Two points- that 0.041% is all greenhouse gases- not just CO2- point 2 while the 4x10^41 looks impressive, it’s still only 0.00136% of the atmosphere that man’s CO2 amounts to- That’s still not even a piddly 1% of the atmosphere
0.041% is CO2 (410 parts per million). About 0.03% is natural CO2. The rest is most likely to be manmade, or as you prefer, made since 1850 from increased termites, lowered ocean algae, volcano changes and other natural sources. But the fact remains that in 1850 CO2 was 0.028% and now it is 0.041%.
The bottom line is- no matter how you slice it, there is still far too little CO2 to destroy the earth- Heck- We’ve been at 1000 ppm and life flourished-
Life flourished at even higher levels of CO2. CO2 is undoubtedly good. The most important thing to know about CO2 is we had CO2 starvation in the last glaciation. What they don't talk about in this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692178/pdf/9507562.pdf is that life will die off at 150ppm. The paper points out we were down to 180 at the last glacial maximum.
[[0.041% is CO2 (410 parts per million).]]
Correct- had a brain fart-
[[or as you prefer,]]
Yes, I prefer unbiased non agenda science-
[[But the fact remains that in 1850 CO2 was 0.028% and now it is 0.041%.]]
Not disputing there’s been an increase- however, I do think some of the testing done might be faulty- they are basing it off ice cores, tree rings- etc- and looking into dating methods, tree ring testing is not an accurate method- many factors can skew the results- also - for CO2 testing, ice core samples, alarmists make the claim it can’t be trusted when the results show CO2 following warming by 100’s of years- yet they turn around and claim the method unassailable when they get results that are closer to their agenda claims-
This hypocrisy is what calls their results into question- Are ice core samples accurate? Or not?
Regardless of the method of testing, there are faults- as in dating methods- none are accurate- most have wild swings in results even when dating the same material numerous times- Some, as shown by tree ring dating, are off due to environmental changes that skew the results- some years there can be two rings- some years can skip a ring- etc- on and on it goes- not gonna get into the problems with dating methods here- that’s a whole nother scam-
[[ Right, but purging is from past warming centuries ago that finally percolated to the deep ocean.]]
They aren’t sure what the turn over is from- They suspect a cause, but nothing definite-
[[There was not enough warming centuries ago to account for even 1/10th of the current warming.]]
Again- that article posted from wattsup shows that it wasn’t warming that causes these oceanic turnover/purges- that was the point of the article, which flies in the face of stated causes-
[[and there are 10^24 molecules in every cubic foot.]]
Again- there can’t be enouhg to cause global climate change (I’ll discuss the reasons below)- there isn’t enough CO2 to saturate every foot of atmosphere- not even in a small layer of atmosphere around the globe- I’ve not seen any science which proves the globe is blanketed in a continuous blanket of CO2
[[But by 40-50 meters, an average photon will bump into a CO2 molecule and turn into vibrational energy which will immediately transfer to neighboring N2 and O2 molecules.]]
We’ve discussed this before- while it might bump into another CO2 molecule, that CO2 molecule is busy converting a different CO2 molecule into heat- or producing heat I should say I guess- the CO2 molecules are saturated with IR, allowing new CO2 molecules to pass by without being absorbed- it’s kinda like a glass- that is full to brim- adding new water doesn’t result in the molecules in the glass absorbing more- the glass is full- so the new water just spills out- bad analogy- but kinda shows what I mean- Perhaps a better analogy would be a sponge- fill the sponge up, and new water can not be absorbed by sponge- empty sponge, and new water can absorb, but beyond a certain point sponge can no longer absorb any-
[[every cubic foot across the earth and 10 miles up.]]
but what you aren’t stating is that almost the entire 1 cubit foot is CO2 free- Here we get back to the saturation issue- because there is so little CO2 it become saturated with IR very quickly, and most IR makes it’s way past because of not only this fact- but also because of the fact that the vast majority of that cubit foot is CO2 free-
When the numbers are posted, it makes it seem as though that cubit foot is loaded with CO2- but it of course isn’t-
As discussed before- any IR that is turned into heat gets radiated out, and is either taken up by a neighbor CO2 molecule, or it escapes upwards- or it gets trapped by the small amount of other GHG’s- Most radiate IR heat does not get radiated in the ‘right’ direction towards earth to support hte hypothesis that CO2 is causing warming- most heat is radiated upwards or horizontally- only a fraction gets radiated downward- so what little CO2 goes in the ‘right’ direction towards earth- again, meets a cooled earth and reaches equilibrium very quickly because there is so little that reaches the earth-
a semi connected and relevant point is made below
“CO2 absorption of LWIR shows a logarithmic decay, with current concentration nearing the part of the graph where the slope is rapidly approaching zero......
The atmosphere thins with altitude, and what that means is that probability of a photon hitting a molecule decreases with altitude. If you have 100 molecules in a cube with 1 cm between each molecule you have 10x the probability of a collision than if you only have 10 molecules and 10cm between each molecule. The result is that radiation has a far easier time leaving the atmosphere when it is going against the traffic, then going back towards the earth and with the traffic. A photon going back towards earth may only have to travel 10 cm before it is absorbed whereas it may travel 1 m leaving the earth before it is absorbed. In other words, radiation takes 3 steps forward and 1 step back on its way out of the atmosphere.”
Additionally- wheat little does reach earth is in no way capable of heating the ocean (remember the numbers posted that showed the required increases needed for heating the vast oceans)- so we know that there has never been that amount of heat ever- so we know the oceans must experience a different mechanism for releasing massive quantities of CO2
“13 to 18µ LWIR does not penetrate or warm water.”
Same link as above
Yes, #6 in your link also agrees with this, there is a logarithmic drop in greenhouse effect with added CO2.
but what you aren't stating is that almost the entire 1 cubit foot is CO2 free
Not really. My numbers above were apparently incorrect. Google says 10^22 air molecules in every cubic meter. Divide by 1000 and divide by 1000 again to get a cubic millimeter. Then multiple by 0.000410 to get the number of CO2 per cubic mm. That's 12,300,000,000,000 CO2 molecules in every cubic mm. Even with all those molecules an IR photon is likely to pass through without hitting one. That's due to the fact that the molecules are incredibly small. But within 50 meters the IR photon is likely to hit a CO2 molecule.
As discussed before- any IR that is turned into heat gets radiated out, and is either taken up by a neighbor CO2 molecule, or it escapes upwards- or it gets trapped by the small amount of other GHG's
All molecules in a local area in the atmosphere are at the same temperature because of conduction. Conduction of heat is orders of manitude faster than radiation. So when a CO2 molecule warms, all the neighboring N2 and O2 share that warmth among themselves. Think it like this, 100 units of energy get created by a photon hitting a CO2 molecule. Next, right away, that CO2 molecule and 99 neighbors will have one unit of energy. Can the CO2 now radiate that one unit away? No. Totally impossible. It needs 100 units to radiate because photons are quantized.
So instead there are other CO2 molecules relatively far away (compared to the much more numerous N2 and O2 nearby). When the CO2 molecule has 100 units it might then radiate a photon (it's a coin toss at that point).
A photon going back towards earth may only have to travel 10 cm before it is absorbed whereas it may travel 1 m leaving the earth before it is absorbed. In other words, radiation takes 3 steps forward and 1 step back on its way out of the atmosphere."
That's true but that's at the top of the atmosphere. Down at the bottom the molecules are much closer togeather (although incredibly tiny, such that atmosphere is basically empty space)
Additionally- wheat little does reach earth is in no way capable of heating the ocean
That's true. The oceans are heated by the sun's shortwave which penetrates. Yes, perhaps a different mechanism for releasing CO2 from the ocean. Maybe a chemical process, or biological. But there has to be a process of some sort that has to be identified and studied. Otherwise the default conclusion is that there is no process to get from 280 to 410 from the ocean (plus 2.5 ppm more each year).
[[ Even with all those molecules an IR photon is likely to pass through without hitting one. That’s due to the fact that the molecules are incredibly small. But within 50 meters the IR photon is likely to hit a CO2 molecule]]
Yeah, the link i gave in last post addresses this issue better than my hamhanded manner could- I only just recently run across that website’s page on that issue- He did a good job describing it- that’s kinda what i was tryign to say- but clumsily
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.