Simply the conservation of energy. It can't just disappear, it either gets spread across the 10,000 non-CO2 molecules from the 4 CO2 molecules, or one of the 4 CO2 molecules has a probabilistic emission of an IR photon out into space or back towards the earth. The other way to get rid of energy as you pointed it motion (convection) upwards, but that is incredibly slow compared to transfer between molecules.
What is not really valid about my scenario is having all 4 CO2 molecules in the 10,000 other molecules getting hit with IR photons. The odds are much much lower than that. Might be 4 in a million or 4 in a billion. But the extra heat is still cumulative until it goes away (e.g. through convection or radiation to space)
...and the impact of entropy is so pervasive....
Entropy is an argument for dispersion of heat, not against it.
The convection spoken of in the article I believe was speaking to upper cooler molecules descending down to the area of CO2-
Convection is a (slow) process to cool the atmosphere. Thus it is a negative feedback because any time it gets warmer for whatever reason (sunshine, weather, CO2 warming), convection increases. But the important thing to realize is that sunshine is a dozen orders of magnitude more powerful than CO2 warming so it controls convection. If CO2 warming creates more convection it will probably be insignificantly more.
....in order for the impact of the slight warming to do what the IPCC claims it will do in 100 years, there needs to be hotspots in an isolated closed system in order for the temps to reach what has been predicted- the whole alarmist predictions rely on this hot spot feature-
There was a predicted hotspot in the upper tropical troposphere, I believe it was due to increase convection in the tropics. They don't talk about it much anymore since the prediction failed. But that requires correct predictions about weather because, other than sunshine warming the earth, convection is a function of weather. Models can't predict weather because weather is essentially an input because it is parameterized. I would argue the hotspot is really a model input based on convection parameters. If they want a hotspot they increase the convection parameter. It is not very meaningful and could have nothing to do with CO2 (a hotspot might form from having frequent El Nino)
Warming depends on suspending entropy and isolating the warming in a closed system globally, not just locally in spots around the globe
The entropy argument is an argument for dispersion of warming from single CO2 molecules to other non-CO2 molecules. The conservation of energy means the extra warmth in the CO2 molecules has to go somewhere. It will eventually get radiated away or convect upwards and then be radiated away. But both of those are slow compared to the 1/10 nanosecond that it takes to transfer the heat from a CO2 molecules to a surrounding non-CO2 molecule, especially convection which on the order of minutes to move heat upwards.
[[The entropy argument is an argument for dispersion of warming from single CO2 molecules to other non-CO2 molecules.]]
Agreed-
[[But both of those are slow compared to the 1/10 nanosecond that it takes to transfer the heat from a CO2 molecules to a surrounding non-CO2 molecule,]]
It doesn’t really matter the speed- because as the heat rises, colder molecules sink to take their place
[[Convection is a (slow) process to cool the atmosphere.]]
Just for clarity- is the convection where the rising heat has been replaced by cooler stratospheric molecules? The sun heats the lower layer, due to being temporarily trapped by clouds and GHG- the heat rises from ths layer, colder molecules above sink- is this the basic principle? If so colder air is much denser than warmer air, and them ore it cools the atmosphere, the less clouds there are (or do I have that backerds?) the less the atmosphere is able to contain the heat in that layer, the quicker the process?
[[Might be 4 in a million or 4 in a billion.]]
Well that’s what I was wondering simply because 0.04% of something seems an awful low amount but again I’m horrible at math
[[But the extra heat is still cumulative until it goes away (e.g. through convection or radiation to space)]]
What I question is that since the colder upper level molecules and surrounding molecules in that layer so vastly outnumber the heated molecules (even IF it is a constant heating process) and since the scenario plays out I described above, what little heat is produced simply get overwhelmed by the cooler 6 quadrillion tons of atmosphere + the how ever many tons of molecules from space (Does space even have molecules? I’m just winging it here- if so the tonnage must be massive)
[[Simply the conservation of energy. It can’t just disappear, it either gets spread across the 10,000 non-CO2 molecules from the 4 CO2 molecules, or one of the 4 CO2 molecules has a probabilistic emission of an IR photon out into space or back towards the earth. The other way to get rid of energy as you pointed it motion (convection) upwards, but that is incredibly slow compared to transfer between molecules]]
I think what we need to know is the ‘air exchange’ or ‘molecule exchange’ rate- cold to hot ratio, as well as factor in the entropy rate as heat gets transferred laterally to neighboring non CO2 molecuels
[[I would not call it a blanket but CO2 molecules end up evenly distributed around the planet.]]
Which leaves me wondering how much of a gap there is between each molecule of CO2 (provided they are in a horizontal layer roughly), and how the CO2 molecules can capture all the right wave ir photons that rise up into atmosphere if there are large gaps? It would seem to me that only the IR photons in the direct path of the CO2 molecules would be absorbed while all the rest- the majority infact of IR photons would slip on by unabsorbed?
[[With 10^22 molecule of non-CO2 per liter and 0.04% or 10^18 CO2 molecules in the same liter,]]
Again I’m horrible at math- and these figures are just throwing me for a loop here- it seems to me that the figure 10^18 is nearly full saturation of 10^22- when the fact is that that litre contains only 0.04% CO2- something just isn’t adding up it seems- to my mathematically stunted mind it looks like 10^18 would be more like 90% or so (not sure the %) of 10^22- no?
[[A CO2 molecule with extra vibrational energy gets rid of that extra energy within about 1/10 ns to a non-CO2 molecule. At that point it is ready to grab another IR photon.]]
True, but In that 1/10 of a nano second while the CO2 molecule is ‘full’ , two things it seems to me happens, one, new molecules slip past the ‘full’ CO2 molecule, and 2: as soon as the CO2 releases the energy, it is just as likely to reabsorb already absorbed IR photons (unless an absorbed IR photon becomes incapable of causing excitation in a CO2 molecule IF it has already been absorbed? And if it’ frequency changes when it gets expelled?)
Bleh to much to think about-
[[over billions of years ]]
Oh man, do I have to educate you on the creation of the world- :)
[[Another notable thing that he didn’t mention is that the bump in global temperature from the rainfall event was 0.3 to 0.5C]]
He may have mentioned it in his articles- I’m not sure if they are available or not