General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Sabine Hossenfelder
comments

Comments by "" (@1965ace) on "Carbon Capture: All You Need To Know" video.

@chrisa.4937 Thank you for at least understanding what is going on but let's compare apples to apples the convective (atmospheric) transfer of energy during the day is slowed by the same process (convection to radiation). In other words since the vast bulk of heat energy in the atmosphere is in Nitrogen and Oxygen (non ghgs) thermal mixing and convection. Even though ghgs can gain and lose heat almost instantly, the energy has to be there to begin with (the bulk in O2 and N), which is a slower process as you have pointed out. The only reason we don't go from high temperatures to low, like turning off a light bulb, is because heat energy is also contained in non-ghgs. I would like to continue this discussion with you because I find far too many people aren't intelligent enough, don't care or, aren't interested.
2
@chrisa.4937 Temperature gradient has a lot to do with pressure gradient independent of ghgs so I have to disagree. I think there is confusion about the nature of the time it takes for radiation and convection to occur. I submit cooling takes longer for convection than radiation, I know this is oversimplifying because both are taking place in both types of gases. Like a light switch radiation gives up it's energy instantly and at light speed. Imagine a cloud in the day it's dispursing the visible light and if the source was instantly blocked the cloud would go instantly dark. It doesn't have the capacity to delay the light. On the other hand convection is dependent on molecules "colliding" exchanging kinetic energy from higher states to lower states. In other words interaction also dependent on location is what slows transfer. With radiation, the "interaction" happens at light speed and over great distances.
2
@chrisa.4937 In the atmosphere, a hot area is usually high pressure but depending on mixing has room to expand, it's in flux so yes nothing is so simple but my point is because of gravity the higher you go the lower pressure and temperature. You can increase temperature with pressure or pressure with temperature. As for the rest of my last statement about timing ....?
2
@chrisa.4937 That's fine and we must include the scalar negative enforcements including temperature itself. I am enjoying this conversation with someone who is as intelligent, well versed, and objective as yourself!
2
You do know the main greenhouse gas is water vapor and it's 4 times more interactive with Infrared and it swings from 20,000 to 60,000 ppm? Isn't it a little silly to be panicking about 400 ppm? You do know CO2 has been as high as 2,000 ppm just before ice ages so how can you see a causal relationship? You do know CO2 increase is a result of temperature increase? With all due respect, I don't think you have been a critical thinker on this one.
2
@chrisa.4937 The problem is one of scale, the primary GHG is H2O at 4 times the potentcy and at 125 times (50,000ppm) the quantity on average the H2O effect is (4 X 125) is 500 times the contributor that is 50,000% greater the effect than CO2. Just the 20,000 ppm swing is 200 times greater than the total CO2 atmospheric content. I think you are making an assumption by attributing all Temperature increase directly to CO2 instead look at it as CO2 increase always follows temperature increase that is evident in the proxy ice calculations. In science you can't determine if two trends follow each other one is the cause and the other is the effect without additional evidence. I believe logically (warmer temperatures spur the carbon cycle) and historically (CO2 follows temperature because of the 400-800 year lag) the cause is temperature and the effect is the carbon cycle. I'm going to go back to physics and logic on the other thread. We have to establish what we really know before making assumptions.
2
"prevents our planet from giving off heat" no in fact at night through convection CO2 and mainly H2O help cool the planet though converting convective heat in non-GHG gases into radiation that is the only way earth can lose heat into the vacuum of space.
1
@chrisa.4937 Let's really discuss the basic physics of daytime heat energy transfer. So I'll stipulate that IR directly from the sun is mitigated by GHGs. In addition let's agree earth is radiating surface heat into space both day and night. So now we can concentrate on the mechanism of heat transfer to and from the lower atmosphere. As far as average global temperature is concerned that is completely dependent on the rate of energy transfer in each cycle (there is no static retention of heat only rate of gain and rate of loss). To understand it on the smallest level will disabuse one from making cause and effect assumptions on a bigger scale. So our source is higher energy radiation (light) that hits earth's surface. This is then (excluding photosynthesis and other chemical reactions) is converted to increasing kinetic molecular activity (temperature) on the surface. Warming surface temperatures are losing heat to conduction, subsurface earth and water, convection (kinetic activity in the atmosphere next to the surface and progressing vertically) and radiation (long wave infrared light). Here is a model I use to give one a subjective understanding. Picture a camp fire on a cold night. Standing not too close we can feel the radiation warm our skin absent most the convection that will increase by getting closer. Now at the same distance feel the heat directly above the fire. The reason it feels much hotter is the convective transfer is rising. The higher we go the more of that convective heat is absorbed by cooler surrounding air. If you don't have any major issues at this point we can continue to the next step.
1
@chrisa.4937 The reason for understanding each process is to have a complete cause and effect ground we can agree on. So a warming surface is radiating and convecting as our starting point here. To understand GHG's absorption and emission of IR will give us another part of the picture. Absorbtion and emission are equal for any given substance. So let's say a CO2 molecule is at an energy state lower than the surrounding radiation, this puts in a state of Absorption to receive energy equal to the surrounding radiation. That will increase it's temperature (kinetic molecular energy). It is now in a state of equilibrium with the surrounding level of radiation, and doesn't absorb more radiation. Since temperature is the average molecular kinetic energy of a system and CO2 cannot absorb more radiation than source emits, to continue warming the atmosphere the energy has to flow to a lower state such as a nitrogen or oxygen molecule and that happens during a convection event when the CO2 molecule bumps into a cooler nitrogen molecule. The nitrogen warms and the CO2 cools to a close state of temperature equilibrium (increasing entropy). Now the CO2 molecule is again at a lower energy state and may be able to absorb radiation again. (I said may because light can only be absorbed and emitted in specific levels ). So to increase atmospheric temperature the bulk of kinetic molecular energy has to increase, aka nitrogen and oxygen warming from surface convection and radiation that is absorbed and convected to those gases. I want to go on but I really want to be on the same page for the physics of what is happening. Remember Einstein once penned " to (really) know a thing is to be able to explain it in simple terms but no simpler".
1
@chrisa.4937 So far so good and the emission is also correct when the molecule drops from an excited energy state to a ground state. What I meant about equilibrium (bad choice of words) was it cannot continue to absorb IR without emitting IR at that point it's not a net increase. The main point at this time to be made is the bulk temperature increase in the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen through convection from the surface and GHGs absorbing IR. You got ahead of me but your absolutely right the process works in reverse also depending on energy levels (high to low). At night GHG's work to convert heat into radiation that eventually is radiated into space.
1
@chrisa.4937 Yes I agree the process is always in flux. The only question is the rate of transfer then?
1
@chrisa.4937 Relax Chris I'm not trying to trick you I just meant the rate of heat transfer, so if the net rate was faster during the day than the night we would have an increasing average but then again if that continued the average global temperature would increase at a linear rate.
1
@chrisa.4937 " "b) if the heat transfer rate between ground and space is of any importance" Of course it is vital because the surface absorbs the short wave energy and is the source for IR and convection in the atmosphere.
1
@chrisa.4937 3rd try "
1
@chrisa.4937 To a , remember absorption and emission are equal my response is being hacked
1
@chrisa.4937 altering the ghg concentration does not change the average temp
1
@chrisa.4937 We are talking about IR light can you explain how you think light is slowed down? Here is a thought experiment, if all sources of IR are stopped how long do you think the ghgs would radiate IR? Like a dark room with a fog, the fog would stop illuminating the moment the light was turned off with no delay no matter how thick the fog was.
1
@chrisa.4937 a and b are happening at light speed like a chamber of mirrors and the atmosphere is only a few miles thick so again what is the actual delay time? Scale is important. c seems like a valid point however is a double-edged sword more gases converting convection to radiation speeds the process from the heat mass.
1
@chrisa.4937 You are making the mistake of treating all the heat energy converting to radiation "at the surface" but you are correct in that there is interference with that part of the loss to space. The convective process seems to be underestimated in terms of scale of the total heat gain and loss during a time period. Even though Mars has a 98% CO2 atmosphere the average temperature is -81F and to illustrate my point day and night temperature difference is about 170 degrees F. If Mars had non-ghgs to store heat in by convective transfer the difference in day and night temperatures would be much closer.
1
@chrisa.4937 Fair enough I wasn't directly comparing Mars just saying the bulk of the energy is in CO2 which gains and loses heat much more rapidly through radiation than non-ghgs through convection only.
1
@chrisa.4937 I'm not absolutely sure but I think it's the length of the bonds. shape of the structure and the frequency of the light. If you look at the absorption /emission spectral chart, not all IR wavelengths are optimal. This is why water vapor is a broader and more powerful ghg.
1
@chrisa.4937 Thanks, I'll look at it tomorrow and get back to you.
1
@chrisa.4937 The first problem I see is they are dealing with averages. I do like talking in terms of W/m2 and averages but this doesn't describe the processes or dissect the incoming phase vs the outgoing phase of the energy. This is also based on calculations not actual tested measurements. I suspect this is why the climate models are so far off over the decades, missing factors based on incomplete or erroneous knowledge. I don't think they took into consideration that more CO2 creates more conversion from convective heat to radiation thus increasing CO2 offsets any greenhouse effect with cooling efficiency by some unconsidered factor. What say you?
1
@chrisa.4937 Once again the problem with attributing the delay of heat back into space only to the radiative process is the error. What calculations can you present to show the delay of the convective process? Where is this seriously taken into consideration? As far as a connection from heating the surface to losing heat at the surface goes of course the gain of surface heat has to go back into space at night rising as convection converting into radiation also directly radiating and eventually going back into space. Energy is always flowing away from high concentrations to low. Don't get stuck in circular logic.
1
@chrisa.4937 That is only used to describe ghgs , the bulk of heat energy and convection is in the 990,000 ppm that are not ghgs to be clear even non-ghgs radiate and absorb radiation. Anything emits and absorbs spectral lines of radiation. It would be interesting to see the spectral emissions from the dark side of the earth.
1
@chrisa.4937 I didn't see anything about convection in the Schwarzchild equation. My understanding is the equation is specifically dealing with radiation through an interactive medium. What complicates this is the temperature of the medium. I didn't see anything relating to time either, maybe you're referring to wavelength? But that has to do with c.
1
@chrisa.4937 You are trying to make it too complicated by relying on articles and formulas that aren't relevant to make your point. Let's look at what we really know about the basics and concepts. IR is nothing more than light as far as scattering penetration and absorption and luminescence in the radiative only construct to understand the time as it takes for the radiative process (we will consider the convective transfer separate). We can build an experimental cloud in a dark box made of mirrors with a light bulb. No matter how thick the cloud or how reflective the mirrors are is once the source (light bulb) is turned off the box goes dark in microseconds. The convective part is important but has to be separate and considered in totality. Remember CO2 is 1/2400th of the atmosphere by volume. Please remain open-minded and help me find flaws in my process.
1
@chrisa.4937 2nd reply the second part of what the world would look like without ghs is there would be no cooling a warm atmosphere. If we follow the trapped heat model of the atmosphere and remove all the ghgs infrared would still be absorbed and emitted on the surface as well as the shortwave radiation we already have and any surface to atmospheric convection would be trapped with no mechanism to be turned back into radiation.
1
@chrisa.4937 I didn't include infrared because removing the ghgs would allow direct absorption and emission. Like on the moon with no atmosphere where the temperature swing is 540F between the lit side and the dark side. With no ghgs the high temperature is 260F or 400K.
1
@chrisa.4937 2nd again reply we know the ghg water vapor is 4 times more powerful and it swings from 20,000 ppm to 60,000 ppm, global Temperature must be the primary factor and thus is self-regulating unless we find out ghgs are not as important as you think. If we are to assume CO2 will increase temperature wouldn't we factor the negative enforcement of water vapor?
1
@chrisa.4937 Let me make it simpler what stops a run-away reaction since clearly there is much more water available and it is apparently in check and interacts with IR even more than CO2?
1
@chrisa.4937 "feedback of increasin water vapour if temperature rises due to other means" I'm wondering why you are using a qualifier? Doesn't more CO2 mean more heat and more water vapor and what limits water vapor? What is the negative enforcement? Thanks again I appreciate the discussion.
1
@chrisa.4937 Of course the principle of diminishing returns but what is the primary mechanism of negative enforcement for the current levels of water vapor?
1
@chrisa.4937 Where are you from? No, I mean a reductive enforcement. We have positive enforcement that causes evaporation increasing water vapor and negative enforcement like condensation decreasing water vapor. What I'm angling toward is what factors balance the content. With CO2 its sources (like higher temperatures releasing gases) and sinks (like trees).
1
@chrisa.4937 Let me give you another example of positive and negative enforcement. O3 is ozone, critical to life on earth as we know it. It reflects dangerous UV rays from the sun. It is highly reactive and needs to be constantly replaced this is a negative enforcement reducing Ozone. What is not talked about is the production of O3 which ironically, happens when those same UV rays penetrate the atmosphere. They break apart molecular bonds freeing Oxygen that will form more Ozone, this is positive enforcement. This is why we have reduced Ozone at the poles where the atmosphere has a greater angle of incident to the incoming radiation. It's quite simple and a perfect system for balance.
1
@chrisa.4937 Molecular destruction is releative to the Ozone example not the hydrological cycle, I wasn't making that statement. Cause and effect are once again confused and intermingled. I submit the average humidity is because of the average temperature. The fluctuation of 20,000 ppm in the hydrologic cycle dwarf's any change in CO2 content. Do we agree the natural rise in CO2 throughout history is due to a rise of Temperature (no matter the cause)? Nice talking to you, hello from the US!
1
@chrisa.4937 The humidity where I live can go from 20% to 100% in hours. There is great fluctuation in some areas and very little in others.
1
@chrisa.4937 2nd reply Yes I agree Volcanos have played a significant role. You can see how rising temperatures released CO2 in the past and followed global temperatures it didn't lead them. I will admit that CO2 has a slight positive enforcement but does not lead temperature.
1
@chrisa.4937 So there you have it, temperature enforcement of water vapor which taken to the next level, negates CO2 increase. Because Temperature is a feedback for water vapor any increase credited to CO2 is offset by water vapor, simple.
1
@chrisa.4937 Because of phase change water is much more complicated. When it condenses it also reflects the high energy short waves but if you look at the absorption and emission spectrum it's much broader than CO2. Speaking of phases that is how I look at the heat cycle any heat gains in the day have to be released at night and the only way this can be done is with the bulk of heat in non-ghgs convecting with ghgs.
1
@chrisa.4937 You are talking about two different things and avoiding any negative enforcement. Evaporating warm water carries energy into the atmosphere but at night when temperatures are cooling by conversion into radiation more water vapor means more cooling because it converts heat from non-ghg sources to cool the planet. We talked about energy in has to balance with energy out but don't seem to want to discuss energy out in terms of more ghgs its a two-way street.
1
@chrisa.4937 2nd reply water does not know the difference from IR CO2 and IR H2O so I don't understand the parsing of the source of heat in terms of the hydrological evaporation.
1
@chrisa.4937 3rd reply The central argument is energy in vs energy out phase change does not increase or decrease the total energy in the system only moves it around within. In order to increase average global temperatures, you have to show an imbalance in rate in vs rate out. I'm making the claim that more CO2 means more CO2 convection and emission back into space.
1
@chrisa.4937 Remember absorption and emission is equal. Since we are agreeing solar IR is being reflected how can we determine what is a loss into space? Also we aren't comparing IR in to IR out. Surface IR comes from high-energy short waves, not low-energy long waves.
1
@chrisa.4937 I fully understand what you are saying and the principles and logic behind it. It's actually a great way of thinking about it and simplifying it. Now my questions can be more focused based on your understanding. Thanks, I should have seen it before.
1
@chrisa.4937 2nd reply One thing we are relying on is an understanding that no solar IR makes it to the surface was that your understanding? Like on a dark cloudy day you can't see the location of the sun only we would expect to measure no solar IR either.
1
@chrisa.4937 Hat's off to you I enjoy our discussion and can see your viewpoint but I haven't been convinced of all of the conclusions.
1
@chrisa.4937 I have an IR camera and could clearly see the sun with it so we can both agree that some solar IR makes it through the atmosphere directly to the surface and certainly back into space directly. Since the claim is the heating is being done mostly by short wave high energy light there is a conversion going on and it would be obvious that conversion is also happening in the IR wavelengths. Do you agree?
1
@chrisa.4937 One correction "The sun does emit IR, it has just shorter Wavelengthes than the thermal longwave IR that earth emits back." Wein's Displacement Law states the peak of the black body frequencies shift inversely proportional to the temperature, can you show me a chart of all IR output (W/m2 ) from the sun and the earth? I suspect even though the peak shifted there is still more IR flux in most frequencies from the Sun.
1
@chrisa.4937 2nd reply I find charts like this extremely deceptive to the naive https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ecological/earth_and_sun_emission.jpg solar output is scaled by 10 to the -6 compared to earth output can you find a 1 to 1 scaled chart in the earth emission peak?
1
@chrisa.4937 I'm looking for a fair comparison of incoming longwave radiation to outgoing radiation.
1
@chrisa.4937 2nd reply the solar radiation path is the emission from a spherical surface in a 3-dimensional space minus the collapse of a wave the distance from the source is the primary factor for reduction of intensity /possibility.Imagine the double slit experiment done with2 vertical and 2 horizontal slits and the results combined. I'm more interested in the total actual incoming energy at its angle of incidence, real atmospheric density, and its sum of absorption and direct emission..
1
@chrisa.4937 I just don't like the propagandists exaggerating the science. Is that.9% incoming or outgoing?
1
@chrisa.4937 Don't you find this article highly simplistic and funneled through a lot of assumptions? I am thankful to understand your perspective on the thermal column. Would you agree that the angle of incidence is another element of diminished gains? I am suggesting a fundamental error that directly affects the interpretations of cause and effect. It's not as simple as saying W/m2 per frequency but factoring the total across a broad spectrum of incoming and outgoing energy including phase shift and radiological aspects along with dynamic interactions of continuous positive and negative factors.
1
@chrisa.4937 Consider that much of the stored excess heat is in non-ghgs and the only way to balance that is with convection with ghg's to be converted into IR. Everything else has a natural balancing in nature why would you believe otherwise?
1
@chrisa.4937 Let's Say you have 990,000 hot non-ghgs bouncing around in a given space say at night along with 400 CO2 molecules that have the ability to pick up the heat through convection and lose the energy into space. Wouldn't you agree in a cooling phase more CO2 means more conversion to space, otherwise, you would be saying less CO2 means less cooling at night?
1
@chrisa.4937 I understand what you are saying. What external environment causes an electron to drop to a lower shell and emit a photon?
1
@chrisa.4937 Not seeing it Chris, the way I look at it is in simple terms of energy. At night energy flows from the surface and lower atmosphere to space, it isn't trapped, it's a process and ghgs are the gateway. Sure the radiation is coming from the top of the column but it's flowing up from warm to cool. Energy always flows from high states to lower states (key to emission and absorption). Yes some photons are emitted back toward earth but more are flowing up and out otherwise we wouldn't even have cooling. BTW its going on all day too but the reason we see gains in the temperature is the cooling cannot keep up with the incoming energy.
1
@chrisa.4937 2nd reply consider this angle of thought solar IR in the absorption frequency of ghgs don't reach the surface, the assumption is because they are reflected and cannot penetrate the ghg's. I postulate energy is always flowing from a high state to a low state so when absorbed there is a much greater possibility that it will flow to the lower energy state in space rather than earth. Look at energy as pressure, solar IR (in the ghg frequences) flowing to space no matter what the source is because space is the vacuum of energy.
1
@chrisa.4937 Microscopic processes have to reinforce the macroscopic observations. How can you apply one principle heat flow and ignore energy flow since heat falls under energy and the flow of energy is subject to entropy?
1
@chrisa.4937 Energy is neither created nor destroyed it can only be changed . 100% of the energy comes from the sun that is the origin. In the process energy is changed into a lot of different states also known as entropy, disorganizing. Further, any radiation energy that is present in the atmosphere originally came from solar energy was reduced and altered to surface heat then further altered to convection and radiation in the atmosphere. That is the flow of energy and it doesn't increase. You cannot amplify surface IR to create more net energy in a system, you can move it around, change its form and reduce it but you cannot get 140% from 100%. You are getting off track how about a comment on the density of CO2 as it pertains to the net direction of IR back into space.
1
@chrisa.4937 You are comparing apples and oranges the earth absorbing 239 W/m2 and emitting about 238 W/m2 on average and absorbing about a W/m2 that is the energy in and out of the earth. Downwelling is a loop that occurs between the lower atmosphere and surface and does not represent net gains and net losses that's your closed system. .
1
@chrisa.4937 Unless the earth was to hit absolute zero, of course, we are starting with a level of energy day (average low temperature) and adding to it but that does not represent a gain only a starting point.
1
@chrisa.4937 Ok, no increase in energy can occur in a closed system. How's that?
1
@chrisa.4937 Not into space, it doesn't.
1
@chrisa.4937 It's a deceptive question the incoming energy has to be absorbed more than the outgoing energy and since absorption and emission is an equal trait the only factor that changes with more CO2 is the rate of absorption and emission (warmer days and cooler nights).
1
@chrisa.4937 Claiming parasitic energy gain is deceptive. It's like the guy who draws power from his alternator to energize an electrolysis process to extract hydrogen and oxygen from water to recombine in the engine to gain 140% from the fuel. The laws of physics show the alternator is drawing parasitic energy away from the engine and returning only some of that parasitic energy (not more). We aren't disagreeing with the numbers just the logic and potential conclusions. The warm earth is warmed a little more in the day (incoming energy) and returns to that temperature at night.
1
@chrisa.4937 Where does all but 1% of the radiative energy gain in a 24hr period end up?
1
@chrisa.4937 The total gain in other words let's say the temperature at sunrise is 40f during the day it reaches 80f and then by the next morning it falls to 40f again. It didn't rise to 80f without a lot of energy and it didn't fall to 40f without nearly the same dissipation of that day's increase. If there is on average equality between the gains in the day and losses at night (temperature) why would you believe increasing CO2 levels would change that balance?
1
@chrisa.4937 That is the assumption but there are much stronger and complicated feedbacks with the much stronger ghg, water vapor. You cannot just separate out CO2 and temperature. Temperature is critical to the hydrological cycle so an increase in temperature (energy) will set a corresponding reaction in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. And lets be honest the greenhouse effect from water vapor is 400 times greater than CO2.
1
@chrisa.4937 The absorption / emission bands of water vapor are at least 4 times broader than CO2 I don't know what biased studies you are looking at, just look up a spectral graph on H2O and compare it to CO2. Water vapor is more complicated and much more plentiful. One other feedback you get is clouds that dramatically increase albedo. The system is dynamically balanced to resist change and it's a strong balance. Take for example Carbon sinks like plants, more CO2 more plants - more plants absorbing CO2. I'm not saying massive changes won't cause an imbalance but that would trigger a reaction bringing it back in balance (negative enforcemnt).
1
@chrisa.4937 I understand your thinking I disagree with the method of energy transfer delay. The bulk of energy in the atmosphere rises and falls in non-ghgs. one can easily understand why it takes time for molecules to bump into each other in a gas. You can turn off the heat to a house and it's still going to take time to cool down however if you turn off the lights it becomes dark immediately. A piece of red hot steel is clearly radiating and convecting heat as well as conducting heat. Now can you order each process in terms of the time it takes for the surface to cool?
1
@chrisa.4937 Thank you, now would you say the time under the same circumstances in reverse (warming) for each process is approximately equal?
1
@chrisa.4937 In a 24 hour period, all gains have been lost and each transfer system has been reset. how can you not say the gains are equal to the losses?
1
@chrisa.4937 Think of it In terms of a closed system receiving radiation in a vacuum, for the sake of argument the same radiation intensity over the same warming and cooling cycles (it doesn't really matter what other cycles are in play) the closed system needs only will assume a baseline average temperature over a period of time. My hypothesis is more CO2, higher daytime temps and cooler nighttime temps, yours is an increased average. Anyone can understand a glowing red chunk of iron taking more time to cool but that is not in balance and just like the atmosphere is dictated by the density of the solid that has the heat really trapped by the dense bulk of metal and not it's surface. Increase its surface area and you will speed cooling through both convection and radiation. The same thing applies to the atmosphere, the bulk of the heat is "trapped" away from radiating in non-ghgs until convecting with a ghg. The ghgs are a heat gateway that goes in both directions the more ghgs the greater the transfer in both directions (since absorption and emission are the same).
1
@chrisa.4937 Chris, my friend, I understand your conception, I think it's reasonable and probably accurate without magnitude. I'm looking forward to further responding in the morning it's 10:53 pm here.
1
@chrisa.4937 Do you understand the concept I think is much more powerful? Energy being stored up in molecular kinetic energy in the surface and atmosphere is being slowly released back into ghgs through convection and eventually emitted back into space. We have already covered energy retention in terms of time where convection is the slowest, then conduction and finally radiation being the fastest. In terms of kinetic molecular energy, the surface contains the largest mass, the non-ghgs being 99% of the atmospheric mass contain the next greatest thermal energy storage and CO2 being 1/2500th of the atmosphere the least at any given point in time. This means since the emission gateway is the ghg's the process time has to be much faster. The travel time is a given c from any point in the system and exiting it. Again I don't disagree with your concept just its importance in the totality of events happening.
1
@chrisa.4937 Ok so far so good, If the temperature increases the atmosphere will also expand decreasing the density of the gas in question, correct? Has the correlation between the density decrease and the opacity been factored as a negative feedback?
1
@chrisa.4937 I’m talking about 3 dimensional expansion not just a vertical column.
1
@chrisa.4937 By expansion, I mean the space between any particle increases so the density in that decreases and the opacity decreases. You were arguing that an increased opacity increases the temperature so decreasing.......
1
@chrisa.4937 That makes some sense but what is the relationship between density and expansion when the medium is nearly a vacuum or when the absorptive molecules are 1 in 2500 parts and temperature expansion is exponential for those molecules while the linear distance is only 2 dimensions in a 3-dimensional exponential expansion.
1
@chrisa.4937 We are discussing tiny differences and you would have to agree the surface area of any elevation in the upper atmosphere is greater than the surface.
1
@chrisa.4937 Your statement before isn't entirely true.
1
@chrisa.4937 How wide is the beam (in degrees)? ....Let's not forget this is a beam of diminishing possibilities per quantum science.
1
@chrisa.4937 2nd reply x, y and z are the cartesian coordinates for an expanding gas, three positions are changing not two like a two-dimensional object such as a line.
1
@chrisa.4937 Independent molecules can't overlap each other. The hotter the gas the greater the space between it's molecules if the pressure stays the same. Remember the wave is traveling at light speed so any motion in an expanding gas is not a factor, only the distance between the molecules and in this case it's 1 in 2400 molecules.
1
@chrisa.4937 If you think about it as a cone of expansion that is what I'm talking about not equal expansion on three-axis equally. One other misconception I think most people have is the illusion that CO2 is like a cloud that "traps" heat between the surface and space when it is densest at the surface and thins with altitude as all gases do.
1
@chrisa.4937 Unless it's expanding horizontally which it will as the thermal column rises.
1
@chrisa.4937 Is the surface area of the stratosphere not greater than the surface of the earth at sea level?
1
@chrisa.4937 The further up you go the more horizontal expansion there is. Also from what I see you are treating this whole dynamic as a static model there is thermal expansion and mixing always moving the more energetic particles away from each other by increasing pressure. By adding more gas of any type, pressure increases.
1
@chrisa.4937 Barometric pressure is always changing moving air from high-pressure areas (hot) to low (cooler). It's both expanding because of pressure. Explain parcels because I'm thinking in terms of particles and they cannot "overlap" only the space between them can increase or decrease.
1
@chrisa.4937 Take a balloon and heat the air in it, it expands in all directions and if it is considerably warmer than the surrounding air it will rise because the density is less than the surrounding air. A volume of air will expand in all three dimensions when heated if its pressure remains the same and if not then the pressure will increase in all directions. If a parcel is an exact volume that contains a specific number of particles then when those particles are heated the pressure goes up (if contained in the same volume) or the volume (number of particles) goes down. You can see this more radically in a transition from water to vapor (obviously the vapor takes up much more space but it's less dense (further apart). You can't say they only expanded vertically.
1
@chrisa.4937 2nd reply a thought occurred to me that earth's atmosphere expands to cool if it did not the pressure would be a positive enforcement for the heat, and the temperature near the surface would be much higher. Heat like water takes the path of least resistance so if it cannot expand it will increase in pressure. This is what drives the winds.
1
@chrisa.4937 You are just wrong about that. Are you assuming the wave of a photon is not finite. If you have a finite number of particles and you spread them apart further and further the chances of a collision are less and less. Also, consider in an isobaric situation the additional energy is offset by the expansion, the temperature stays the same as long as the gas can expand at the same connected rate. This is why the atmosphere is not isobaric, it expands but it also pressurizes. Gravity allows both with limits.
1
@chrisa.4937 I'm talking about the width and its interaction with particles that are very small and have a lot of space between them. We know of photons that have been traveling for billions of years undisturbed. Gravity can and does facilitate potential energy all the time like putting a book on a shelf or pressure from a rising temperature. You are describing contestants in a system that isn't constant. The pressure and temperatures are not constants in the atmosphere, it's dynamic.
1
@chrisa.4937 All the weather on the planet can be seen in pressure changes. The eye of a hurricane is low pressure , droughts are seen by stable high pressure. To claim the pressure never changes is not realistic. No one is saying gravity can create energy just like my gas tank doesn't make gasoline. When hot expanding gas comes up against gravity its kinetic energy is replaced by potential energy because the mass of air rising will become kinetic again when it falls (no energy is created) this is called a sink and its energy came from rising air (thermals). It all balances because of the law of conservation.
1
@chrisa.4937 Chris with all due respect just looking at the averages does not mean the processes should be ignored or assumed. I warned you at the beginning looking at averages does not describe dynamic forces. On the other point, no energy cannot be created or destroyed and nothing we are discussing says it can. Energy from the sun heats the surface the surface conducts, radiates and convects energy. Here is a simple experiment I performed take two CO2 bottles (big ones).Fill one with nitrogen and one with CO2 at 900 psi each (roughly 64 atmospheres) leave them in the sun for a few hours make sure their temperatures are the same. Then measure the time it takes for each of them to assume room temperature. What is your prediction?
1
@chrisa.4937 I would agree but by how much time and do you think the ability of the CO2 to absorb and emit radiation is a greater factor than molecular mass?
1
@chrisa.4937 Not true the steel will absorb the short wave radiation and IR then just like the planet's surface will emit IR back on both sides (in and out) the processes are all working at the same time. Like I said before where there is a path energy moves from higher levels to lower levels.
1
@chrisa.4937 I wanted you to understand all the transformations of heat energy involved in the experiment. In the nitrogen bottle, the IR will pass through the nitrogen and be absorbed or reflected by the other side of the bottle (inside)while the CO2 will merely interact with the IR absorbed reflected and emitted. The only reason the CO2 bottle will cool slower is the total molecular mass is slightly greater. You realize that the bulk of the heat capacity is the steel. In conducting the experiment I couldn't measure the difference because it was so slight. Both bottles returned to room temperature at the same time (as far as I could measure).
1
@chrisa.4937 No mystery the heat energy is kinetic and the more mass in motion the more energy. Remember temperature is kinetic, molecular mass in motion. So when you have a 100lb steel bottle and inside a few maybe ounces of gas the main potential is in the bottle. What it tells us about the real world is the bulk, 99% of the atmosphere, contains 99% of the energy that must be shed to balance the gains in the day with the losses at night in the atmosphere. The surface is also a vast reservoir that needs to shed its gains too.
1
@chrisa.4937 I just wanted to cover the bases, there are a lot of people who are educated and really don't understand what they are talking about. My approach is a firm foundation, Einstein once said to understand a thing is to be able to explain it in simple terms but no simpler.
1
@chrisa.4937 I think I see the error that you are not considering. While Beers Law is used to calculate the absorbance you are not figuring the warming atmosphere into the equation. The non-ghgs are absorbing and sharing the heat energy higher and higher in the atmosphere.
1
@chrisa.4937 The other thread is not working here is my 4th reply3 "
1
@chrisa.4937 5th reply to the other thread 3rd try
1