Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Layman struggles with Science
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere

Quote:NASA's Langley Research Center instruments show that the thermosphere not only received a whopping 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the sun during a recent burst of solar activity, but that in the upper atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space.

The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.

Already, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in full retreat after having to concede a 17-year stall in global warming despite levels of atmopheric CO2 rising almost 40 percent in recent decades. The new SABER data now forms part of a real world double whammy against climatologists' computer models that have always been programmed to show CO2 as a warming gas.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Tallbloke's Talkshop has an interesting post about the famous ice race in Holland.

The Elfstedentocht proxy

[Image: image-225.png]

The races are only permitted when the ice is thick enough. Note how this coincides with solar minimums. Sadly it seems 'elf and safety' have changed the rules and the races have effectively been cancelled over the foreseeable future.

But I would like to point out the solar activity from 1945 to 2005, covering six solar cycles. Generally more active than the pre-1945 cycles. This accounts for all the 'global warming'. Mind you, the 1970 period gave everybody a fright and 'ice age doom' was the mantra. But the cycles recovered and temperature increase recovered and it was noted CO2 levels in the atmosphere were increasing.

Bingo! That must be it! Temperature went up and CO2 went up; put the figures into a formula and there is the 'forcing'. Well, you all know the rest.

The last cycle, number 24, is only half completed but you can see it is less active than any of the other cycles shown. Not good news for Planet Earth.

Heating and cooling of Earth shows up at the poles. Temperature at the equator hardly changes. Here is the problem. Low polar temperatures mean more wind activity between poles and equator. More wind activity will produce more extreme weather. The recent tornado in the USA was the result have a large volume of COLD air from the Rockies meeting warm moist air from the Gulf.

Of course, this was blamed on 'global warming'. You don't get tornados in the summer or in equatorial regions. You need a continent and a temperate climate.

Sadly, I'm predicting an increase in extreme weather events as the world cools and those bastards have already got the MSM to report it is all due to CO2 and 'global warming'.
Angry
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
I think this is brilliant. From Lucy Skywalker's site.

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Scienc...im_adj.gif
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
I rather like this. Angel

Quote:
If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the

universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so

much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be

contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do

bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be

against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no

hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest

humiliation.

ARTHUR STANLEY EDDINGTON British astronomer.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
(08-06-2013, 09:59 PM)Richard111 Wrote: I think this is brilliant. From Lucy Skywalker's site.

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Scienc...im_adj.gif

Well, the current warming is unprecedented,

as long as you don't count anything that has happened before!

Big Grin
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
I've said it before and I say it again: "There is no such thing as 'greenhouse gasses' in the atmosphere of planet Earth." Here is some proof:

Science Confirmed: Carbon Dioxide & Water Vapor Cool Earth's Atmosphere

Quote:Professor Nasif Nahle (Monterrey, Mexico) provides a peer-reviewed paper, 'Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands,' that uses known and well-established values from the results of experiments performed previously by H. C. Hottel, B. Leckner, M. Lapp, C. B. Ludwig, A. F. Sarofim, et al, showing that the combined effect of overlapping absorption bands of water vapor with CO2 causes a reduction on the total absorptivity of the mixture of those gases in earth's atmosphere. As such, water vapor and CO2 are proven to combine to cause global cooling, not warming.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
The correct physical ability description would be that water vapour and CO2 are radiatively able gases. Increasing their concentration can only increase the gas mixtures ability to radiate, therefore, the mixture has a greater ability to cool.

Calling such gases by the physically incorrect name of "greenhouse gases" IS a misdirection. A misdirection that homocentric AGW is based upon.

Another plain error that AGW is based upon is that water vapour is supposed to be a positive feedback.
However, in reality, warmer air holds more water vapour, so it has a greater ability to transport latent heat losses. In other words, it helps reduce warming when warming is occurring. This must mean that water vapour is a negative feedback. Also, when cooling air must release some of the laten heat it contains, so reducing cooling, this again means water vapour MUST BE a negative feedback.

One can also think of water vapour along these lines.
During the day when it gets warmer more water evapourates. This rises, condenses, and forms clouds. Clouds shade earth's surface, so it does not warm as much as it otherwise would have done. That is a negative feedback.
At night clouds provide a blanket effect that reduce cooling at earth's surface, when cooling is occurring at night. That is a negative feedback.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
Quite so, Derek. I think I am suffering burnout. Spend my time thinking up questions to put to greenies; like "Do you understand the meaning of the word 'adiabatic'?" and " Does the word 'transparent', when applied to a gas, mean the gas cannot be warmed by conduction?" and "What are 'phytoplankton' and do they have any impact on the geology of the Earth?" and so on. The conversational level of greenies is so lacking.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Trying to reason someone out of a belief is impossible Richard111. That is how I see it now.

We can reason the individual points, we can debunk as much of the "science" as we want, but belief can not be shown to be wrong to a believer that way.

What really gets up my nose is that one can very easily, and understandably show the model of GH "theory" is utterly unphysical clap trap.
How do the consensus and main stream skeptics respond?
They either -
DO NOT respond....
Or,
They say that is an oversimplified model you have used - BUT NEVER then give their preferred model...
Presumably because one would very easily show that is wrong too, and
is in fact the very same model already debunked.

Another "thing" that really has got my goat is Lord Monckton.
His missing fingerprint of AGW showed that water vapour IS a negative feedback.
That is what his two plots depict, modelled as a positive feedback, but observations over a 30 year period show water vapour is a negative feedback.
But he does not want to admit that, so,
he (and main stream skeptics, ie Kininmoth, etc.) redefined what a positive feedback is,
from an electrical circuit point of view......

The consensus just refuse to even consider if water vapour is a negative feedback, full stop.

Presumably invalidating all of the IPCC's climate modelling is just not acceptable to any of them,
even though it has been.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
I recently made a post about how carbon dioxide, CO2, cools the air. A sudden brain storm made me think I could calculate how much cooling would occur and over what time scale.

Looking at the Total Solar Eclipse graph and using eyeball measurement, I find that a 5 degree temperature drop from roughly the middle of the descending temperature trace will take 32 minutes. My two points are 30C at 09:48 hours and 25C at 10:20 hours. I realise this is not a full darkness reading but it is the best I have for comparison with my calculations.

Now I imagine a block of air several metres above ground amounting to exactly 2,500 cubic metres of standard dry air. The cube root of 2,500 is 13.572 so that is the length, breadth and height of our cube of air in metres. The mass of a cubic metre of air at STP is 1.225kg so the block of air as a whole will mass in at 3,062.5kg, just over 3 tons of air. A reasonable sample I think.

I am using data from Post: #106 and #109 on page six of this thread.

One cubic meter of air at a temperature of 15C and pressure of 1.01325 bars will have a molecular density of 2.5469x10^25 molecules. Since we have 2,500 cubic metres of air and CO2 is mixed therein at 400ppm, we can safely say we have a grand total of 2.5469x10^25 CO2 molecules whizzing about in our 3 plus tons of air, or the equivalent of 1 cubic metre of CO2. Using Avogadro's Number N = 6.0221414 x 10^23 molecules per mole, I find we have 42.3 moles at 44.01 grams each gives us a total mass of 1.861 kilos of CO2.

Our block of air will have an effective surface area of 1,105 square metres (minus 0.2 square metres to keep things simple). The question now is can we say that that block of air is effectively radiating from that number of square metres? I say "Why not?", as each and every evenly distributed CO2 molecule in that block of air will be less than 7 metres from any side. 7 metres of air is not much hinderance to photons travelling at the speed of light. One cubic metre of air at STP is 99.9% NOTHING! Each CO2 molecule is free to radiate in 360 x 360 x 360 = 46,656,000 directions. It is actually an infinity of directions but infinity is hard to imagine. Cool

The temperature of our block of air is 15C and blackbody radiation would be 390 watts per square metre, but this is NOT a blackbody, it is CO2 molecules radiating over the 13 to 17 micron band which is only some 18% of the full blackbody range and amounts to just 70 w/m^2. Thus our 3 ton block of air loses 70 x 1,105 = 77,350 joules in the first second. Doesn't seem much does it?

When our block of air has lost 5 degrees of temperature the blackbody radiation level would be 363.7w/m^2 so radiation in the 13 to17 micron band will be 65.5w/m^2. What I will do is average the two loss rates, 70 and 65.5, which gives me an energy loss rate of 67.75w/m^2. Next, I need to know the total energy lost from 3,062.5kg of dry air when the temperature changes from 15C to 10C. A 5 degree drop.

At 1,000j/kg/K at 5 degrees means 5,000 joules lost from each kg which gives a grand total of 15,312,500 joules lost at the average rate of 67.75 x 1,015 joules per second gives me a total of 222.7 seconds which comes in at 3.7 minutes!!! Ooops!! That is way too fast! Told you CO2 was good at cooling the atmosphere. Blush

But seriously, does anyone really believe that 1.8kg of CO2 could cool down just over 3 tons of dry air in 3 to 4 minutes? And I've made no mention of water vapour, good old H2O, which could be as much as 0.3% of the atmosphere, even over the desert region of Libya. The Mediterranean Sea is not that far away. Emission from H2O just about swamps CO2 over the 13 to 17 micron band so the rate of cooling would be even faster! So! My understanding of this atmospheric mechanism is seriously flawed.

Okay. So what is going wrong? CO2 molecules are free to emitt any which way? Something must be slowing down the emission rate of the CO2 (and the H2O). It is beginning to look, to me at least, that CO2 might just absorb some energy, but how much and why? We know that other CO2 molecules are radiating all around and a goodly amount in the 13 to 17 micron band is coming up from the surface.

Well, it is back to the drawing board for me. If anyone has any ideas please say.

There is a paper by Professor Nasif Nahle linked in Post: #306 above which I think would provide an answer if only I could understand it.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
In regard of water vapour, " which could be as much as 0.3% of the atmosphere"
- I assume a typo, would - could be as much as 4% - be nearer reality?.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
Another get point by Alan Siddons that I think may be of help here.

By Definition, Aren't All Gases 'Greenhouse Gases'?

We are not the only ones confused by it all Richard111.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
Yo! 4% water vapour is common where I live but would be a miracle over the desert in Libya, specially in the summer. 0.3% is about the driest air on the planet found more usually over Antarctica. The point, which I didn't make clear at all, is the H2O molecules vastly out number CO2 molecules anywhere, anytime and almost completely cover the 13 to 17 micron band. How does one tell which 'back radiation' originated from CO2?
I made a post explaining my understanding of 'greenhouse gases' back in Post: #300.
Onward, ever onward. Temperature outside right now is just 1 degree above freezing! Dropped 7 degrees in 5 hours! Very light wind at 4 knots. Sky is still clear. Forecast promises heavy rain tomorrow so hope to see some real 'back radiation' when the clouds return later tonight.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
I've mentioned my thoughts and observations on clouds before in this thread. This post at WUWT, not the post itself so much, but the comments by one george e. smith grabbed my attention.

Picture of how our climate is affected by greenhouse gases is a ‘cloudy’ one

Quote:So I’ll forgive them for equating “sunlight” with solar radiant energy. Sunlight is lumens, and it is all in my head. (eyes if you like) Solar radiant energy is in Joules, and only some of it is visible, and can produce the psycho-physical response of “light” in your brain; but I’ll let that pass.

But then they go on to assert that clouds REFLECT the sun light/energy. Well with a refractive index in the 1.333 range, water does reflect about 2% per surface, so there is some reflection; but not the 80% claimed. It is actually ordinary scattering through quite linear multiple optical refraction. I’ve ray traced a rain drop in near collimated incident rays, so many times, I can draw it in my sleep. Just two or three sequential wide angle refractions is enough to render the scattering virtually isotropic.

Now this direct interaction of the clouds with solar energy, is quite different from their interaction with the surface emitted LWIR radiation. That is virtually all absorbed (>95%) by droplets bigger than about 50 microns diameter (2 mils). So subsequently, it is re-emitted, as a BB like thermal spectrum, characteristic of the cloud Temperature. Once again this is isotropic emission, so half of it is still directed towards space.

But I didn’t see much talk about the absorption of incoming solar energy, by the water vapor, even in CAVU conditions. (Clear Air, Visibility Unlimited).

So you can squirm about “aerosols” and cloud formation, all you like; but mox nix; even if clouds don’t form, the INCREASED atmospheric WATER VAPOR due to any surface warming, will result in an increased absorption of the incoming solar spectrum energy; which thus will not reach the ocean surface to be stored in the deep.
LINK

Quote:At the presumed 288 K earth surface Temperature (maybe 287 K), the calculated BB spectral radiance peak is at 10.1 microns (on spectral radiance per micron wavelength; not per wave nummer plots).

from stuff you learn in the 8th grade science, or maybe 4-H club science; you are supposed to have remembered that exactly 25% of all BB radiant energy lies at wavelengths shorter than the peak wavelength. Also, that only 1% of BB radiant energy lies below half the peak wavelength; and only 1% of the total energy lies above eight times the peak wavelength.

So for a 288 K BB, we have a 10.1 micron peak, and only 25% is below that, and the 1% limits are at 5.05, and 80.8 microns.

Now the 10.1 microns is in the so-called “atmospheric window”, but as the astronomer emeritus said, the 9.6 micron Ozone hole is in there too.

Now 10.1 microns may be the 288 K mean surface Temperature emission spectrum peak; BUT !!
at that Temperature (15 deg. C) the total radiant emittance is 390 W/m^2. Look for that nummer on Kevin Trenberth’s budget cartoon. So what is it like when the surface Temperature is 333 K or + 60 deg. C as in the equatorial deserts, where the earth is really cooling off at a high emission rate.

Well (333/273)^4 = 1.787 which now gives us 697 W/m^2 of cooling emittance.
But hang on . At that Temperature, the spectral emission peak has shifted due to Wien Displacement, and is now at 8.735 microns, and not 10.1.
Now even further into the window gap, and now even below the Ozone hole. Moreover, it is now further removed from the 15 micron CO2 degenerate (double) bending mode band; so CO2 is even less effective (but the spectral emittance at the CO2 band is still higer; but nowhere near 78.7% higher.

Of course, these equatorial deserts are as dry as a bone, so the atmospheric moisture content is way down; which is why the air Temperature crashes at sunset.; so the escape of this 78% higher emittance is further enhanced by the lack of water GHG effect.
LINK

And last but not least:

Quote:george e. smith says:

January 27, 2014 at 5:56 pm


I notice several posts regarding the fact that atmospheric CO2 is about one in twenty five hundred molecules of the atmosphere.

Cube root of 2500 is about 13.6 . So a rather rough estimate, but if you are a CO2 molecule, then on average, it’s about 13.6 molecules from you to the nearest other CO2 molecule.

Do you get the feeling that you are alone in the universe ?? CO2 molecules don’t even know that others like them even exist. (in the atmosphere), so each one acts alone; by hisself.

Well so what ?

May I suggest that this paucity of CO2 molecules in the air is NOT a good choice for a hill to die on.

I’m typing this on a PC laptop full of silicon ICs. The density of deliberately inserted doping atoms in the silicon, (boron or phosphorous in older ICs) makes CO2 look like an ant’s convention at a picnic. Silicon IC dopant levels are WAY BELOW one in 2500. more like one in 50,000 to one in a million.

So all of the mayhem, that gose on inside your computer is caused by impurities way lower in abundance than CO2 in the atmosphere.

So forget that argument; it’s plain silly.

I'm still learning. I hope you all are. Wink
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
(01-20-2014, 04:41 AM)Derek Wrote: Another get point by Alan Siddons that I think may be of help here.

By Definition, Aren't All Gases 'Greenhouse Gases'?

We are not the only ones confused by it all Richard111.

I've had a look at the paper mentioned and am rather out of my depth. I fall apart on the first sentence; collision-induced absorption by molecular
oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2)
!!! Never heard of it till now and just how does that work? Must be something to do with electron shells being disturbed during a collision. Lots of IR graphs in the paper but haven't managed to decode what is going on. Undecided
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
It is quite a relief to read I have been looking at this problem the right way.

IR Expert Speaks Out After 40 Years Of Silence : “IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2″

Quote:Posted on January 25, 2014 by stevengoddard

Mike Sanicola says:

I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”. I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Nothing new since my last post over a year ago. Still endless discussions about temperature and melting ice. SHeeesh!!

I have an idea I want to test and hope for some constructive feedback.

I will acquire a largish fresh water fish tank. I will acquire a heavy glass plate to fit on top such that with a bit of sealant the whole tank will be reasonably airtight.

I will place a thermometer in the bottom of the tank such that I can read it from outside. I will acquire one or two kilograms of dry ice which will also go into the bottom of the tank.

I will use a brewing kit pressure release pipe, the double U-bend pipe with a bit of water in the tube such that air can bubble out of the container. This to be fitted somehow into the top plate.

The whole caboodle to be placed in a darkish room such that the sun never shines on the tank.

Expected operation: as the dry ice vaporises the COLD CO2 will tend to stay at the bottom of the tank. As pressure increases air will bubble out at the top. Eventually I hope to have a tank of pure CO2 at room temperature and whatever the local air pressure might be.

Science tells us that in due course the tank will reach thermal equilibrium with the air in the room, and if CO2 is at, say, a temperature of around 20C (293K), it will radiate very effectively over the 13 to 17 micron band.

Purpose of experiment is to see if the tank warms or cools.

My theory is if the tank remains at room temperature for any extended time then the whole global warming claim is proved false.

What say you?
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Welcome back. I had wondered where you had gone to, and what you have been getting up to.
Very glad to hear it is not pushing up daisies.. LOL.

Interesting notion a fish tank full of CO2. What will happen? Remembering Carl Brehmer's greenhouse in a bottle experiment I wonder how the extra mass of CO2 will affect things? Namely, pressure, and therefore temperature within the fish tank. My immediate thought would be the CO2 will expand more, and contract more for a given temperature change than air. So, the air lock will probably be overwhelmed and slowly bubble away, one way or the other, almost constantly. Maybe a thin, rubber membrane would make a better air lock, as long as it could expand and contract enough to accommodate the expansion and contraction of the CO2 in the sealed fish tank with no resistance at all. This is going to sound like sarcasm, when it is not meant to be, but how about an unrolled condom on the end of the breather tube as the air lock rather than water?

Unfortunately this will mean, if the CO2 is allowed to expand and contract, the CO2 remains at room temperature. As Carl Brehmer's experiment also showed, when he released the pressure (by piercing the lid with a nail) and the temperature dropped like a stone.

HOWEVER, the CO2 would react quicker to temperature change, except that it is the air, by conduction, that is causing the temperature change of the CO2 within the fish tank.

If the tank is sealed rigidly then the above changes might be able to be shown differently, especially if you can also measure and compare the atmospheric pressure inside and outside of the fish tank.

I would suspect the fish tank full of CO2 will remain slightly colder than the room, because the atmosphere within the fish tank can also cool by radiative emission. BUT, as room temperature does not really correspond with any of the temperature frequencies of emission of CO2, this could be wrong, or so small as to be insignificant.

In short, I don't think the water air lock will work, I think it will be overwhelmed. If the fish tank is rigidly sealed then pressure changes will mask the result, and possibly cause a false reading / result. If the tank is sealed but the contained atmosphere can expand and contract as it will, then there will be no result, other than room temperature in the tank.

Reading back over the above I have not done a good job trying to explain what I meant. The experiment has so many difficulties with pressure that the end result can be interpreted almost any way one wants to. I think that is why Carl Brehmer took down his experiment. A great shame, in my opinion. Richard111 is correct, according to the notion CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere one would think that means a tank full of CO2 would be warmer than the surrounding air. If it were true we would all have bags of CO2 as loft insulation in our roofs... LOL. We don't... The real issue is not the physical properties of CO2, they are not what they are supposed to be, it is impossible to trap heat anyway, so they can not be true. The real issue is that IR, or rather Thermal Radiation (TR) flows are simply added together by current "climate science". If one does not take into consideration the temperature of the source of the TR how can one possibly know if one is adding flows together in violation of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics? One can not. THAT is the issue really, that they would rather avoid and talk forever about supposed physical properties of CO2 that are actually impossible in the first place.... Heat can not be piled (by simply adding TR flows together), heat can not be trapped (that is physically impossible). So, CO2 does not trap heat. It can not. Nothing can. The fish tank, excepting the influences of pressure differences will remain at room temperature, bar a slight lag due to differences in heat capacity between air and the far heavier carbon dioxide.

btw - Humidity differences inside and outside the tank may also need to be included, but that, depressingly quickly, gets very complicated / impossible too....

It might be more interesting to fill the fish tank with water and note it never goes above room temperature when the temperature in the room is constant (not that the room can be sealed though). If there is a draft in the room, and room temperature remains constant, the water will be significantly cooler than the room. The problem here, that confuses these results, is that the heat capacity of the water may well overwhelm the diurnal temperature range in the room.

You know, I have missed these mental wanders. Thank you Richard111, it is genuinely good to have you back.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
Gosh! Thanks Derek. Blush

Frankly I don't expect to see any change in temperature for my CO2 filled fish tank once its settled down at room temperature.

We may need to discuss the rules governing radiation heat transfer in detail.

Here is how I expect it to work. First the glass. The Emissivity of smooth glass is 0.92 - 0.94 (LINK).
I'm guessing the missing portion is in the UV and visible light range which doesn't react with CO2 anyway. The glass is receiving energy from the air in the room via conduction AND low IR radiation appropriate to room temperature which we can assume is 20C (293K). The glass will emitting at roughly 0.93% efficiency of which about half the total square area will be radiated INTO THE TANK.

As the CO2 gas vaporises from the block of dry ice the temperature will be around -79C (194K), so it will readily absorb radiation in the 13 to 15 micron range (as will the block of dry ice). My theory is the cool CO2 gas will tend to remain at the bottom of the tank and the rising pressure should drive all normal air (including water vapour) out of the air lock in the top of the tank. Eventually I hope to see no more bubbles through the airlock as pressure inside the tank equalises with the room pressure. At this point I will expect the dry ice block to have vanished entirely. I guess there will have to be a stopcock in the airlock to prevent any water molecules getting back into the CO2 gas.

Let's assume the tank has reached equilibrium with room temperature and pressure and talk about the CO2 gas trapped inside. These gas molecules have both kinetic energy AND vibrational energy. The kinetic speed for any given temperature is a mean for the whole volume under consideration. Some molecules will be moving faster and some slower. These constant collisions 'conduct' energy into the molecules, termed 'translational energy' which effects the 'vibrational' state of the molecule. Remember, 'heat' is molecular vibration. A mean of the volume of CO2 molecules are warmed to local equilibrium temperature though some will be above and some below. (see any kinetic distribution graph to get an idea of this)

This implies, according to the rules governing infrared radiation, that ALL the CO2 molecules will be emitting photons over the 13 to 17 micron band. A cooling process! But! It appears the molecules CAN absorb an in-band photon if one has been emitted resulting in no energy change in the molecule. This tells us that there is no direct path for a photon from any molecule to reach the glass surface except for those molecules close to the glass surface. Now the glass is also emitting over the IR range under discussion. Same argument. The glass can absorb some of those photons and it is also emitting photons over that range so the NET result is no change in molecular vibration in the glass so no change in energy thus no change in temperature. This is what thermal equilibrium means.

I'm afraid there will be a pause in my experiment as I have found a fish tank I think is large enough but owner wants £50 and cost of CO2 ice block delivered to my door will be about £35. This is several months of my beer budget!

Anyway, the purpose of the experiment is to find the 'back radiation' that warms the earth (glass of tank).
I have plenty of arguments as to why this is impossible but need a practical demonstration that does not cost too much beer. Undecided
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Ach! Phooey! Just reread the last post and remembered I spent many sweaty hours sunbathing in a greenhouse when I was a kid. Couldn't understand why it didn't work. But boy! Did I try! Rolleyes
Glass absorbs UV big time and radiates out LWIR. One of the reasons why greenhouses work so well. All the rest stands so far (I hope).
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)