|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 22, 2017 13:54:09 GMT
/11/13/new-agu-presentation-no-increase-in-earths-surface-temperature-from-increase-in-co2/#sthash.YtTsOkXs.bStDCy2b.dpbs
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 22, 2017 20:08:47 GMT
/11/13/new-agu-presentation-no-increase-in-earths-surface-temperature-from-increase-in-co2/#sthash.YtTsOkXs.bStDCy2b.dpbs Seems to be an incomplete link.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 22, 2017 21:29:57 GMT
Ok, thanks. Tried to copy it via my phone.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 22, 2017 23:13:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 23, 2017 1:04:06 GMT
It surely demonstrates how 'settled' the science is (in a semi-lay sense). Makes one want to go out and bet the farm on the business end of the thesis. I can't imagine us having this conversation on the business end of gravity ... even if it changes ever so slightly every now and then. I also saw this post earlier when I was looking at the WUWT site. There were only a handful of comments at that time and they were all in support of what was written. The author lays out his science bullet points early on in his paper. One of these is that "The temperature of a body (gas, liquid or solid) directly affects the wavelength of the radiation it emits and absorbs." This is in contradiction with what I have written here many times. Absorption is not a function of the temperature of the absorbing body. It is a function of the molecular structure of the absorbing body. This changes everything. I wont take the time to explain since I'm almost certain that it will come up on WUWT. By the way I don't comment directly on the WUWT site because it it far to time consuming to deal with all the responses, sometimes over the course of days. I said above that Gill’s theory is based on an incorrect premise which he states in bullet point 4 of his article. "The temperature of a body (gas, liquid or solid) directly affects the wavelength of the radiation it emits and absorbs.” I thought the commenters on WUWT would find the error and quickly sort this out. I read about the first 200 of the 800+comments and there were 2 which nailed the problem but their explanation was apparently too technical for most to understand so the comments continued as if the explanation had never been given. Maybe my explanation may not have been clear either so I've expanded it a little. The simple explanation is that the temperature of a body affects the wavelength of the radiation it emits, as Gill says, but not the wavelengths it absorbs. CO2’s molecular structure like other molecules determines the wavelengths it will absorb. CO2 readily absorbs 15um photons in any part of the atmosphere regardless of temperature including at the earth’s surface. Since Gill’s article is based on the false premise that CO2 absorbs photons only when its temperature is -80C or so, Gill’s article comes to incorrect conclusions. Let me know if this explanation is unclear and whether it should be a show-stopper on WUWT. (I'm not going to post it there.)
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 23, 2017 7:49:20 GMT
Spot on Duwayne.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 23, 2017 11:24:05 GMT
Your explanation is clear, it is what I thought too, and it should be a show stopper for the discussion on WUWT. I am intrigued by the fact that it wasn't even though your points were raised a few times in the discussion.
I also wondered where the idea of IR photons raising the energy of the electrons in orbit around 'the molecule' (not the nucleus of the atom) came from. I shall have to dig back into that area. But temperature has always been kinetic energy - ie energy of velocity, not that of the particular electron orbits. Although that could explain how latent heat is stored if it is true.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 23, 2017 14:17:02 GMT
Your explanation is clear, it is what I thought too, and it should be a show stopper for the discussion on WUWT. I am intrigued by the fact that it wasn't even though your points were raised a few times in the discussion. I also wondered where the idea of IR photons raising the energy of the electrons in orbit around 'the molecule' (not the nucleus of the atom) came from. I shall have to dig back into that area. But temperature has always been kinetic energy - ie energy of velocity, not that of the particular electron orbits. Although that could explain how latent heat is stored if it is true. Latent heat isn't stored, it is the result of energy released/used to change the state of water. The electrons orbiting an atom interacting with the others in a molecule resonate at different specific frequencies, this matches the wavelength of various photons in the spectrum
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 23, 2017 14:59:47 GMT
Your explanation is clear, it is what I thought too, and it should be a show stopper for the discussion on WUWT. I am intrigued by the fact that it wasn't even though your points were raised a few times in the discussion. I also wondered where the idea of IR photons raising the energy of the electrons in orbit around 'the molecule' (not the nucleus of the atom) came from. I shall have to dig back into that area. But temperature has always been kinetic energy - ie energy of velocity, not that of the particular electron orbits. Although that could explain how latent heat is stored if it is true. Latent heat isn't stored, it is the result of energy released/used to change the state of water. The electrons orbiting an atom interacting with the others in a molecule resonate at different specific frequencies, this matches the wavelength of various photons in the spectrum As energy cannot be created from nothing nor destroyed, it must have been carried ( stored) by the water vapor molecule for it to be 'released'. Nobody has defined where/how it is carried ( stored) nor how it can be released on change of state to liquid. Although it does occur to me that perhaps 'supercooled water' has not yet been able to give that latent heat away. Once that capability is provided the water all changes state.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 23, 2017 17:02:10 GMT
Latent heat isn't stored, it is the result of energy released/used to change the state of water. The electrons orbiting an atom interacting with the others in a molecule resonate at different specific frequencies, this matches the wavelength of various photons in the spectrum As energy cannot be created from nothing nor destroyed, it must have been carried ( stored) by the water vapor molecule for it to be 'released'. Nobody has defined where/how it is carried ( stored) nor how it can be released on change of state to liquid. Although it does occur to me that perhaps 'supercooled water' has not yet been able to give that latent heat away. Once that capability is provided the water all changes state. At the risk of being pedantic....bear with me, I love this subject but your correct if you pointed out im not an expert. scienceprojectideasforkids.com/2011/energy-states-of-matter/This is actually more in depth then you may assume form the title....contains this Gem.. Remember: This information is what is currently accepted as true but only a few years ago there was a different explanation. As technology improves, more accurate models are proposed. Scientists should always keep an open mind and NEVER dogmatically accept ideas. You may be the one to discover a better model for water’s different states of matter. I think understanding that energy is required to break the bonds holding h2o together as water is an easy one? This takes energy from the environment i.e. cooling. Condensation is the reverse, as the bonds are recreated, energy is then released. If feel Naut your expecting a quantifiable mechanism for the storage of energy within the vapour that is being carried until condensation occurs??
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 23, 2017 17:08:09 GMT
sciencing.com/explaining-condensation-exothermic-9621.htmlwww.thefreedictionary.com/Translational+kinetic+energyI think translational kinetic energy is the key here. Kinetic energy in a solid or liquid involves vibrating molecules/atoms transferring energy i.e. heat This does not happen with gases, as molecules/atoms are not in constant contact. Instead the energy is derived from the motion of these in space, as they are free to move, with enough energy they do so. I imagine if they lose enough energy, they'll reform as liquid/solid. Therefore there are 3 energy states and 2 levels of kinetic energy. Vapour being the highest energy state to give the molecules freedom and movement, requires energy to do this, and when its stopped and defers to a lower energy state, the previously required energy is freed up and released.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 23, 2017 17:52:03 GMT
It is the actual amount of energy that is 'released' by water changing state that makes it difficult. It is far far more than just altering the vibration of a single molecule.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 23, 2017 18:00:03 GMT
It is the actual amount of energy that is 'released' by water changing state that makes it difficult. It is far far more than just altering the vibration of a single molecule. If you can imagine the amount of energy required to make it vibrate within its bonds, imagine the energy required to break them and send it whizzing off. If it's going 1,000,000 miles/hr (I've no idea btw!), what happens to that energy stored in its movement once it's clamped down and put back in bonds again?? It requires energy to get it moving, it has no propulsion, just the movement imparted to it and in this state follows gas laws. It keeps moving until stopped, bit like a car crash emitting sound and crumpling metal, energy from movement has to go somewhere....
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Nov 23, 2017 18:01:42 GMT
That's a bit muddled I think. The energy is released as the inter molecular forces release energy and settle at a more orderly or closer formation. The H2O does not break into pieces the electron energy levels are not part of the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 23, 2017 18:02:45 GMT
Presumably is not an answer I get the idea that as you get to a certain level even physicists start hand-waving
|
|