|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 4, 2016 18:50:52 GMT
Well it can't both absorb the "bulk" of all that radiation Andrew and: not be at least a near surface. This near surface, where the bulk of this high energy radiation is absorbed, absorbs what percent? 90%? And is 2000C, why can't we read it? Because we are using an IR camera, not a UV camera? The IR surface you say you read for greenhouse gases only absorbs what 90 to 95% of the outgoing IR the rest goes through the IR window. Interestingly the brightest night time airglow is coming from chemiluminescence. CHEMILUMINESCENCE: emission results from chemical reactions mainly between oxygen and nitrogen atoms and molecules and hydroxyl molecules at a height between 100 and 300 kilometers. Solar radiation energy breaks molecules apart during the day, and it is their recombination, which is accompanied by the emission of light, that generates the nightglow.
The brightest region of airglow is about 10 mile (10 to 20 km) thick zone at an altitude of about 60 miles (100 km). One contributor to airglow is the sodium layer.
Green line of atomic oxygen at the top of the thermosphere was first detected in 1868. The brightest emissions happen in the Short wave IR (cheap IR camera) www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=50540The wavelength spectrum of airglow, depicted in Figure 1, shows its maximum intensity in the SWIR range between 1 and 1.8 µmchemiluminescence is interesting but I am not sure its what we are talking about. I realize that a piece of iron heated to 2000c is going to be way beyond melted and give off a lot of light/heat. But a molecule only able to emit at a temperature of 2000c will that light be visible. I seems not as it absorbs what it emits and it absorbs xrays, euv, uv or whatever and none of that is visible. Airglow is visible and is a problem for telescope observation from the surface. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 4, 2016 18:57:38 GMT
www.albany.edu/faculty/rgk/atm101/airglow.htmInterestingly the brightest night time airglow is coming from chemiluminescence. CHEMILUMINESCENCE: emission results from chemical reactions mainly between oxygen and nitrogen atoms and molecules and hydroxyl molecules at a height between 100 and 300 kilometers. Solar radiation energy breaks molecules apart during the day, and it is their recombination, which is accompanied by the emission of light, that generates the nightglow.
The brightest region of airglow is about 10 mile (10 to 20 km) thick zone at an altitude of about 60 miles (100 km). One contributor to airglow is the sodium layer.
Green line of atomic oxygen at the top of the thermosphere was first detected in 1868. The brightest emissions happen in the Short wave IR (cheap IR camera) www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=50540The wavelength spectrum of airglow, depicted in Figure 1, shows its maximum intensity in the SWIR range between 1 and 1.8 µm chemiluminescence is interesting but I am not sure its what we are talking about. I realize that a piece of iron heated to 2000c is going to be way beyond melted and give off a lot of light/heat. But a molecule only able to emit at a temperature of 2000c will that light be visible. I seems not as it absorbs what it emits and it absorbs xrays, euv, uv or whatever and none of that is visible. Airglow is visible and is a problem for telescope observation from the surface. I could not understand what point you were making so did my best to answer anyway Real objects do not emit the frequencies they adsorb even when hot. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 4, 2016 20:30:56 GMT
chemiluminescence is interesting but I am not sure its what we are talking about. I realize that a piece of iron heated to 2000c is going to be way beyond melted and give off a lot of light/heat. But a molecule only able to emit at a temperature of 2000c will that light be visible. I seems not as it absorbs what it emits and it absorbs xrays, euv, uv or whatever and none of that is visible. Airglow is visible and is a problem for telescope observation from the surface. I could not understand what point you were making so did my best to answer anyway Real objects do not emit the frequencies they adsorb even when hot. Thats blackbodys Andrew not selective bodies. I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am talking about Kirchoff's Law: Monochromatic emissivity= monochromatic absorptivity. The reason you gave for the molecules heating to such high temperatures in the thermosphere was it was absorbing solar light and was not able to emit light except in at very high frequencies. I would assume that means, in accordance with Kirchoff that it is selectively absorbing high frequency UV EUV and Xray while passing low frequency visible and IR. (Not unlike CO2 which absorbs a narrow band of particular IR while passing higher frequency IR and lower frequency IR.) and does not emit heat (at least by radiation) until it gets hot enough to emit UV and higher. . . .which would be an invisible light to the eye. It may also be the case that the light is never emitted again either at the half per each surface quite simply because it doesn't emit at half the frequency it absorbs, it only emits at a certain temperature and that temperature is what it absorbs. I think all this is mind boggling so I don't blame you if you don't get that last idea. But the bottom line is 2000C objects will emit 1 1/2 million watts/m2 if they can emit and at that level there really isn't any difference between what they would emit down vs up. So a single complete absorbing surface of such material may only emit a much lower average such that watts/m2 which implies time is just a wrong way to characterize the heating ability of light. At least thats what I get out of various works on the duality problem of light. It may also be the case that those molecules never do emit instead losing heat even by extremely rare conduction/collision that prevents them from ever reaching the correct temperature to emit. . . .perhaps thats the source of the chemiluminescence, these collision being just frequent enough to prevent getting hot enough to emit. Thats the alternative for CO2 some discuss where the heat CO2 gathers from the surface is bled off via conduction into a cooler atmosphere with no appreciable warming by that atmosphere due to how little of it there is. The science is settled BS from the warmists is strictly a propaganda ploy to "trick" politicians and the general public, but serves mostly to not being able to learn about the climate. Thats the title to this topic. All this questionable science handed off as fact when in fact its a total mess. A bit of catch 22 for climate science. If they don't propagandize they don't get the money. If they do propagandize they spend the money doing the wrong thing. Obviously for those getting the money they could care less. After all no question about money. Money is money. Its seems to me that with the money being spent if it were spent wisely we could learn about all this. After all its all about accurate data collection about the properties of our atmosphere matched to real world models to solve sticky issues. Computer modeling only works when the input is not garbage and we know what the properties are. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 4, 2016 21:29:39 GMT
I could not understand what point you were making so did my best to answer anyway Real objects do not emit the frequencies they adsorb even when hot. Thats blackbodys Andrew not selective bodies. I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am talking about Kirchoff's Law: Monochromatic emissivity= monochromatic absorptivity. The reason you gave for the molecules heating to such high temperatures in the thermosphere was it was absorbing solar light and was not able to emit light except in at very high frequencies. I would assume that means, in accordance with Kirchoff that it is selectively absorbing high frequency UV EUV and Xray while passing low frequency visible and IR. (Not unlike CO2 which absorbs a narrow band of particular IR while passing higher frequency IR and lower frequency IR.) and does not emit heat (at least by radiation) until it gets hot enough to emit UV and higher. . . .which would be an invisible light to the eye. It may also be the case that the light is never emitted again either at the half per each surface quite simply because it doesn't emit at half the frequency it absorbs, it only emits at a certain temperature and that temperature is what it absorbs. I think all this is mind boggling so I don't blame you if you don't get that last idea. But the bottom line is 2000C objects will emit 1 1/2 million watts/m2 if they can emit and at that level there really isn't any difference between what they would emit down vs up. So a single complete absorbing surface of such material may only emit a much lower average such that watts/m2 which implies time is just a wrong way to characterize the heating ability of light. At least thats what I get out of various works on the duality problem of light. It may also be the case that those molecules never do emit instead losing heat even by extremely rare conduction/collision that prevents them from ever reaching the correct temperature to emit. . . .perhaps thats the source of the chemiluminescence, these collision being just frequent enough to prevent getting hot enough to emit. Thats the alternative for CO2 some discuss where the heat CO2 gathers from the surface is bled off via conduction into a cooler atmosphere with no appreciable warming by that atmosphere due to how little of it there is. The science is settled BS from the warmists is strictly a propaganda ploy to "trick" politicians and the general public, but serves mostly to not being able to learn about the climate. Thats the title to this topic. All this questionable science handed off as fact when in fact its a total mess. A bit of catch 22 for climate science. If they don't propagandize they don't get the money. If they do propagandize they spend the money doing the wrong thing. Obviously for those getting the money they could care less. After all no question about money. Money is money. Its seems to me that with the money being spent if it were spent wisely we could learn about all this. After all its all about accurate data collection about the properties of our atmosphere matched to real world models to solve sticky issues. Computer modeling only works when the input is not garbage and we know what the properties are. kirchoffs law is talking about objects in thermal equilibrium. A heated object is not in thermal equilibrium. ------------------- CO2 does not produce IR at low temperatures?? Another Nobel prize awaits you. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 4, 2016 23:09:14 GMT
If you place a perfectly insulated object anywhere in the solar system that can be heated, it will heat to the temperature of the sun. The lower thermosphere contains separated atmospheric gases such as O2 and N2 which are very poor emitters of infra red until they get to about 750C or something like that, but presumably they can absorb UV and Xrays. The upper thermosphere contains atomic oxygen which does not behave like the molecular O2 and these have more chances for emission. So whatever is up there is a very poor emitter of radiation until it gets very hot and yet it can still absorb UV and Xrays during the day. Lief Svalgaard told me that while UV causes the upper atmosphere to puff up during solar cycles the area where this is happening is so thin that something like 99.9997% of the atmospheric mass is below this area. The thermosphere is hot because that is where the bulk of a particular UV and Xray are absorbed, so if more Energy were available the thermosphere would extend lower and heat it and puff it up. I suppose it must be true that below the most intense heating area that heat must be conducted and radiated in all directions till it is radiated away from the area and mixes with air that is being heated by other forces such as other direct solar radiation and indirect forces coming from surface heating Andrew it is important to note that I am trying to discuss this topic within your conception of the greenhouse theory. We know I question that because of the lack of experiment evidence and the fact that a non-absorbing object can get enough heat from a distant sun to emit energy of a determinable amount of watts in any and all directions, as measured by flat plane. That means that an object that warms to a set value will emit in all directions at the rate determined by its temperature. . . .not if or if not it is thermodynamic equilibrium. Kirchoffs Law merely states that a body in thermodynamic equilibrium will emit what it receives. If thats not thermodynamic equilibrium then I don't know what it means. This pdf of a space heating and cooling tutorial attributes the comment: Monochromatic emissivity = monochromatic absorptivity to Kirchoffs Law. Thus an object that absorbs only some frequencies cannot emit at frequencies they do not absorb at. Thus if they are at a lower temperature due to conduction losses they cannot emit. i am not claiming that as a fact but if its not it needs another explanation. The only explanation for why molecules in the thermosphere can exceed 278.5 k seems to be due to an inability to emit IR or visible light, unless you can come up with another explanation. Sunlight is given a wattage value of 1364w/m2 at the distance of the sun with a full field of view. . . .yet 2000C is attributed to existing at times in the thermosphere which would be radiation rate of ~1,500,000watts/m2. How could it get so hot if it was not limited in the frequencies of light (like no IR) that it emitted? |
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Feb 4, 2016 23:46:34 GMT
 Extract from The Australian 5_02_16 The gods must be laughing at the hubris of stating "the science is settled". Actually CSIRO is being quite logical. If the science is settled there is no point in further research by a few hundred well paid individuals. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 5, 2016 2:28:04 GMT
View AttachmentExtract from The Australian 5_02_16 The gods must be laughing at the hubris of stating "the science is settled". Actually CSIRO is being quite logical. If the science is settled there is no point in further research by a few hundred well paid individuals. Yes they have 100% confidence in their ignorance that no other culprit besides CO2 could do it. Why so? Because it makes the green fall! |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 6:54:36 GMT
If you place a perfectly insulated object anywhere in the solar system that can be heated, it will heat to the temperature of the sun. The lower thermosphere contains separated atmospheric gases such as O2 and N2 which are very poor emitters of infra red until they get to about 750C or something like that, but presumably they can absorb UV and Xrays. The upper thermosphere contains atomic oxygen which does not behave like the molecular O2 and these have more chances for emission. So whatever is up there is a very poor emitter of radiation until it gets very hot and yet it can still absorb UV and Xrays during the day. Lief Svalgaard told me that while UV causes the upper atmosphere to puff up during solar cycles the area where this is happening is so thin that something like 99.9997% of the atmospheric mass is below this area. The thermosphere is hot because that is where the bulk of a particular UV and Xray are absorbed, so if more Energy were available the thermosphere would extend lower and heat it and puff it up. I suppose it must be true that below the most intense heating area that heat must be conducted and radiated in all directions till it is radiated away from the area and mixes with air that is being heated by other forces such as other direct solar radiation and indirect forces coming from surface heating Andrew it is important to note that I am trying to discuss this topic within your conception of the greenhouse theory. We know I question that because of the lack of experiment evidence and the fact that a non-absorbing object can get enough heat from a distant sun to emit energy of a determinable amount of watts in any and all directions, as measured by flat plane. That means that an object that warms to a set value will emit in all directions at the rate determined by its temperature. . . .not if or if not it is thermodynamic equilibrium. Kirchoffs Law merely states that a body in thermodynamic equilibrium will emit what it receives. If thats not thermodynamic equilibrium then I don't know what it means. This pdf of a space heating and cooling tutorial attributes the comment: Monochromatic emissivity = monochromatic absorptivity to Kirchoffs Law. Thus an object that absorbs only some frequencies cannot emit at frequencies they do not absorb at. Thus if they are at a lower temperature due to conduction losses they cannot emit. i am not claiming that as a fact but if its not it needs another explanation. The only explanation for why molecules in the thermosphere can exceed 278.5 k seems to be due to an inability to emit IR or visible light, unless you can come up with another explanation. Sunlight is given a wattage value of 1364w/m2 at the distance of the sun with a full field of view. . . .yet 2000C is attributed to existing at times in the thermosphere which would be radiation rate of ~1,500,000watts/m2. How could it get so hot if it was not limited in the frequencies of light (like no IR) that it emitted? Thermodynamic equilibrium is a special case were everything is the same temperature. So there cannot be any heating or cooling of any object Objects like O2 cannot be heated by IR at ordinary temperatures. They can be heated by other radiations. If we heat a black object with all the frequencies of the sun in our garden, it absorbs many different radiations but it can only emit IR. So if you heat a black rock with full power solar radiation immediately next to the Sun it becomes white hot and is almost in thermal equilibrium with the sun and and begins producing those emissions which it is absorbing |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 5, 2016 7:32:19 GMT
kirchoffs law is talking about objects in thermal equilibrium. A heated object is not in thermal equilibrium. CO2 does not produce IR at low temperatures?? Another Nobel prize awaits you. Kirchoffs Law merely states that a body in thermodynamic equilibrium will emit what it receives. If thats not thermodynamic equilibrium then I don't know what it means. This pdf of a space heating and cooling tutorial attributes the comment: Monochromatic emissivity = monochromatic absorptivity to Kirchoffs Law. he frequencies of light (like no IR) that it emitted? Thermodynamic equilibrium is a special case were everything is the same temperature. So there cannot be any heating or cooling of any object I could care less what you want to call it Andrew: This is from a military tutorial on Spacecraft Thermal Control Systems from MIT. Go argue with them that they are all fukked up! Write them one of your infamous papers telling they are confused. ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-851-satellite-engineering-fall-2003/lecture-notes/l23thermalcontro.pdfKirchoff’s Law • Monochromatic emissivity = monochromatic absorptivity • However, emissivity and absorptivity for a given material vary with wavelength • E.g., white paint αs=0.4, εIR=0.8 At a given frequency, Kirchoff’s law says that the emissivity and absorbtivity will be the same. White paint on spacecraft will have a low equilibrium temperature because it absorbs little energy in the frequencies of the solar spectra, but may have a high emissivity at the IR frequencies associated with the bodies temperature All I want to know is how the oxygen and hydrogen in the thermosphere warms far beyond the the blackbody temperature one would calculate for them. The only reason would be a blockage of cooling and since these molecules are TOA and not obstructed from cooling to space, and since Svaalgard told you they were bad IR emitters it must be just that, right? Objects colder than their radiation (vibrational) window cannot cool by radiation any better than oxygen or nitrogen. if not then explain how they obtained their temperature. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 7:39:20 GMT
kirchoffs law is talking about objects in thermal equilibrium. A heated object is not in thermal equilibrium. CO2 does not produce IR at low temperatures?? Another Nobel prize awaits you. Thermodynamic equilibrium is a special case were everything is the same temperature. So there cannot be any heating or cooling of any object I could care less what you want to call it Andrew: This is from a military tutorial on Spacecraft Thermal Control Systems from MIT. Go argue with them that they are all fukked up! Write them one of your infamous papers telling they are confused. ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-851-satellite-engineering-fall-2003/lecture-notes/l23thermalcontro.pdfKirchoff’s Law • Monochromatic emissivity = monochromatic absorptivity • However, emissivity and absorptivity for a given material vary with wavelength • E.g., white paint αs=0.4, εIR=0.8 At a given frequency, Kirchoff’s law says that the emissivity and absorbtivity will be the same. White paint on spacecraft will have a low equilibrium temperature because it absorbs little energy in the frequencies of the solar spectra, but may have a high emissivity at the IR frequencies associated with the bodies temperature All I want to know is how the oxygen and hydrogen in the thermosphere warms far beyond the the blackbody temperature one would calculate for them. The only reason would be a blockage of cooling and since these molecules are TOA and not obstructed from cooling to space, and since Svaalgard told you they were bad IR emitters it must be just that, right? Objects colder than their radiation (vibrational) window cannot cool by radiation any better than oxygen or nitrogen. if not then explain how they obtained their temperature. My earlier explanation for the heating was wrong. The UV and Xrays are absorbed by molecules when photoionization occurs in the upper atmosphere which splits the molecules into atomic particles that can absorb IR etc. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 5, 2016 8:48:37 GMT
My explanation was at least partly wrong because UV and Xrays in the upper atmosphere break apart the molecular non-absorbers. The atomic particles can absorb IR etc. Once the thermosphere has a source of heating, which it also has in the lower molecular band of the thermosphere via UV and X Ray then the molecular band begins absorbing in a range of frequencies. Objects like O2 cannot be heated by radiation at ordinary temperatures. Once they are hot the situation is different.
If we heat a black object with all the frequencies of the sun in our garden, it absorbs many different radiations but it can only emit IR.
So if you heat a black rock with full power solar radiation immediately next to the Sun it becomes white hot and is almost in thermal equilibrium with the sun and and begins producing those emissions which it is absorbing
I am OK with that. It gets so freaking hot because of the wave energy of xray and euv radiation and its a poor absorber of IR and Visible light. According to one source over 99% of Xray and EUV is absorbed by thermosphere but absorbs less than .1% of visible light and probably even less IR. So it appears it cannot cool via IR or the low amount of Xray would be overridden by visible light loss as that is the peak frequency in solar light at least it is according to Planck. . . .which could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 9:12:47 GMT
visible light ..... is the peak frequency in solar light at least it is according to Planck. . . .which could be wrong. The intensity of the frequencies coming from the sun are something that is measured rather than calculated. All of these various boffins are just trying to explain what is observed. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 5, 2016 15:36:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 16:11:11 GMT
The intensity of the frequencies coming from the sun are something that is measured rather than calculated. All of these various boffins are just trying to explain what is observed. Andrew help me out please. You said the frequencies are measured rather than calculated. I'm sure you agree? we have assumptions on patterns the Sun follows (solar cycles) so shouldn't we then be able to extrapolate, predict?, frequencies? I was just saying that if the peak in the suns radiation is visible light then that was arrived at by observation rather than by maths, theories and laws, so failure of a law in the future does not change what we have observed. Yes, we can use our knowledge theories laws and what not to make intelligent guesses as to what will happen in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 9, 2016 18:11:54 GMT
|
|
