|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 20, 2016 23:17:35 GMT
For Duwayne an interesting response to a post on WUWT cross posted here from wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/emails-show-indications-that-the-epa-is-corrupt-kowtows-to-green-groups/comment-page-1/#comment-2303260co2isnotevil September 20, 2016 at 11:42 am
Dan,
“trace ghg (all ghg except water vapor) have no significant effect on climate”
It’s counterproductive to the skeptical cause to claim that GHG’s have no effect on the climate. The presumption that thermalization is 30K more likely than re-emissions is incorrect. Quantum mechanics tells us that a state change must be quantized in energy. While the fine structure of CO2 absorption indicates some conversion between vibrational modes and rotational modes, its equally probably that conversion can occur in either direction and to the extent that either mode can be converted into translational motion, the LTE effect on that motion will be zero. It’s also important to understand that the energy of a state change is EM energy stored as an EM fields motion and not the translational energy of matter in motion and that the conversion between these two is not arbitrary, but must follow very specific rules governed by quantum mechanical laws.
If we examine the kinetic energy of a 15u photon and that of an average atmospheric molecule in motion, they are close to the same. That being said, the most likely event to occur upon a collision between an energized GHG molecule and a N2/O2 molecule will cause that energized GHG molecule to emit a photon and return to the ground state and definitely not to increase the velocity of the colliding molecules. N2/O2 is primarily heated by convection from the surface, but since O2/N2 neither absorbs or emits LWIR photons, it’s apparent temperature is irrelevant to the radiant balance.
The basic issue is that quantum mechanics requires an entire quantum of energy be added to or removed from a molecules electron shell at once and at the energy levels involved, absorption physics does not support a mode where any net amount of the energy associated with a state change can be converted into the linear kinetic energy of molecules in motion, or visa-versa.My reading of that is that as I said above the long term effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is effectively zero. No one has carried out simple experiments to show that infrared will heat a volume of dry air with the gases in the correct proportion. I would have thought a simple experiment to validate this primary canard of the AGW hypothesis would have been first on the list of things to do. The fact that it has not been done (or more probably it has been done but with 'results that do not match the models) is rather damning on modern science. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 20, 2016 23:21:49 GMT
Duwayne you may not be aware but microwave ovens do not use infrared they use microwaves at around 2.4GHz (hence the name?). Their power is also several orders of magnitude more than so called downwelling infrared. Yes. I know that but they are photons. How about the heat lamp? Frequency is all important as the penetration into a surface depends on it. A simple experiment put an infrared source over some water and see what happens. I would suggest that the water would start evaporating. The source of course should be of a similar magnitude to the downwelling (sic) radiation from the atmosphere. Another really simple experiment to do, one wonders why nobody has done so. It seems easier to argue in bold red print in 36pt than to actually do science these days. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 21, 2016 5:23:47 GMT
So you are claiming you are cooled less by cold air passing over your body than warm air passing over your body?  Who would have thought it? The polar heros did not freeze to death they just died of heat exhaustion. Amazing what you can learn on the internet. I said ambient air, that is 'not hot' air. Obviously a blast freezer will cool what it is blowing on, in just the same way that superheated air would rapidly overcome any evaporative effect. Just carry on blowing on your coffee to keep it warm as I am sure you do following your logic.  Nautonnier, >>Just carry on blowing on your coffee to keep it warm as I am sure you do following your logic. Please explain what went through your mind when you were typing that out. Please clearly explain 'what my logic is' so i can understand how you are thinking about the topic >>Obviously a blast freezer will cool what it is blowing on And why did you type that out? ? Do you realise that a slight draft can cool water? Yes or no please. Quite clearly there is something you do not understand about water for you to make such a strange claim as heating causes cooling. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 21, 2016 6:38:56 GMT
It seems easier to argue in bold red print in 36pt than to actually do science these days. That was to help somebody with 'a reading problem' For the record in order to help Icefisher understand simple physics I spent months of my life producing experiments to show him I was only talking about simple things a child could understand. Where is your science? |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 21, 2016 9:52:09 GMT
Andrew:
Thank you - precisely my point removal of the top more excited molecules, those with more kinetic energy, reduces the total kinetic energy in the water thus 'cooling' it.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 21, 2016 15:00:38 GMT
I just gave you a common example that you feel cold when hot air is blown on wet hands so you are being cooled by being heated. The fact that you can also be cooled to a lesser extent by using just ambient air does not disprove it. So you are claiming you are cooled less by cold air passing over your body than warm air passing over your body? Who would have thought it? The polar heros did not freeze to death they just died of heat exhaustion. Amazing what you can learn on the internet. Let me interject here. I also was confused by Nauts statement. But it may well be true. Naut is saying that hotter air evaporates more water than cooler air. In the process of the air transferring heat to water which gets locked up as latent heat the water ceases to be water but instead becomes water vapor, which cools the remaining water as well as the previous air that gave up heat as well. So the net result over water of hot air is air with more energy in it. Technically, I think, the air is cooler due to transferring heat to new molecules in the air, mostly as latent heat. The water is cooler for the reason stated by Naut of water convection bringing the warmest water molecules to the surface. These molecules then begin absorbing heat from the sun, blocking some of the solar rays from the ocean. They warm up and rise. At night when this occurs you get fog because when the water vapor gets up in the air some times it doesn't rise much but instead cools and condenses near the ground. So basically phase change of water to water vapor absorbs so much heat it prevents warmer air from warming the water as a general rule. I suppose hot saturated air blowing offshore could but its much rarer so when thinking in terms of means, what naut is saying makes a lot of sense. hotter air cools the ocean faster than cooler air. Got that Andrew? Hopefully I didn't botch up too badly the point Naut was trying to make. It seems to me Andrew is thinking strictly (to be polite) about the water/air interface and not recognizing the phase change of water to air. Seems to me we hammered on a topic close to this regarding the protection of crops utilizing the principles of the phase change of water preventing crop damage that Andrew could not wrap his mind around either. Namely a different twist on the topic, super cold air won't evaporate much water but it cools the water and freezes the water with the water releasing latent heat. This is when Andrew called out the entire farming community as a bunch of idiots, like they were spending a lot of money on a myth. (this is when Andrew jumps in with "It is a myth") |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 21, 2016 15:07:42 GMT
It seems easier to argue in bold red print in 36pt than to actually do science these days. That was to help somebody with 'a reading problem' For the record in order to help Icefisher understand simple physics I spent months of my life producing experiments to show him I was only talking about simple things a child could understand. Where is your science? No reading problem here. The problem is the lack of content not how bold it is. In blogosphere language its the equivalent of shouting. It never adds anything positive. |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 21, 2016 15:19:04 GMT
Yes. I know that but they are photons. How about the heat lamp? Frequency is all important as the penetration into a surface depends on it. A simple experiment put an infrared source over some water and see what happens. I would suggest that the water would start evaporating. The source of course should be of a similar magnitude to the downwelling (sic) radiation from the atmosphere. Another really simple experiment to do, one wonders why nobody has done so. It seems easier to argue in bold red print in 36pt than to actually do science these days. Nautonnier, let's agree that the water would start evaporating. Why would the water start to evaporate? Would it be because it had gained heat and warmed from the photons? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 21, 2016 15:53:48 GMT
Frequency is all important as the penetration into a surface depends on it. A simple experiment put an infrared source over some water and see what happens. I would suggest that the water would start evaporating. The source of course should be of a similar magnitude to the downwelling (sic) radiation from the atmosphere. Another really simple experiment to do, one wonders why nobody has done so. It seems easier to argue in bold red print in 36pt than to actually do science these days. Nautonnier, let's agree that the water would start evaporating. Why would the water start to evaporate? Would it be because it had gained heat and warmed from the photons? LOL'! A bit of what comes first the chicken or the egg. Henry's law establishes something of an equilibrium between the air and the surface of the water. So working from that, assuming its always correct, its the phase change itself that absorbs heat from the atmosphere so is that water or water vapor? Whether or not the air is saturated seems to maybe contain the answer. But in climate science it seems cherry picked microprocesses are ignored for the mean process. Here we are seeing a microprocess being promoted I think. |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 21, 2016 15:54:08 GMT
For Duwayne an interesting response to a post on WUWT cross posted here from wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/emails-show-indications-that-the-epa-is-corrupt-kowtows-to-green-groups/comment-page-1/#comment-2303260co2isnotevil September 20, 2016 at 11:42 am
Dan,
“trace ghg (all ghg except water vapor) have no significant effect on climate”
It’s counterproductive to the skeptical cause to claim that GHG’s have no effect on the climate. The presumption that thermalization is 30K more likely than re-emissions is incorrect. Quantum mechanics tells us that a state change must be quantized in energy. While the fine structure of CO2 absorption indicates some conversion between vibrational modes and rotational modes, its equally probably that conversion can occur in either direction and to the extent that either mode can be converted into translational motion, the LTE effect on that motion will be zero. It’s also important to understand that the energy of a state change is EM energy stored as an EM fields motion and not the translational energy of matter in motion and that the conversion between these two is not arbitrary, but must follow very specific rules governed by quantum mechanical laws.
If we examine the kinetic energy of a 15u photon and that of an average atmospheric molecule in motion, they are close to the same. That being said, the most likely event to occur upon a collision between an energized GHG molecule and a N2/O2 molecule will cause that energized GHG molecule to emit a photon and return to the ground state and definitely not to increase the velocity of the colliding molecules. N2/O2 is primarily heated by convection from the surface, but since O2/N2 neither absorbs or emits LWIR photons, it’s apparent temperature is irrelevant to the radiant balance.
The basic issue is that quantum mechanics requires an entire quantum of energy be added to or removed from a molecules electron shell at once and at the energy levels involved, absorption physics does not support a mode where any net amount of the energy associated with a state change can be converted into the linear kinetic energy of molecules in motion, or visa-versa.My reading of that is that as I said above the long term effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is effectively zero. No one has carried out simple experiments to show that infrared will heat a volume of dry air with the gases in the correct proportion. I would have thought a simple experiment to validate this primary canard of the AGW hypothesis would have been first on the list of things to do. The fact that it has not been done (or more probably it has been done but with 'results that do not match the models) is rather damning on modern science. Nautonnier, my reading is that the author believes as he says that "It’s counterproductive to the skeptical cause to claim that GHG’s have no effect on the climate." Restated: Don't claim that GHG's (H2O, CO2, methane, etc) have no effect on the climate because that claim is wrong and in addition it's counterproductive to the skeptical case. He says the CO2 pathway is a little different than another greenhouse gas but the end effect is the same. That's the reason his summary statement at the beginning includes all GHG's. I totally agree with that by the way for all the reasons he gives. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 21, 2016 16:36:30 GMT
Andrew: Thank you - precisely my point removal of the top more excited molecules, those with more kinetic energy, reduces the total kinetic energy in the water thus 'cooling' it. Sigh. What is your point? The water is being cooled and is cold and then the sun shines on it. It is not going to become colder when it is heated. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 21, 2016 17:24:25 GMT
Nautonnier, my reading is that the author believes as he says that "It’s counterproductive to the skeptical cause to claim that GHG’s have no effect on the climate." Restated: Don't claim that GHG's (H2O, CO2, methane, etc) have no effect on the climate because that claim is wrong and in addition it's counterproductive to the skeptical case. He says the CO2 pathway is a little different than another greenhouse gas but the end effect is the same. That's the reason his summary statement at the beginning includes all GHG's. I totally agree with that by the way for all the reasons he gives. I think you are partly correct. From a microprocess point of view where all one looks at are: 1) The existence of photons 2) That molecules absorb photons 3) That molecules emit photons 4) That CO2 absorbs and emits photons Then you are absolutely correct assuming a continued heating source in the form of the sun that part of the process indicates a heat gain. Naut is describing another process that prevents (absolutely?) that micro process you have described from warming the ocean and describes it in terms of accelerating the cooling of the ocean. My skepticism of the greenhouse effect being radiation based comes essentially from the law of radiation (and conduction) that in equals out. For every microprocess that warms there is a process going on that cools. Net effect zero. Further you can separate these processes into microprocess pieces and independently achieve warming out of them under the right controlled environment like Roy Spencer did a couple weeks ago on his blog. If Woods had gotten a warming signature from his greenhouse experiment, or Spencer had gotten one from his duplication of Woods, before he turned it on its head and changed the devices in the experiment, we wouldn't be having this conversation. As Nautonnier is pointing out "the greenhouse effect" is more complicated than represented. And in that one has to ask is there another way all this could happen? It boils down to the IPCC failing to answer that question. I recognize the intuitive argument for the greenhouse effect as well as anybody. The intuitive argument in my opinion does not get stronger when one begins to look internally at the processes you described and I copied above. In my opinion thats why more research and experimentation is not continuing on the subject and instead they have completely and entirely switched to observation mode and computer modeling predictions. Dr Roger Revelle was a brilliant scientist that made a large effort to look at the greenhouse effect but concluded the science was not there yet. Since then we haven't had any breakthroughs except false ones like Ben Santer's fingerprinting of observations. I agree with the author that it can be bad to deny that the greenhouse effect has zero impact on the climate. Since the climate is defined as a very narrow region of the atmosphere very clearly that could be and probably is wrong. But if that effect is warming or cooling I can't be certain. I suspect its very minor though. And talking about other microprocesses that climate science does not want to talk about is hardly a good basis for labeling somebody a denier. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 21, 2016 17:25:28 GMT
Andrew: Thank you - precisely my point removal of the top more excited molecules, those with more kinetic energy, reduces the total kinetic energy in the water thus 'cooling' it. Sigh. What is your point? The water is being cooled and is cold and then the sun shines on it. It is not going to become colder when it is heated. What Sun? It is night time and the only photons hitting the surface of the water are infrared. Hence the statement above. If you change the photon frequency (and/or its wavelength) outside the absorption band of water then the photons will travel into the water and eventually their energy will become heat at a greater depth than a few microns in the water blue light appears to travel several hundred meters. It is the shorter wavelengths of light from the Sun that warm the water |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 21, 2016 18:55:57 GMT
Sigh. What is your point? The water is being cooled and is cold and then the sun shines on it. It is not going to become colder when it is heated. What Sun? It is night time and the only photons hitting the surface of the water are infrared. Hence the statement above. If you change the photon frequency (and/or its wavelength) outside the absorption band of water then the photons will travel into the water and eventually their energy will become heat at a greater depth than a few microns in the water blue light appears to travel several hundred meters. It is the shorter wavelengths of light from the Sun that warm the water It does make any difference whatsoever. The water would be colder without the heating that you are claiming is cooling the water. The water must become warmer before evaporation can increase for the same set of conditions of wind, humidity and pressure. There is no mechanism there to increase evaporation to cause the water to become colder when it is heated. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 21, 2016 20:19:34 GMT
Evaporative cooler.
|
|
