Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #711090

Re: Climate, CO2, physical chemistry and thermodynamics

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/2/2018 3:07 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 11/2/2018 8:16 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
>> Not to hijack the thread "Analysis of climate models",
>> I have forked this subthread discussing CO2 content, origin and effects
>> to this separate thread.
>>
>> On 11/01/2018 04:16 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 11/1/2018 1:33 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
>>
>>>> Wrong. Major components are  component with significant
>>>>    contribution, it does not limit itself  to  the components with
>>>>    the biggest contribution.
>>>
>>> the effect of water vapor is both more significant and bigger than CO2,
>>> this is well known, and Man cannot do anything about it.
>>
>> You may not have noticed I do not say otherwise.
>>
>> Water takes the biggest part of the global GH effects,
>> but it acts as a baseline factor
>> ( aside of the positive feedback
>> as its content increases with global mean temperture ).
> 
> "baseline factor" as man cannot do anything about it, and one can not
> take it as seriously in analysis ?
> 
>>
>> In contrary, CO2 content and effect is long term variable.
>>
>> Yet CO2 is a major component of the GH effect,
>> as it has major contribution to the overall GH effect,
>> in contrary to minor contributors
>> like methane(yet), nitrogene oxides or freons.
> 
> water vapor is a long term variable too, it is always there in varying
> amounts, why this separation by labeling of CO2 and water vapor ?
> 
> from Nasa 2008,
> 
> https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
> 
> "Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College
> Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is
> potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels
> of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."
> 
>>
>>>
>>> google " atmospheric absorption bands "or " atmospheric transmission "
>>>
>>> this shows the absorption bands
>>> http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t0355e/T0355E04.gif
>>>
>>> this shows the complex process graphiclly;
>>> http://www.everythingweather.com/atmospheric-radiation/absorbreflect.gif
>>
>> As a chemistry graduate, I need not to see them.
>>>> No, it can be easily calculated for Earth radiation balance not
>>>>    considering GH effect.
>>>
>>> not "easily", how atmospheric gas that absorbes and reradiates is not
>>> that well understood, in 3 dimentional layered space, there are much
>>> research going on that now.
>>
>> It is well understood at both molecular and thermodynamic level.
> 
> that is different, and well understood.
> 
>>
>>> Also the graphs of CO2 concentration vs temperature rise do not directly
>>> corrolate as Al Gore showed in his movie.
>>
>> I do not refer to Al Gore.
>>
>> These things have been well known and understood
>> before http protocol and web servers have been invented.
> 
> that is a generalization, and it is not so,
> bulk of climate change research happen after 1990
> 
>>
>> Global yearly average temperature is not a function of a single
>> variable. That does not exclude the fact
>> the respective partial derivative is positive.
> global yearly average temp is an estimate.
> 
>   partial derivatives amplify noise
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> There is direct physical causality between ANY IR absorbing
>>>>    component and average temperature, as such a component
>>>> affects Earth-soace radiation balance.
>>>
>>> in simplified models, in simplified cases.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with climate models.
>>
>> It is general physical behaviour of IR absorbing matter
>> following the fundamental thermodynamic laws.
> 
> also IR is absorbed and re emmitted in longer wavelengths,
> also in the same wavelength
> reflectance
> absorbtion
> emissivity
> 
> a list of metrics involving illumination and surfaces, and the like;
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflectance
> 
>>
>> Such matter behaviour does not magically disappear
>> when considering climate.
> 
> agree,
> 
>>
>>
>>>    But realize that Light from the sun is partially converted into IR by
>>> the ground, which re radiates back into the sky,
>>> an IR absorbing gas re radiates in all directions, and the overall
>>> effect depends upon its effective thickness, like thickness of
>> insulation.
>>
>> This is all well known.
>>
>> Let consider for simplicity an IR wavelengths affected only by CO2
>> ( what is about true for IR near 15 um ):
>>
>> If the CO2 in a near surface atmosphere layer from 1000 hPa to x hPa
>> absorbs y % of IR  at a particular wavelength,
>> then the near-space layer (1000-x) hPa - 0 hPa
>> acts toward the space as a thermal IR radiator
>> with y% relative emissivity of a black body radiator.
> 
> that seems to say that if you have say a layer of CO2 20 foot thick,
> that is heated up from below, and re radiates into space at its
> temperature.  (no wavelength change), but energy (in this band) flow
> direction(s) are altered.  if one assumes it is heated up from below,
> then the layer re radiates it out in all directions, some back down,
> some horozontally, some upward to space.
> 
> 
>>
>> Benj once said when absorption is saturated,
>> increasing the absorbing component does not matter anymore.
>> This is clearly wrong and indicates
>> Benj does not understand the underlaying physical process.

Sergio, this is propaganda and a lie. What I said was that the CO2 
absorption is saturated. (I measured it myself) and that in this case 
increasing concentration produces a MUCH reduced effect because it now 
only related to the expansion of the wings of that band which give a 
much reduced increase in area in wavelength space. It should be noted 
that for CO2 only ONE band is effective in greenhouse warming and for 
that band one wing is blocked by water vapor.

Libor, of course then reverts from lies to slander as is usual for 
propaganda rather than a science discussion. Perhaps he needs to read my 
(Published) paper on CO2 absorption to learn how it works?  It is not 
worthy of anyone's time trying to discuss science with libs pretending 
to know science. Pretend is the operative word.

Fraudster Libor is a waste of your time, Sergio. He only has a crooked 
theft agenda.

>> It is huge difference if 99% of IR at some wavelength is absorbed
>> e.g. in 1000-900 hPa layer, in 1000-500 hPa layer or 1000-100 hPa layer.
>>
>> As in such cases, cca 99% of IR at this wavelength is emitted to space
>> from 100-0 hPa layer, or 500-0 hPa layer or 900-100 hPa layer.
>>
>> the average weighted temperature of these layers inccreases in order
>> 100-0 hPa layer   < 500-0 hPa layer  < 900-100 hPa layer.
>> and in the same order increases the Earth radiation to space.
>> 100-0 hPa layer has avg temperature close to +10 deg C.
>> 900-100 hPa layer close to -55 deg C.
> seems good to me, like slicing the atmosphere into horozontal sections
> and accounting for  IR adsorbtion and re emmiting it.
> like mini blankets, and that would apply for any gas (with its
> absorbance, re-emmitance,)
> 
> 
> got to stop here, and go do some work......., >
>> It gets more complicated with water content change with altitude,
>> but you can see the picture.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> CO2 is 0.041%
>>>
>>> atmospheric pressure is equivlent to about 30' of water, so the layer of
>>> CO2 is about 0.15 inches thick.
>>
>> atmospheric pressure is equivalent to 10000 mm of water, so 4 mm of CO2.
>> If we consider  CO2 change cca 0.03->0.04%, it is 1 mm.
>> if we consider M_C 12 g/mol and avg air M cca 29 g/mol,
>> it is cca 0.4 kg of carbon per square meter.
>>
>> Rough estimation of avg population 1850-2018 is 2 billions
>> ( https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth )
>>
>> if we consider 511 000 000 000 000 sq meters of Earth surface
>> and                  2 000 000 000 people
>> there is 511 000 / 2 = cca 255 000 sq meters per person,
>> eq. to cca 105 tons of carbon per person.
>> If spreaded on cca 170 years, it would be cca 620 kg C / person / year.
>>
>> For comparison, USA emissions of CO2 per capita ( fossile fuels and
>> cement production) was cca 16.4 metric tons in 2013,
>> i.e. cca 4500 kg of carbon per US persons and year.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course they can.
>>>> Subtropical species spread to regions not seen there before,
>>>> the same for spreading species toward higher altitudes.
>>>
>>> wrong, you skipped daily temperature excrsions, which is at least 5 C
>>> near oceans, and up to 30 C DAILY everywhere else.
>>
>> The species do not care about weather, but climate.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Will one degree end the planet?
>>>>
>>>> For some species, it will not matter anymore.
>>>
>>> it dosent matter at all for all species, when you realize what these
>>> species withstand over a day, and over a year, NOT some meaningless
>>> glowbal average.
>>
>> I do not say it matters for all species.
>> But species do not care about weather, but climate.
>>
>>> glowbal<
>> Such a vocabulary provides indirect hint you cannot be taken seriously.
>>
>> The scope of ecosystems with conditions species can withstand short time
>> is MUCH bigger then the scope of ecosystems
>> with conditions species accept in long term.time
>>
>> One example from many:
>> In last few years there is observed minor presence of jackals
>> in Czech Republic, a predator never seen there before.
>> It naturally migrates from warmer south-eastern Europe,
>> as shifting of climate zones shifts its inhabitanmce zone.
>>
>> Similarly, several tropical species of moskytos
>> start to occur is the warm and moist south-eastern part of Moravia.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>    How much temperatrue difference between
>>>>> deserts and poles? Total temperature increase 1889-now less than one
>>>>> degree.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant parameter.
>>>
>>> it is relevant, it shows the mistake in relying upon averaging daily and
>>> yearly averages which the glowbal modles do....
>>
>> Another mistake.
>> Desert-pole temperature difference says nothing
>> about the global temperature trend.
>> Neither hill-valley temperature difference says anything
>> about the valley average temperature trend.
>>
>>> glowbal modles<
>> Such a vocabulary provides even a direct hint
>> you cannot be taken seriously.
>>
>>
>>
>>> he's asking for a URL
>>
>> These things were known and I have learned
>> before http protocvol and web servers were invented.
>> Arithmetics and algebra were invented many centuries before computers.
>>
>>
>>

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Climate, CO2, physical chemistry and thermodynamics Libor Striz <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-11-02 14:16 +0100
  Re: Climate, CO2, physical chemistry and thermodynamics Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-02 14:07 -0500
    Re: Climate, CO2, physical chemistry and thermodynamics benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 16:39 -0400
      Re: Climate, CO2, physical chemistry and thermodynamics Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-03 08:31 +0100
      Re: Climate, CO2, physical chemistry and thermodynamics Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-03 08:38 +0100
        Re: Climate, CO2, physical chemistry and thermodynamics Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-03 08:44 +0100

csiph-web